1 2025:CGHC:60198-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 910 of 2025 Ram Avtar Verma S/o Shri Omram Verma Aged About 52 Years R/o Village And Post Champa Neora Tahsil Tilda, Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1. Bank Of India Through Zone Manager, Raipur Zone, First Floor G.D. Shesh Nilayam Tatyapara Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. General Manager Bank Of India, First Floor G.D. Shesh Nilayam Tatyapara Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Branch Manager Bank Of India, Tilda Neora, Branch Raipur Zone, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Parth Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge 11.12.2025 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.12.12 10:41:30 +0530 2 1. The appellant/ writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 6138 of 2016 by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the writ petitioner. 2. The present writ appeal has been filed with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ appeal and set- aside the order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6138/2016, titled as "Ram Avtar Verma Vs. Bank of India & others" and thereby quashed the order dated 08.08.2016 and the order of punishment dated to the 15.12.2012, granting compulsory retirement appellant/petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Chief Cashier/CTO at the Tilda-Neora Branch of the Bank of India, Raipur, discharging his duties with honesty and diligence to the satisfaction of his superiors. It was alleged that on 25.06.2014, he received an excess amount of 50,000/- from a customer, Shri ₹ Rajesh Jain, who had deposited a total sum of 20,00,000/- in four ₹ accounts. It was further alleged that despite being aware of the excess receipt, the appellant neither returned the amount to the customer nor reported the incident to the bank authorities. 3 Treating the said act as serious misconduct, he was placed under suspension on 02.07.2014 and a departmental enquiry was initiated, in which he was afforded due opportunity to defend himself and adduced evidence in support of his case. However, the Disciplinary Authority, without properly considering his defence or the evidence on record, imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits, without disqualification for future employment, by order dated 15.12.2015. The said punishment was affirmed in appeal. The appellant challenged the orders before the learned Single Judge, but the writ petition was dismissed, leading to the present appeal. 4. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated 17.10.2025 and the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- “ XXX 11. It is a settled principle of law that the power of judicial review cannot be exercise to re-appreciate evidence in departmental proceedings. Evidence cannot be appreciated at the stage of any judicial review as it can be done in an appeal against a criminal proceedings. The decisions sought to be taken support being on different fact background are not applicable to the case in hand. 4 12. Thus looking to the seriousness of the allegations and that there was a charge that the petitioner pocketed an amount of Rs.50,000/- and the excess amount received by the petitioner was not informed to the Higher Officials, the disciplinary authority imposed the above punishment detailed above which has been affirmed by the appellate authority as well. After giving thoughtful consideration to the documents available on record, I do not find it to be a fit case to exercise the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the charge-sheet was issued in violation of Clause 5(1) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002, and that the departmental enquiry was conducted without furnishing relevant documents or affording proper opportunity of defence to the appellant. It is contended that the allegation relates to receipt of an excess amount of 50,000/- ₹ from one customer, Rajesh Jain, which the appellant immediately reported to the Branch Manager, who orally directed him to keep the amount secured until the customer returned to claim it. It is further urged that the star witness, Rajesh Jain, was never examined during the enquiry, rendering the charge unproved. Alternatively, it is argued that no financial loss was caused to the 5 bank, and in view of Clause 5 of the Bipartite Settlement, the punishment of compulsory retirement is grossly disproportionate. Counsel submits that the appellant had an unblemished service record of 25 years, and for a solitary alleged lapse, imposition of a major penalty is harsh and unwarranted. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. P. Balasubrahmanyam, (2021) 5 SCC 662 (paras 18 & 22), to contend that in the absence of any allegation of bribery, major penalty should not be imposed, and on Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police, (1999) 2 SCC 10, to submit that findings unsupported by evidence cannot stand. Accordingly, it is prayed that the order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside and the appeal be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Bank submits that the appellant was charged with serious misconduct involving the misappropriation of 50,000/-, which he had received ₹ in excess from a customer but neither deposited in the bank nor reported to the higher authorities. He contends that the mere fact that no actual financial loss was ultimately caused to the Bank does not absolve the appellant from liability, as Clause 5 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002 clearly stipulates that gross negligence or conduct prejudicial to the interest of the Bank likely to expose the Bank to serious loss amounts to major misconduct 6 warranting major penalty. It is submitted that the appellant was afforded full opportunity during the departmental enquiry, and in his reply to the show-cause notice, he himself admitted receipt of the excess amount and his failure to inform the Branch Manager. In view of this admission and upon due appreciation of evidence, the Enquiry Officer rightly held the charges proved. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement, which was duly reconsidered and affirmed by the Appellate Authority after examining all grounds raised by the appellant. Learned counsel argues that the findings of the disciplinary and appellate authorities are based on proper evaluation of evidence and cannot be re-appreciated in writ jurisdiction, as the Court is not expected to act as a second appellate forum. It is further submitted that considering the gravity of misconduct, the appellant was awarded compulsory retirement with full retiral benefits and without any disqualification for future employment, and such penalty cannot be substituted by this Court. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Smt. Fulmati Choudhary v. Central Bank of India & Ors., W.A. No. 310/2020, to support the contention regarding the limited scope of judicial review in departmental matters. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 7 8. In Banking service, the employee holds position of trust and confidence. If a Bank employee commits misappropriation of funds, the Bank itself looses the trust and confidence of its customer ie. account holders thereby seriously hampering or diminishing the reputation of the Bank. A misconduct involving misappropriation of fund by a Bank employee need not be countenanced and any other minor punishment would encourage the Bank employees to be undisciplined, therefore, for this reason also the punishment of dismissal from service does not seem to be disproportionate to the nature of misconduct. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Deputy General Manager & Others Vs. Ajai Kumar Shrivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612 in para 43 has held as under:- “43. Before we conclude, we need to emphasize that in banking business absolute devotion, integrity and honesty is a sine qua non for every bank employee. It requires the employee to maintain good conduct and discipline and he deals with money of the depositors and the customers and if it is not observed, the confidence of the public/depositors would be impaired. It is for this additional reason, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed an apparent error in setting aside the order of dismissal of the 8 respondent dated 24th July, 1999 confirmed in departmental appeal by order dated 15th November, 1999.” 10. Very recently the Supreme Court in the matter of The General Manager Personnel Syndicate Bank and Ors. Vs. B.S.N Prasad in 2025 INSC 89 held thus at para 17:- 17. It is well settled that the Bank officers are expected to maintain a higher standard of honesty, integrity, and conduct. In paragraph 17 of the decision of this court in the case Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank & Another v. Munn Lal Jain, it was held thus: "17. A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the 9 bank. As was observed by in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik [(1996) 9 SCC 69: 1996 SCC (L&S) 1194], there is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulting in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline organisation more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court." (emphasis added) 11. Be that as it may, it is well settled that in departmental proceedings, the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited. The Court cannot act as a second appellate authority or re-appreciate the evidence led during the enquiry. Its jurisdiction is confined to examining whether the principles of natural justice have been complied with, whether the enquiry has been conducted in accordance with the rules, and whether there 10 has been any jurisdictional error or manifest illegality. The Court cannot substitute its own view for that of the competent disciplinary authority merely because it may have arrived at a different conclusion on the facts. The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority, if based on proper appreciation of evidence and in accordance with law, are not ordinarily open to interference. 12. Considered the rival submissions and perusal of the record. The appellant was charged with serious misconduct for receiving an excess amount of 50,000/- from a customer and failing to report ₹ the same to higher authorities. It is undisputed that he was given full opportunity of hearing during the departmental enquiry and, in his reply to the show-cause notice, admitted receipt of the excess amount and failure to inform the Branch Manager. The Enquiry Officer, after appreciating the evidence, found the charges established, and the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement, which was duly affirmed by the Appellate Authority. 13. Considering the nature of misconduct and the findings of the competent authorities, no infirmity is made out in the orders impugned. The learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition, and no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. 11 14. Further, the scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. 15. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti