Page No.# 1/17 GAHC010118652018 2026:GAU-AS:11787 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3601/2018 ADHIR CHANDRA DAS S/O. LATE PURNA CHANDRA DAS, RESIDENT OF 2ND LINK ROAD, LANE NO. 13, HOUSE NO. 2, P.O. LINK ROAD, SILCHAR- 788006, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS STATE BANK OF INDIA AND 3 ORS. CORPORATE CENTRE, 8TH FLOOR, STATE BANK BHAWAN, MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI- 400021. 2:REVIEWING AUTHORITY CENTRAL HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE STATE BANK OF INDIA APPEALS AND REVIEW DEPARTMENT CORPORATE CENTRE 8TH FLOOR STATE BANK BHAWAN MADAM CAMA ROAD MUMBAI- 400021. 3:THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA LOCAL HEAD OFFICE NORTH EASTERN CIRCLE G.S. ROAD P.O. ASSAM SACHIVALAYA DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 4:THE GENERAL MANAGER (NETWORK 1) STATE BANK OF INDIA Page No.# 2/17 LOCAL HEAD OFFICE NORTH EASTERN CIRCLE G.S. ROAD P.O. ASSAM SACHIVALAYA DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P BHOWMICK, MRS R DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. L TALUKDAR, MR U SARMA(R1,2,3,4),MR. N BARUA(R1,2,3,4),MRS. M DAS,MR B DAS,MR H TALUKDAR BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 18.08.2026 Heard B.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. P. Bhowmik, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Baruah, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has assailed an order dated 30.12.2016, issued by the Disciplinary Authority, imposing upon the petitioner, penalty of dismissal from service on conclusion of a Departmental proceeding instituted against him in the matter. The petitioner has also assailed the orders issued by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Reviewing Authority, dismissing his appeal and the revision preferred, thereon, and thereby, affirming the penalty of dismissal imposed upon him by the Disciplinary Authority. Page No.# 3/17 3. The facts in brief requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present writ petition is, noticed, as under; The petitioner while working as a Chief Manager (Lead Bank), State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Imphal, Manipur, he was served with a Charge-sheet dated 02.08.2016, intimating him that a Disciplinary proceeding against him has been decided to be instituted. Vide the said Charge-sheet, 20 (twenty) allegations came to be levelled against the petitioner, with regard to the misconduct committed by him while being posted at the Itanagar Branch of the Bank, during the period 08.11.2013 to 30.12.2015. It was alleged in the said Charge- sheet that on account of the misconduct committed by the petitioner, the Bank was exposed to a pecuniary loss to the tune of Rs.51,17,782.58. The petitioner on receipt of the said charge-sheet submitted his written statement of defence on 12.08.2016, denying all the 20 (twenty) allegations levelled against him. The petitioner in his written statement also clarified with regard to monetary transactions taking place in his daughter’s account. The contentions raised by the petitioner in his written statement of defence not being found to be satisfactory, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner directed for holding of an enquiry, thereon, and accordingly, appointed an Enquiry Page No.# 4/17 Officer and a Presenting Officer for the purpose. Thereafter, the enquiry was held and the petitioner was found to have participated in the said enquiry process. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report in the matter and therein, held the Charge Nos.i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vii, xi, xiv, xv, xvi, xviii, xix and xx as proved. The petitioner on receipt of the said Enquiry Report submitted his representation, thereon. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, on a consideration of the Enquiry Report as well as materials coming on record and after providing for a personal hearing to the petitioner, herein, proceeded vide order dated 30.12.2016, to impose upon him the penalty of dismissal from service. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 06.02.2017, against the order of penalty as imposed upon him by the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate Authority on a consideration of the matter, proceeded vide order dated 26.05.2017, to reject the appeal preferred by the petitioner and thereby affirmed the penalty as imposed upon him by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner then approached the Reviewing Authority by way of an application dated 07.08.2017. The Reviewing Authority, on a due consideration, of the contentions raised by the petitioner in his Page No.# 5/17 application dated 07.08.2017, proceeded vide order dated 03.01.2018, to reject the said review petition, thereby affirming the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Disciplinary Authority. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. B. D. Das, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, after taking this Court through the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer, has submitted that although allegations levelled against the petitioner was with regard to unexplained financial transactions taking place in his daughter’s account, by way of deposit of money, therein, of varying amount by persons connected with authorized car dealers, it was not established in the enquiry of any quid pro quo on the part of the petitioner to extend due benefits to the authorized car dealers involved, going beyond the scope of his duties. He submits that in absence of the said findings being recorded, merely because of certain cash deposits taking place in the account of the daughter of the petitioner, the charges levelled, could not have been held to be established. Mr. Das, has further submitted that the petitioner in the enquiry after closure of the Presenting Officer evidences, was not afforded an opportunity to summon the persons who had made deposits in the accounts of the Page No.# 6/17 daughter of the petitioner. He submits that the said aspect of the matter had caused prejudice to the defence of the petitioner. Accordingly, Mr. Das, submits that the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer, stood vitiated and basing on the said findings, no penalty was permissible to be imposed upon the petitioner. 5. Per contra, Mr. N. Baruah, learned counsel, appearing for the Respondent Bank, has submitted that in the enquiry, the petitioner was given all due opportunities, however, the petitioner had failed to prove any backward/forward linkage with regard to the transactions, occasioning in his daughter’s account. He submits that the amounts deposited in the account of the petitioner’s daughter by persons connected to authorized automobile dealers, although projected to be repayment of loans advanced earlier by the petitioner, the said aspect of the matter was not established by the petitioner by bringing on record any cogent materials. Accordingly, he submits that the said transactions were rightly held to be suspicious in nature and the same having the effect of the petitioner providing for certain benefits to the automobile dealers involved, the petitioner was found to have committed a misconduct in the matter. 6. With regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the Page No.# 7/17 petitioner, that the petitioner was prevented during the enquiry from summoning the persons who had made deposits in the account of his daughter, Mr. Baruah, submits that after closure of his evidences by the Presenting Officer, the petitioner was granted opportunity to adduce any defence witnesses/documents. Accordingly, the petitioner had produced one Dilip Kumar Dutta, AGM, Itanagar Branch, as defence witness. The said defence witness was duly examined in the enquiry. Thereafter, the petitioner had examined himself in the enquiry and it was thereafter, only that the Enquiry Officer had closed the enquiry proceedings. Mr. N. Baruah, by referring the daily order-sheets brought on record in the writ petition, has submitted that it is not found that the petitioner had raised the issue of summoning of further defence witnesses, including the persons who had made deposits in the account of his daughter, as defence witness in the enquiry. Accordingly, he submits that the said contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would not mandate an acceptance from this Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials brought on record. 8. The allegations levelled against the petitioner in the show-cause notice also relates to deposits being made in his daughter’s account by Page No.# 8/17 3rd parties, which were found to be not commensurating to the income of the petitioner. It was also alleged that the deposits were being made by persons connected with automobile agencies, who had sold cars to the loanees of Itanagar, Branch. The petitioner was also alleged to have authorized housing loans and other loans to its borrowers without following the procedures mandated in this connections, which was projected to have exposed the Banks to losses. It was also projected that some of the accounts involved had returned NPA, exposing the Bank to pecuniary loss. The said allegations is found by this Court, to have been duly established in the enquiry held in the matter and the petitioner in the present proceedings has not raised any issue with regard to any anomaly existing in the conduct of the enquiry proceedings in the matter. The petitioner has also not demonstrated that the conclusions reached by the Enquiry Officer, with regard to the allegations which were held to have been established, to be perverse. 9. This Court finds that the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer with regard to the allegations levelled against the petitioner, which were held to have been established, to be based on admissible evidences coming on record in the enquiry. Accordingly, the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer in the considered view of this Court given Page No.# 9/17 the limited scope of examination available to this Court in the matter, would not mandate an acceptance. 10. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would examine the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioner that the findings of the Enquiry Officer more particularly with regard to the deposits of money in the account of his daughter by 3rd parties, cannot be sustained in absence of a quid pro quo being established in the matter against the petitioner. This Court has perused the materials coming on record in the enquiry and finds that in the Enquiry, the petitioner had failed to establish the fact that he had earlier lent out amounts to the persons who had deposited amounts in his daughter’s account. The petitioner had not brought on record any materials to demonstrate as to how he had come into possession of such large amount of money and as to the manner in which he had earlier lent out the amounts involved. This Court also finds that the said amounts being deposited in the account of the daughter of the petitioner, the petitioner had not promptly clarified the said aspect of the matter with his superiors. It is only after the charge-sheet was so issued to the petitioner, the petitioner is found to have raised a plea that the amounts involved were amounts, which were repaid by the persons Page No.# 10/17 concerned to whom the petitioner had earlier loaned out the amounts involved. Accordingly, the said contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, does not appeal to this Court. 11. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner had raised a contention that the petitioner being denied an opportunity to summon the persons who had made the deposits in the account of the petitioner’s daughter, a prejudice was caused to the defence of the petitioner in the matter. 12. This Court has perused the daily order-sheets brought on record by the petitioner in the writ petition and on a perusal of the same, this Court finds that after closure of the evidence by the Presenting Officer, the Enquiry Officer had offered to the petitioner to adduce evidence of Defence Witnesses. Accordingly, the petitioner is found to have adduced the evidence of one Dilip Kumar Dutta, AGM, Itanagar Branch, who is also found to have been examined in the enquiry. The petitioner is not found to have made any further prayer for adducing of evidences of any other persons including the persons who had made deposits of varying amounts in the account of his daughter. Accordingly, the said plea raised by the learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioner would also not mandate an acceptance by this Court. Page No.# 11/17 13. This Court at this stage would note that the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner other than said arguments advanced, had not raised any arguments with regard to any anomaly existing in the conduct of the enquiry proceedings in the matter against the petitioner. Accordingly, the enquiry held against the petitioner must be construed to have been so held strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed. The petitioner is found to have been given all due opportunities to defend his case in the enquiry, including offering of the departmental witnesses for cross-examination, production of the defence witnesses/documents etc. 14. In view of the factual position arising in the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the findings of the enquiry Officer, would not mandate an interference from this Court. 15. The Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner for imposing the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner, having concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer being so recorded basing on admissible evidence coming on record in the Enquiry, this Court finds that the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner had not committed any error in placing reliance on the findings returned in the matter by the Enquiry Officer. Page No.# 12/17 Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 30.12.2016, would also not mandate an interference from this Court. 16. It is also to be noticed and emphasized that in banking business, absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every Bank employee and if this is not observed; the confidence of the public/depositors would be impaired. 17. In this connection, this Court would refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Chairman-cum- Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & ors. v. P. C. Kakkar, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 364, wherein, it was noted that a Bank Officer/employee is required to exercise higher standard of honesty and integrity. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this connection, had proceeded to draw the following conclusions: “14. 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 Bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Page No.# 13/17 Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik (1996 (9) SCC 69). It is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization 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.” 18. In the case on hand, it is seen that the manner in which the petitioner had discharged his duties as evident from the allegations so leveled against him in the charge-sheet, in question; it is seen that the Bank had lost confidence on him and the materials that had come on record in the enquiry as well as the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority in the matter, had affirmed such loss of confidence upon him. In this connection, a reference is made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. M. G. Vittal Rao, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 442. The conclusions in this connection pertaining to loss of confidence by the employee and the employer, is extracted hereinbelow: “Loss of confidence. Page No.# 14/17 25. Once the employer has lost the confidence in the employee and the bona fide loss of confidence is affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge, for the reason that discharging the office of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity, and in a case of loss of confidence, reinstatement cannot be directed. 26. In Kanhaiyalal Agrawal v. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. 32 this Court laid down the test for loss of confidence to find out as to whether there was bona fide loss of confidence in the employee, observing that, (SCC p. 614, para 9) (i) the workman is holding the position of trust and confidence; (ii) by abusing such position, he commits an act which results in forfeiting the same; and (iii) to continue him in service/establishment would be embarrassing and inconvenient to the employer, or would be detrimental to the discipline or security of the establishment. Loss of confidence cannot be subjective, based upon the mind of the management. Objective facts which would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the management, regarding trustworthiness or reliability of the employee, must be alleged and proved. 27. In SBI v. Bela Bagchi this Court repelled the contention that even if by the misconduct of the employee the employer does not suffer any financial loss, he can be removed from service in a case of loss of confidence. While deciding the said case, reliance has been placed upon its earlier judgment in Disciplinary Authority- cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik. 28. An employer is not bound to keep an employee in service with whom relations have reached the point of complete loss of Page No.# 15/17 confidence/faith between the two. 29. In Indian Airlines Ltd. v. Prabha D. Kanan, while dealing with the similar issue this Court held that: (SCC p. 90, para 56) "56. ...loss of confidence cannot be subjective but there must be objective facts which would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the employer regarding trustworthiness of the employee and which must be alleged and proved." 30. In case of theft, the quantum of theft is not important and what is important is the loss of confidence of employer in employee. (Vide A.P. SRTC v. Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad 43.) 31. The instant case requires to be examined in the light of the aforesaid settled legal proposition and keeping in view that judicial review is concerned primarily with the decision-making process and not the decision itself. More so, it is a settled legal proposition that in a case of misconduct of grave nature like corruption or theft, no punishment other than the dismissal may be appropriate.” 19. It is also required to take notice of a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bijoy Rajkhowa v. State Bank of India & ors., reported in (2013) 2 GLR 6, wherein, in a matter pertaining to a misconduct committed by a Bank employee, this Court had recorded the following conclusion: “24. Conduct of a bank employee must be above board. He is required to maintain absolute integrity, which is of paramount Page No.# 16/17 consideration. On his conduct rests the confidence of the customers of the bank. Compromise with doubtful integrity will not only erode the faith of the people using the bank's facilities but also in the functioning of the bank itself. In such matters, quantum of misappropriation is immaterial the factum of misappropriation itself would justify the disciplinary action taken. Considering the above, in the present case, we do not find any good and sufficient ground to interfere with the punishment imposed.” 20. In view of the position of law as brought to light by the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and of this Court, as noticed hereinabove, it has to be held that the petitioner had lost the confidence of his employer on account of the misconduct as committed by him in the matter and accordingly, the penalty of dismissal from service as imposed upon the petitioner, does not warrant any interference. 21. Accordingly, in view of the above discussions and conclusions, this Court is of the considered view that, given the facts and circumstances as existing in the matter, it has to be held that the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner commensurates to the misconduct as established against him in the matter and the same does not call for any interference from this Court. 22. For the reasons assigned, hereinabove, the present writ petition, is held to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands Page No.# 17/17 dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant