2026:JHHC:10907 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 21 of 2018 ---------- Niyati Singh, aged about 49 years, W/o. late Lakshmi Charan Singh, R/o. village Bhula, P.O. Laojora, P.O. Boram, Dist. East Singhbhum. ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The General Manager, Central Bank of India, R/o. Krishana Arcade, 2nd Floor, Booty More, Ranchi, P.O. Booty More, P.S. Sadar, Dist. Ranchi 2. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Currency Chest Bank More, Dhanbad, P.O. Dhansar, P.S. Bankmore, Dist. Dhanbad. 3. Sri Bijay Kumar Das, Sr. Manager Currency Chest, Bankmore, Dhanbad P.O. Dhansar, P.S. Bankmore, District Dhanbad. 4. Sri Anil Kumar Aind, Assistant Manager Central Bank of India; Brahmandiha, Branch, (Management Representative/Representing Officer). P.O. P.S. Brahmandiha, District Dhanbad 5. Sri S.K. Sharma, The Chief Manager, Regional Office Central Bank of India, Krishna Arcade 2nd, Floor Booty More Ranchi. P.O. Booty More, P.S. Briatu, District Ranchi. ………. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Harendra Kr. Mahto, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate ---------- 13/ 16.04.2026 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 21.08.2017 (Annexure-8 & 9), passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Administrative Authority respectively; whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. 2. The facts of the case as per the writ application are that original petitioner was appointed as Cash Peon on 25.09.1989 at Central Bank of India at Bijaiya Branch and thereafter he was transferred to several places. While he was posted at Bankmore Currency Chest, Dhanbad, a memorandum dated 16.07.2016 was issued to him by the Regional Manager putting him under suspension on the allegation that he was involved in the theft of Rs.5.00 lakhs from 2026:JHHC:10907 2 Currency Chest, Bankmore. Thereafter, a memo dated 01.08.2016 was issued to him seeking his explanation with regard to the aforesaid act. In reply, the petitioner denied the allegation levelled against him. However, being not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner, charge-sheet dated 16.11.2016 was issued and departmental proceeding was initiated. The Inquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of charges. Thereafter, after issuance of 2nd show-cause notice and perusing the reply of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 21.08.2017, dismissed the petitioner from service. On the very same day i.e. on 21.08.2017, an administrative order has been issued by the Chief Manager of the respondent-Bank informing the petitioner that he has been dismissed from service. Throwing challenge to the said order of dismissal, the petitioner has rushed to this Court by way of present writ application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though it is true that petitioner has brought Rs.5.00 lakhs to his residence but it was not due to any bad intention: rather, he was suffering from some mental disease and there was shortage of time in depositing the amount. Above all, the punishment is very harsh and not commensurate with the charges. However, learned counsel could not point-out any procedural error or perversity in the order. He only submits that it was only due to mental imbalance and shortage of time, he took the said amount at his residence and he fairly deposited the same on the very next date. As such, the impugned order of termination be quashed and set aside. He further submits that the original petitioner has since died, his wife has been substituted in place of the original petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that after going through the enquiry report it is evident that the staff and 2026:JHHC:10907 3 official of the Bank went to the residence of the original petitioner and recovered the amount and no leniency can be granted to the petitioner because taking public money at his residence without any rhyme and reason is a grave offence. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the enquiry report and also the impugned order, I do not find any perversity in the order or any procedural error. 6. So far as the argument of petitioner with regard to quantum of punishment is concerned, this Court is of the firm opinion that taking public money at the residence without any permission or without any authority, is a very serious offence because any money deposited in the bank is a public money and the proved charge is as good as defalcation of money. 7. The further argument of learned counsel that the original petitioner was suffering from mental disorder is not acceptable and more distressing because a person, who was having mental imbalance was not supposed to work in a Bank and the outcome is this that he took Rs.5.00 lakhs without informing and without having any authority in law. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 16th April, 2026 Kunal/- Uploaded on 04.05.2026