2026:JHHC:2651 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1296 of 2022 ----- Vivek Prakash, aged about 33 years, son of Dr. Jai Prakash Narayan, resident of DIG Campus, Near Pandra Middle School, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Pandra O.P., District Ranchi (Jharkhand). ....Petitioner(s). Versus 1. Indian Bank, through the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having its office at corporate office, PB. No. 5555, 254-260, Avvai Shanmugan Salai, P.O. Royapettah, Royapettah, District Chennai- 600 014 (Tamil Nadu). 2. The Deputy General Manager/ Appellate Authority, Indian Bank, having its office at Corporate Office, Vigilance Department, 254- 260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, P.O. Royapettah, P.S. Royapettah, District Chennai-600 014 (Tamil Nadu). 3. The Assistant General Manager/ Disciplinary Authority, Indian Bank, having its office at Zonal Office 49-B, white House, Srikant Road, B. Deoghar H.O., P.O. Deoghar, P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar (Jharkhand). 4. Senior Manager/ Enquiry Authority, Indian Bank, having its office at Katrasgarh Branch, Hanuman Mansion, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand) …Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate …...... 13/ 27.01.2026: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- i. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly writ of certiorari for quashing/ setting aside the entire departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner including the memo of charge dated 26.03.2019 (Annexure 4) and the report of the Enquiry Authority dated 21.09.2020 (Annexure-7); ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing /setting aside the penalty order contained in Administrative Order dated 14.12.2020 (Annexure-9) passed by the Disciplinary Authority, whereby and whereunder, punishment of the "Compulsory Retirement" has been inflicted upon the petitioner; iii. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing /setting aside the appellate order dated 2026:JHHC:2651 2 06.12.2021 (Annexure-10) passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the penalty order has been rejected; iv. Upon quashing the aforesaid order petitioner further prayed for reinstatement in service consequential benefits; with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a clerk-cum-cashier in Allahabad Bank on 05.08.2009 on probation. His service was confirmed in 01.02.2011, and he was later promoted to Scale-I Officer in August 2012. In October 2017, the petitioner was suspended in connection with alleged irregularities in bank transactions. After his suspension, the bank issued show-cause notices and a charge sheet wherein petitioner was charged for making fraudulent transactions in which the petitioner replied that few mistakes might have occurred due to human error, and requested permission to correct them. Meanwhile in April 2020, Allahabad Bank merged with Indian Bank, and the petitioner opted to join Indian Bank during this merger. A departmental enquiry was conducted, and the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty. Disciplinary Authority accepted the enquiry report and imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. The petitioner filed an appeal, but the Appellate Authority rejected it and confirmed the punishment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Authority and the Disciplinary Authority have passed the impugned order solely on the basis of findings of the Enquiry Officer and without proper application of mind. He further submits that the petitioner was not allowed to examine witnesses during the enquiry, which violated principles of natural justice. He also submits that there were no adverse entries in his service record throughout his career. The alleged transactions were made before his promotion, and no issues were raised earlier. He further submits that every transaction requires approval by a checker, but no checker was examined or cross-examined during the enquiry. He lastly submits that the punishment of compulsory retirement is harsh and disproportionate compared to the nature of allegations. 2026:JHHC:2651 3 4. The learned counsel for respondents submits that both the Disciplinary and the Appellate Authorities passed proper and reasoned orders in accordance with law. He further submits that there was no proof that petitioner was denied the chance to present witnesses. The charges against the petitioner were proved, and the punishment imposed was justified. He also submits that the punishment is proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct and the punishment order was passed after giving the petitioner a fair hearing. 5. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that the departmental inquiry was conducted in accordance with law. The charge against the petitioner was proved, and no procedural irregularity or illegality is there in the orders passed by the Disciplinary and the Appellate Authorities nor during the enquiry. It is well settled that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not act as an appellate authority over departmental proceedings, unless perversity or gross illegality is shown, which is absent in the present case. Further, it is well settled that the punishment awarded to the petitioner, unless shocking to the conscience of the Court, cannot be subjected to judicial review by the Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. Rajendra Singh” reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372, in paragraph 19 has held as under- 19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarised as follows: 19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities. 19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. 19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court. 19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass 2026:JHHC:2651 4 appropriate order of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case. 19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct were identical or the co-delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge-sheet in the two cases. If the co- delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable. 6. The petitioner, while posted at different branches was charged with making fraudulent transactions by debiting various bank BGL heads and customer accounts and crediting the amounts to his own account and to the accounts of his wife and relatives. These acts amount to misuse of official position, financial irregularities, and misconduct in violation of the ABOE (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. A bank officer holds a position of trust and must act with complete honesty and integrity. Since the misconduct was committed for personal gain and harmed the bank and depositors, strict action was justified and leniency was not appropriate. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State Bank of India vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde” reported in (2006) 7 SCC 212 in paragraph 21 has held as under- 21. Confronted with the facts and the position of law, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that leniency may be shown to the respondent having regard to long years of service rendered by the respondent to the Bank. We are unable to countenance such submission. As already said, the respondent being a bank officer holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning and it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. The respondent was a Manager of the Bank and it needs to be emphasised that in the banking business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular the bank officer so that the confidence of the public/depositors is not impaired. It is for this reason that when a bank officer commits misconduct, as in the present case, for his personal ends and against the interest of the bank and the depositors, he must be dealt with iron hands and he does not deserve to be dealt with leniently. In view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts of the case, I find that the punishment of compulsory retirement has 2026:JHHC:2651 5 been imposed after due consideration of the proved misconduct. It cannot be said that the punishment is so shockingly disproportionate as to warrant interference by this Court, 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 8. The admitted dues to the petitioner should be disbursed by the respondents. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 27.01.2026 Tanuj /CP-2 Uploaded on 05.02.2026