2026:JHHC:2868 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 53 of 2023 ------ Manish Kumar, aged about 35 years, son of Mr. Lalit Kumar Jha, resident of Village-Baikathpur, PO & PS-Khushrupur, District-Patna, State Bihar, Pin-803202. … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The Central Bank of India through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Chander Mukhi, Nariman Point, PO & PS- Nariman Point, Mumbai State-Maharashtra, Pin-400021. 2. The Senior Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, 108 Surja Nagar, Gopabandhu Chowk, PO- Baramunda, PS-District-Khurda, State-Odisha, Pin-751003. 3. The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office Sambalpur, Farm Road, Modi Para, PO-Modi Para, PS-Town Thana Sambalpur, State-Odisha, Pin-768002. 4. The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office Ranchi, PO & PS-Deepatoli, Ranchi, State-Jharkhand, Pin - 834009. 5. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Garhwa Road, PO- Rehla, PS-Garhwa Road, District-Palamu, State- Jharkhand, Pin-822124. … … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr.Parth S.A. Swaroop Pati, Advocate ------ 09/ 04th February, 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner by filing this writ petition, has challenged the enquiry report, charge-sheet and the punishment order dated 31.05.2019 in the departmental proceeding whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. He has also challenged the Appellate Order dated 04.06.2022. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the departmental proceeding was conducted in violation of Regulation 6(3) of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 which is applicable. It is his contention that along with the charge-sheet, the documents were not supplied. Thus, the Regulation 6(3) of 2026:JHHC:2868 2 Central Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 has been violated. He further submits that prior to initiation of the departmental proceeding and submission of the charge-sheet, the petitioner had given a detailed reply/representation denying his involvement in the act, which according to the respondents constitute a misconduct, but respondents have not considered the said representation rather proceeded to initiate a departmental enquiry after serving the charge-sheet. He submits that if the representation was considered in a proper manner, there would not have been any occasion to initiate a departmental proceeding. Lastly, he submits that the appellate order is cryptic and no reasons has been assigned as to why the appeal has been rejected. 4. Leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank submits that along with the charge-sheet which contained the detailed allegation against the petitioner, all the documents which were relied upon, were served. It is his contention that the charge- sheet is self-explanatory for the aforesaid purpose. He submits that the petitioner gave a detailed reply to the charge-sheet, relying upon all the exhibits and has at no point of time raised the issue of non-furnishing of the documents. Only in this writ petition, the petitioner for the first time has raised the aforesaid issue, which is nothing but an afterthought amounting to abuse of process of law. 5. So far as consideration of the representation is concerned, he submits that there is no bounden duty to consider each and every representation filed by the petitioner. He submits that once the charge-sheet was submitted, the departmental proceeding got initiated and all the documents and the defense of the petitioner was considered. Any representation filed prior to initiation of the departmental proceeding would not be considered by the authorities as the same lacks statutory requirements. 6. So far as the appellate order is concerned, he submits that the documents which the petitioner is relying upon is a mere 2026:JHHC:2868 3 communication which communicated the order of the Appellate Authority to the extent that the appellate authority has not considered the case of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner was given opportunity of hearing, which cannot be denied. 7. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Probationary Officer in the Central Bank of India on 03.06.2013. On 04.11.2013, he was posted as an Officer Scale-I in Garwa Road Branch, Palamu. He was transferred to Sambalpur, Odisha as Branch Manager on 03.05.2017. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 21.08.2017 on the ground that this petitioner adopted various modus operandi to commit fraud while he was posted at Garhwa Branch. It is the allegation that he flouted all the systems and procedure and acted in a manner which was detrimental to the interest of Bank which caused financial loss. On 21.11.2017, the respondents issued a departmental charge-sheet against the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to furnish his explanation. The petitioner replied to the said charge-sheet. The Enquiry Officer was appointed and the departmental enquiry commenced. After closer of the enquiry process, the enquiry report was submitted and the same was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the second Show Cause Notice and thereafter, the impugned order of punishment was passed. 8. The charge-sheet has been brought on record by the petitioner. 19 charges have been levelled against the petitioner. From perusal of the said charge-sheet, I find that the allegations which has been levelled against the petitioner are in relation to his modus operandi which led to financial loss to the bank as he has committed fraud. The charges are specific and in details. 9. One of the grounds taken by the petitioner is that there is a violation of the Regulation 6(3) as its mandate has not been followed. The amended Regulation 6(3) is reads as follows :- “6(3). Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority shall frame definite and distinct charges on the basis of the allegations against the officer 2026:JHHC:2868 4 employee and the articles of charges, together with a statement of the allegations, list of documents relied on along with copy of such documents and list of witnesses along with copy of statement of witnesses, if any, on which they are based, shall be communicated in writing to the officer employee, who shall be required to submit, within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority (not exceeding 15 days), or within such extended time as may be granted by the said Authority, a written Statement of his defence. Provided that wherever it is not possible to furnish the copies of documents, disciplinary authority shall allow the officer employee inspection of such documents within a time specified in this behalf.” It is the case of the petitioner that the documents were not served upon him along with the charge-sheet. To verify the aforesaid fact, I have gone through the entire charge-sheet. Annexure-III to the said charge-sheet is the list of documents and the list of witnesses based on which/whom the Bank wanted to prove the charge against the petitioner. From Annexure-III, it is clear and evident that in respect of each of the charges, the details of the related document has been mentioned therein. This clearly suggest that the documents were furnished to the petitioner along with charge-sheet. The claim of the petitioner that the documents were not served upon the petitioner, cannot be accepted on another ground, that he had never filed any application specifically taking a plea that the documents were not served upon him. The petitioner has filed a detailed reply to the charge-sheet, dealing with all the aspects but surprisingly he has not raised this point. Annexure-8 is the reply of the petitioner, wherein the petitioner has referred to the documents also. This clearly suggests that the ground taken by the petitioner in this writ application is nothing but an afterthought. Propriety demanded that if the document mentioned in the charge-sheet was not served upon the petitioner which according to him was a violation of Regulation 6(3), the petitioner ought to have objected and brought the aforesaid shortcoming to the notice of the authorities at the very first instance. He has not taken this points at any point of time nor did he raised this point before the Appellate Authority, when he was 2026:JHHC:2868 5 given an opportunity of hearing where he was personally present. Thus, I come to the conclusion that the first ground taken by the petitioner, cannot be accepted. 10. The second ground of the petitioner is that his representation was not considered. On specific query, the learned counsel for the petitioner submit it is Annexure-3 which was not considered. Annexure-3 is his representation dated 01.12.2017. This representation was filed by the petitioner after he was suspended but before the departmental charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was suspended in contemplation of a departmental enquiry and thus knowing very well as to what would be the nature of the departmental enquiry, the petitioner has made this representation on 01.12.2017. This type of representation cannot be considered by the respondents as there was no obligation on their part to take note of this type representation. Further, the petitioner’s contention is that he has also filed a representation which is at Annexure-6 but the same was also not considered. Annexure-6 is a document dated 05.05.2018, which was filed by the petitioner during the departmental proceeding. In the said representation, he simply stated that he is an honest person and denies all the charge. As the petitioner denied the charge and charges are serious in nature which needs to be proved, the departmental proceeding was initiated. This representation at Annexure-6 is also an innocuous document which does not call for any consideration in view of the fact that the respondents have already decided to proceed with the departmental proceeding against the petitioner. 11. So far as appellate order is concerned, I find and it is also an admittedly fact that a detailed personal hearing was given to the petitioner where the petitioner raised all the issues but the same were not accepted. Annexure-16 which the petitioner is relying upon is a communication of the decision of the authority. It is clearly stated that the Competent Authority has declined the proposal filed by the petitioner to modify the final order. Thus, the 2026:JHHC:2868 6 aforesaid order cannot be said to be illegal. Further, as per the counsel for the respondents, the Appellate Authority heard the petitioner in person and passed the order. 12. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the departmental proceeding. The scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in evaluating the departmental proceeding is very limited. This Court does not act as the Appellate Court nor this Court can re-apprise the entire evidence. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “SBI v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava” reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612 has held as follows:- “22. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority which has been earlier examined by this Court in State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan [State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan, (1994) 6 SCC 302 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1385] and later in State of T.N. v. A. Rajapandian [State of T.N. v. A. Rajapandian, (1995) 1 SCC 216 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 292] and further examined by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80] wherein it has been held as under : (B.C. Chaturvedi case [B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80] , SCC pp. 759-60, para 13) “13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary enquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the court/tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [Union of India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364] this Court held at SCR p. 728 (AIR p. 369, para 20) that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.” 24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with 2026:JHHC:2868 7 the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact. 25. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine: (i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority; (ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with; (iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.” 14. After going through the entire punishment order along with the nature of charge which has been levelled against the petitioner, I find that the allegation is in respect of fraud committed by the petitioner. Admittedly, there is a loss to the bank. When a bank official gets involved in activities which are detrimental to the bank and commits fraud which cause loss to the bank, it shakes the confidence not only of the employer but also of the public at large who are customers of the bank. In cases of fraud committed by the bank employees, if the same is proved in the departmental enquiry, the punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be harsh. In cases of financial irregularity committed by the bank employees, the confidence of the employer is shaken. The loss of confidence is also a ground to dismissed the petitioner from service as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya”, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 584, has held as follows:- “8. When a court is considering whether the punishment of “termination from service” imposed upon a bank employee is shockingly excessive or disproportionate to the gravity of the proved misconduct, the loss of confidence in the employee will be an important and relevant factor. When an unknown person comes to the bank and claims to be the account-holder of a long inoperative account, and a bank employee, who does not know such person, instructs his colleague to transfer the account from “dormant” to “operative” category (contrary to the instructions regulating dormant accounts) without any 2026:JHHC:2868 8 kind of verification, and accepts the money withdrawal form from such person, gets a token and collects the amount on behalf of such person for the purpose of handing it over to such person, he in effect enables such unknown person to withdraw the amount contrary to the banking procedures; and ultimately, if it transpires that the person who claimed to be the account-holder was an impostor, the bank cannot be found fault with if it says that it has lost confidence in the employee concerned. A bank is justified in contending that not only the employees who are dishonest, but those who are guilty of gross negligence, are not fit to continue in its service. 15. In this case since the Disciplinary Authority has found the charges of fraud against the petitioner to be proved, the punishment which has been imposed upon the petitioner does commensurate with the proved misconduct. It is also well-settled that while imposing the punishment, quantum of punishment is the employer’s prerogative, which the Court should not interfere with, if the same is not shockingly disproportionate to the proved charge. In this case, the punishment imposed cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate nor it shakes the consciousness of this Court considering the nature of proved misconduct. Further, there is no other procedural, illegality or irregularity committed by the respondents. Principle of natural justice has been followed. At every stage, the petitioner has been given the opportunity of hearing in this case. 16. Considering what has been held above, I find no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. 17. Pending IAs, if any, also stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 04.02.2026 S.K.D., cp2 A.F.R. Uploaded on 12.02.2026