2026:JHHC:14024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 1571 of 2021 ---------- Vijay Kumar Rawoot, aged about 60 years, son of Shri Saranan Rawoot, resident of Gujrat Colony, Chas, P.O. & P.S. Chas, Dist. Bokaro. ………. Petitioner Versus 1. Bank of India, having its Head Office at Star House, C-5, G. Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, P.O. and P.S. Bandra, Mumbai-400051; 2. Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Officer, Bokaro Zone; 3. Assistant General Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Bokaro Zone; 4. Chief Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Bokaro Zone; Nos. 2 to 4 all at E-17, 1st Floor, City Centre, Sector-IV, B.S. City, P.O. & P.S. B.S. City, Dist. Bokaro. ………. Respondents. ---------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Advocate Ms. Saman Ahmad, Advocate For the Resp.-Bank : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate Ms. Asfia Sultana, Advocate ---------- 11/ 11.05.2026 The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing of the penalty order dated 01.07.2020 (Annexure-6), passed by the 3rd respondent, whereby the petitioner has been imposed major penalty of reduction of two lower stage, in the time scale of pay up till the date of superannuation with a further direction that he would not earn any increment during the period of such reduction. The petitioner has further assailed the appellate order, whereby the order of penalty was upheld with some modification. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though in the prayer portion it is not specifically mentioned that penalty order was sustained with some modification but the fact remains that initially the penalty was of reduction of two lower stage in the time scale of pay up to and inclusive the date of superannuation i.e. 31.08.2020; however, in the appellate stage, the appellate authority has reduced it in reduction of one stage. 2026:JHHC:14024 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant case, the enquiry proceeding vitiates from procedural error, inasmuch as, there was no evidence. He further draws attention of this Court towards page 65, and submits that in the column of Management’s witness and Defense’s Witness; there is no indication of any person; as such, the impugned order should be interfered and the same be quashed. 4. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank submits that since the petitioner has admitted his lapses; as such, in these peculiar facts there was no need for oral evidence. He further draws attention at pages 62 and 63, which is the representation of the petitioner himself, wherein he has admitted his lapses. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the reply to the charge-sheet made by the petitioner, it appears that he has categorically stated as under: “Above all I like to say that all accounts are running satisfactory and are standard except in some cases. I concentrated on quality of advances, but due to work pressure and some lack of knowledge, lapses happened unknowingly. I regret for the situation arisen. ………………..……………………………………………………………. ……………………. I request our honorable Sir to consider my reply sympathetically as such situation/ lapses will never be repeated in future. …………………………….” 6. After going through the specific statement of the delinquent employee, it appears that he has apparently admitted his lapses and perhaps due to this reason, the appellate authority has reduced the punishment from reduction of two lower stage to one lower stage in the time scale of pay and held that, “Reduction to one lower stage, in the time scale of pay up to and inclusive the date of superannuation i.e. 31.08.2020 with further direction that he will not earn any increments during the period of such reduction”. 7. Thus, the appellate authority has rightly lowered down the punishment looking to the factual matrix of the case. 8. So far as the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that since there was no oral evidence, as such the order of punishment is 2026:JHHC:14024 3 vitiated; this Court is not impressed with such argument for the sole reason that in a case when there is denial by the delinquent, it is incumbent upon the Management/Employer to prove the documents with witnesses; however, in the instant case instead of denial; there is admission of guilt by the delinquent employee. So, this Court is of the considered opinion that this case is different from other cases where Hon’ble Apex Court has held that any document is to be proved by oral witness. At the cost of repetition, in this case, the petitioner himself has admitted his lapses. 9. Accordingly, this Court is not intervening with the impugned order and accordingly, the instant application stands dismissed. No cost. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 11th May, 2026 kunal/- Uploaded on 21.05.2026