2026:GAU-NL:350 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT [THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH] KOHIMA BENCH WRIT PETITION [C] No. 120/2021 Shri E. Victor Jami, Office Assistant (Dismissed), Nagaland Rural Bank, Kohima, Nagaland, permanent resident of Midland Colony, Wokha – 797111, Nagaland, Mobile no. 7005305615. ………………Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Nagaland, through the Chief Secretary, Nagaland, Kohima 2. Nagaland Rural Bank, through its Chairman, Kohima, Nagaland ……………….Respondents GAHC020002972021 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY Advocates : Petitioner : Mr. Imti Longchar, Advocate Respondent no. 1 : Ms. E. Thiba Phom, Government Advocate Respondent no. 2 : Ms. Asangla Walling, Advocate Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment : 11.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment? : Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced ? : Yes JUDGMENT & ORDER [ORAL] 1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has mainly sought for setting aside and quashing of an Order dated 07.02.2019 passed by the Chairman as the Disciplinary Authority, whereby the petitioner was imposed the penalty of removal from service in terms of Regulation 39[2][b][v] of the Nagaland Rural Bank [Officers and Employees] Service Regulations, 2010 [‘the NRB Regulations’, for short] with immediate effect. Apart from the above relief, the petitioner has sought a number of other reliefs in this writ petition, which are ancillary to the main relief. 2. The Nagaland Rural Bank was established under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 and it is established jointly under the Government of India, Government of Nagaland and the State Bank of India. 3. Pursuant to a selection process conducted on 31.07.2007, the petitioner came to be selected for appointment in a post of Clerk –cum- Cashier in the Nagaland Rural Bank [‘NRB’ or ‘the Bank’, for short]. By an Order dated 18.09.2007, the petitioner was offered appointment in the post of Clerk –cum- Cashier in the prescribed pay scale with effect from the date of joining. The appointment order mentioned that the appointment would be governed by the NRB Regulations. The petitioner was directed to report at the Head Office of the Nagaland Rural Bank on 05.10.2007 for observing necessary formalities. On receipt of the appointment order, the petitioner accordingly joined in the post of Clerk –cum- Cashier in the Nagaland Rural Bank. By an Order dated 05.10.2007, the petitioner was posted to Wokha Branch on probation and he was directed to report to the Branch Manager for duty. Accordingly, the petitioner joined at the Wokha Branch by submitting a joining report dated 08.10.2007. When the petitioner was serving at the Wokha Branch, he was transferred to Chiephobozou Branch as Officiating Officer and Branch In-Charge w.e.f. 09.01.2016 by an Order dated 05.01.2016. By the transfer Order, the petitioner was directed to take over complete charge of Chiephobozou Branch on 09.01.2016. Subsequently on 14.07.2017, the petitioner who was in the substantive post of Office Assistant [Multi Purpose], was transferred to the Wokha Branch as Officiating Officer w.e.f 17.07.2017. 4. By an Office Order dated 17.08.2017, the Chairman –cum- Disciplinary Authority of the Bank placed the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect i.e. 17.08.2017 for violation of Regulation 18 and Regulation 20 of the NRB Regulations. In the Office Order, it was mentioned that it came to the notice that certain irregularities of serious nature were allegedly committed by the petitioner at Cheiphobozou Branch while the petitioner was posted there. The suspension order was stated to have been passed pending detailed investigation followed by enquiry into the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner. The petitioner was made entitled to subsistence allowance in terms of the NRB Regulations. 5. On 14.09.2017, the Disciplinary Authority wrote to the petitioner that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 44,700/- on 07.08.2017 and Rs. 6,300/- on 16.08.2017 towards credit of A/c No. 99000352730 of one Shri Yho-u and also, Rs. 3,57,513/- on 25.08.2017 towards adjustment of Office A/c from where the petitioner had misappropriated the money. During further scrutiny of vouchers/documents on 28.08.2017, it came to light that the petitioner had misappropriated of sum of Rs. 7,700/- from three accounts. The said portion of the Letter is extracted below :- [i] On 17.12.2016, without any mandate you have debited SB A/c No. 99000467220 of Shri Ashraf Ansari with Rs. 4,000/- through general debit voucher and credited to SB A/c No. 99000402885 of Smt. Loreni Odyuo. [ii] On 16.04.2017, without any mandate you have debited SB A/c No. 27003001728 of M/s Mhalezolie & Pukuolie, VDB Chiechama with Rs. 700/- through general debit voucher and credited to your own SB A/c No. 27008012544. [iii] On 18.04.2017, without any mandate you have debited SB A/c No. 27003002029 of VDB Chiechama with Rs. 3,000/- through general debit voucher and credited to your own SB A/c No. 27008012544. Page 5 of 24 By the Letter dated 14.09.2017, the petitioner was advised to replenish the amount of Rs. 7,700/- immediately within seven days on receipt of the Letter, failing which the Bank would initiate necessary action as deemed fit. 6. In response to the Letter dated 14.09.2017, the petitioner, by a Letter dated 03.10.2017, informed that there was no misappropriation in case of account of Shri Ashraf Ansari. The particular transaction of Rs. 4,000/- on 07.12.2016 was done to facilitate the customer for withdrawal of fund by way of transfer as he had already used his limit of Rs. 24,000/- per week. The petitioner requested to verify the same and to exempt him from repaying the amount which had already been given to the customer on the specified date. 7. The petitioner was served with a Charge-Sheet on 15.11.2017 on the ground that during his tenure as Branch Manager at Chiephobozou Branch, certain serious lapses/irregularities were committed by him by misuse of customers’ as well as office accounts and committed misappropriation thereof in a fraudulent manner. It was informed that a decision had been taken to initiate Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the NRB Regulations which were applicable to the petitioner. A Statement of Articles of Charges, a Statement of Allegations showing Imputation of lapses and a List of Documents relating to the allegations which would be relied upon during the course of proceedings by the Bank, were furnished to the petitioner along with the Charge- Sheet. The petitioner was asked to submit his Written Statement of Defence in terms of Regulation 39 of the NRB Regulations in response to the charges alleged against him within a period of fifteen days. 8. The three allegations mentioned in the Statement of Imputations of lapses were as under :- Allegation No. 1 :- While working as Branch Manager of Nagaland Rural Bank, Chiephobozou Branch, it is alleged that you had misused and misappropriated customers accounts which is in contravention of the Bank's systems and procedures and thereby damage the Bank's image and reputation. The details of the accounts are as under :- Date Nature of activity Amount involved 28.03.2016 You have, without customers mandate debited SB A/c No. 99000352730 of Shri Yhu-o through general debit voucher and misappropriated the amount by using SB A/c No.990003796-48 of Smt. Mhabeni Udyuo. Rs. 10,000/- 20.12.2016 You have, without customers mandate debited SB A/c No. 99000352730 of Shri Yhu-o through general debit voucher and misappropriated the amount by using SB A/c No.99000205015 of Smt. Zanabeni Tungoe Rs. 26,000/- 07.12.2016 You have, without customers mandate debited SB A/c No. 99000467220 of Shri Ashraf Ansari without any voucher and misappropriated the amount by using SB A/c No.99000402885 of Smt. Loreni Odyuo. Rs. 4,000/- 08.08.2016 You have, without customers mandate debited SB A/c No 99000352730 of Shri Yho-u through general debit voucher and credited to your own SB A/c No.27008012544 Rs. 8,000/- 26.04.2017 You have, without customers mandate debited SB A/c No. 27003001728 of M/s Mhalezolie & Pukuolie. Village Council Chiechame through general debit voucher and credited to your own SB A/c No.27008012544 Rs. 700/- 18.04.2017 own SB A/c No. 27008012544 You have, without customers mandate debited SB A/c No. 27003002029 of VDB Chiechama without any voucher and credited to your own SB A/c No 27008012544 Rs. 3,000/- 18.08.2016 You have, without customers mandate debited SB A/c No. 99000352730 of Shri Yho-u through NEFT voucher and credited to your own SB A/c No. 20062666424 of SBI Wokha. Rs. 4,000/- 04.04.2017 You have, without customers mandate debited SB A/c No. 99000466678 of M/s Baptist Church Chiephobozou by general debit voucher and credited to SB A/c No. 27003001648 of Women Rs. 76,000/- VDB Nachama. 04.04.2017 You have, without customers mandate debited SB A/c No 99000466678 of M/s Baptist Church Chiephobozou by general debit voucher and credited to your own OD Alc No.99000298023 Rs. 30,000/- 27.09.2016 You have, without customers mandate debited SB A/c No 27003001548 of Wome: VDB Nachama and made NI FI favouring Smt. Renbi Jami. N.Deihi. Rs. 40,000/- 20.12.2016 You have, without customers mandate debted SB A/c No27003001648 of Women VDB Nachama by general debit voucher and credited to SB A/c No.99000402885 of Smt. Loreni Odyuo. Rs. 24,000/- 20.12.2016 You have, without customer mandate debited SB A/c voucher and credited to SB No27003001648 of Women VDB Nachama by general debit A/c No.99000379648 of Smt. Mhabeni Odyuo. Rs. 23,000/- 31.03.2017 You have, without customers mandate debited SB A/c No27003001648 of Women VDB Nachama by general debit voucher and credited to KCC A/c No.99000403050 of Smt. Kethoneilhou. Rs. 3,000/- Allegation No. 2 :- While working as Branch Manager of Nagaland Rural Bank, Chiephobozou Brarch, it is alleged that you had misused and misappropriated Office account, unauthorisedly, which is in contravention of the Bank's systems and procedures and thereby exposed the Bank to financial risk. Date Nature of activity Amount involved 06.05.2017 You have debited DAC A/c through general debit voucher and misappropriated the amount by utilizing SB A/c No. 99000466678 of Baptist Church Chiephobozou Rs. 1,06,000/- 11.05.2017 You have debited DAC A/c through general debit voucher and misappropriated the amount by utilizing SB A/c No. 99000402885 of Smt. Loreni Odyuo. Rs. 21,500/- 25.05.2017 You have debited DAC A hrough general debit voucher and misappropriated the amount by utilizing SB A/c No. 99000379648 of Smt. Mhabeni Odyuo Rs. 49,000/- 12.05.2017 | You have debited DAC A/c through general debit Rs. 11,000/- voucher and misappropriated the amount by crediting your own SB A/c No. 27008012544. 18.05.2017 You have debited DAC A/c through general debit voucher and misappropriated the amount by crediting your own SB A/c No. 27008012544 Rs. 9,000/- 03.07.2017 You have debited DAC A/c through general debit voucher and misappropriated the amount by crediting your own SB A/c No. 27008012544 Rs. 11,013/- 06.06.2017 You have debited Current A/cNo.92858000034, Office Account of Chiephobozou branch and credited the amount to SB A/c No.99000352730 of Shri Yho-u instead of BGL A/c No.98611000033 from where money was misappropriated earlier Rs. 1,50,000/- Allegation No. 3 :- While working as Branch Manager of Nagaland Rural Bank, Chiephobozou Branch, it is alleged that you had perpertrated frauds by misappropriating customers deposit accounts through your own accounts as well as by using the under-mentioned accounts yourself which is in contravention of the Bank's norms and procedures. The details of the accounts are as under :- [i] Smt. Loreni Odyuo - A/c No.99000402885 of Chiephobozou Branch [ii] Smt. Mhabeni Odyuo - A/c No.99000379648 of Chiephobozou Branch [iii] Smt. Zanabeni Tungoe - A/c No. 99000205015 of Kohima Branch. The photocopies of the relevant vouchers and other documents were also supplied to the petitioner along with the Charge-Sheet. In response to the Charge-Sheet, the petitioner submitted his Reply on 14.01.2018 with an apology. The Reply given by the petitioner in response to the Charge-Sheet would be adverted to in the later part of this order. 9. By an Order dated 01.2.2018, the Disciplinary Authority directed for holding a Departmental Enquiry into the allegations/Charge-Sheet against the petitioner as the Charge-Sheeted Employee [CSE] and had appointed an Enquiry Officer [EO] and a Presenting Officer [PO] in terms of Regulation 39 and Regulation 41 of the NRB Regulations. The petitioner was informed that he would be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to produce his defence by oral and documentary evidence relevant to the charges in terms of the provisions of Regulation 39 of the NRB Regulations. The petitioner was also permitted to defend himself by taking assistance of another staff of the Bank as his defence representative. 10. Thereafter, the Departmental Enquiry started with the preliminary hearing on 15.06.2018, wherein the EO, the PO and the petitioner [CSE] were present. On the same date, the PO presented the case before the EO by representing the charges of allegations against the petitioner. The EO permitted the petitioner [CSE] to go through all the documents exhibited by the PO at first, and then, to give his comments, if he wished to. The EO asked the petitioner [CSE] whether he would accept the charges leveled against him or he had any proof/evidence to deny the charges. In response, the petitioner gave a reply, which would be reproduced also in the later part of this order. The regular hearing had thereafter, proceeded on different dates, 03.07.2018 and 07.08.2018, wherein the EO, the PO and the petitioner [CSE] participated and the proceedings were reduced into writing wherein all three had subscribed their signature. 11. The regular hearing concluded on 07.08.2018 with a direction to the PO to submit his brief report with a copy to the petitioner [CSE]. The petitioner [CSE] was directed to submit his brief upon receipt of the report from the PO, failing which the EO would submit the matter to the Disciplinary Authority. The PO had thereafter, submitted a brief report on the Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner on 13.08.2018 with a copy to the petitioner [CSE]. The petitioner [CSE] submitted his report. The EO had thereafter, submitted an Enquiry Report dated 03.09.2018 before the Disciplinary Authority. 12. The Disciplinary Authority, after having examined the Charge-Sheet; submission of Reply of the petitioner dated 14.01.2018; proceedings of preliminary hearing dated 16.06.2018; proceedings of regular hearings; brief reports on proceedings dated 04.07.2018 and 07.08.2018 from the PO, and dated 13.08.2018 and 25.08.2018 of the petitioner [CSE]; and the Enquiry Report dated 03.09.2018 of the EO; imposed the Order of penalty of removal from service in terms of Regulation 39[2][b][v] of the NRB Regulations with immediate effect. The Order of penalty mentioned that the period during which the petitioner was placed under suspension would be treated as ‘period not spent on duty’ and further recovery of the expenditure of his outstanding dues/loans would be made from his terminal benefits viz. provident fund, gratuity, etc. following the extant guidelines. The Order of penalty further mentioned that if the petitioner had a desire to file an appeal against the Order of penalty, he could submit the appeal in writing within forty-five days of receipt of the Order to the Appellate Authority and the Board of Directors of the Bank would be the Appellate Authority in terms of Regulation 50[i] of the NRB Regulations. 13. The Order of penalty dated 07.02.2019 was duly served upon the petitioner. During the subsequent period, the petitioner wrote to the authorities in the Bank for a copy of the Enquiry Report submitted by the EO on 03.09.2018 on the ground that a copy of the same was not furnished to him with the Order of penalty. As the request of the petitioner for the copy of the Enquiry Report appeared to have not acceded to by the authorities in the Bank, the petitioner approached the Nagaland Information Commission. 14. The petitioner had also preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Board of Directors, Nagaland Rural Bank on 29.11.2019. The Appellate Authority, after consideration of the memo of appeal dated 29.11.2019, informed the petitioner on 01.03.2000 that the appeal was presented with a delay of 290 days beyond the statutory period of forty-five days. In the above backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court by this present writ petition. Page 11 of 24 15. I have heard Mr. Imti Longchar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. E. Thiba Phom, learned Government Advocate, Nagaland or the respondent no. 1; and Ms. Asangla Walling, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 Bank. 16. Mr. Longchar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there was an element of coercion exerted by the Disciplinary Authority in the process in that on 17.08.2017, the petitioner was called by the Disciplinary Authority to the Head Office of the Bank to inform him that there were discrepancies for an amount of Rs. 3,87,513/- and by informing him so, the petitioner was directed to replenish the said amount within a period of one week. In view of such direction, the petitioner was compelled to comply with such order by replenishing the whole amount of Rs. 3,87,513/- on 25.08.2017. Mr. Longchar has submitted that as per the NRB Regulations, for an employee like the petitioner serving in the substantive post of Clerk –cum- Cashier and was only officiating as Branch In-Charge, it was the General Manager who was the Disciplinary Authority, not the Chairman of the Bank, as per Regulation 2[1][v] read with Regulation 5[1] of the NRB Regulations. It is his contention that as per Regulation 50, the Chairman was the Appellate Authority only. It is his further contention that the Enquiry Report of the EO dated 03.09.2018 ought to have been supplied to the petitioner along with the Order of penalty dated 07.02.2019, but the copy of the Enquiry Report was furnished to the petitioner belatedly on 10.12.2019 and the same was an act in violation of the principles of natural justice. 17. Ms. Walling, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 Bank has submitted that the allegation of coercion had been wrongly made and the said allegation had been clearly denied by the respondent Bank in the counter affidavit. The allegation of presence of any element of coercion is a misconceived one. It is further submitted that in the Reply to the Charge-Sheet, the petitioner had clearly admitted as regards his acts of misappropriation. The petitioner had duly participated in the Departmental Enquiry throughout and there was no allegation that the petitioner was not provided a proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard. When the EO after allowing the petitioner to go through the documents exhibited by the PO, asked his comments as the CSE as regards the charges leveled against him, the petitioner [CSE] had clearly admitted the charges. The petitioner was serving as a Clerk –cum- Cashier and was also officiating as Branch In-Charge during the relevant period at Chiephobozou Branch wherein the illegalities had occurred. Being the Branch In-Charge at the relevant period, the petitioner had committed misconduct and the charge were serious in view of the fact that the petitioner had got credited certain amounts to his own bank account also. As regards supply of the Enquiry Report to the petitioner belatedly, she has submitted that in view of voluntary admission of guilt by the petitioner, no prejudice can be alleged by him for non-supply of the Enquiry Report subsequently. Referring to Regulation 5[1] of the NRB Regulations, it is submitted that the Chairman can act as the Disciplinary Authority and at the relevant time, there was no General Manager to act as the Disciplinary Authority. 18. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties; and have also gone through the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings. I have also gone through the provisions of the Nagaland Rural Bank [Officers and Employees] Service Regulations, 2010 [‘the NRB Regulations’], framed with the sanction of the Central Government and notified in the Gazette of India. 19. As per Regulation 2[g] of the NRB Regulations, ‘competent authority’ means the Chairman, in respect of the officers, and the General Manager, in respect of the employees. As per proviso to Regulation 2[g], if there is no General Manager, the Chairman shall be the competent authority in respect of the employees also. Classification of officers and employees has been provided in Regulation 3. As per Regulation 5[1], Chairman shall be the Appointing Authority in respect of officers, and the General Manager shall be the Appointing Authority in respect of employees, provided that if there is no incumbent holding the post of General Manager, the Chairman shall be the Appointing Authority in respect of the employees also. 20. It is the categorical stand of the respondent no. 2 that at the time when the petitioner was suspended, the General Manager post was vacant. It was by virtue of the power conferred by the NRB Regulations, the Chairman of the Bank had acted. The Order of suspension dated 17.08.2017 and thereafter, the Charge- Sheet dated 15.11.2017 were issued under the hand of the Chairman in the capacity of the Appointing Authority –cum- Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner at that point of time, was serving in the post of Office Assistant [Multi Purpose] in the substantive capacity and as Branch In-Charge in the officiating capacity, first at Chiephobozou Branch and subsequently, at Wokha Branch. In view of the Regulations mentioned hereinabove, this Court has no reason to make interference on the ground that the Order of suspension and the Departmental Enquiry were issued and ordered by an authority, who had no authority and jurisdiction to do so. The Charge-Sheet and the Order of penalty were issued under the hand of the Chairman of the Bank in the capacity of Disciplinary Authority –cum- Appointing Authority, who had authority and jurisdiction to issue them in terms of the NRB Regulations in respect of the petitioner in the absence of any General Manager in the Bank. 21. In so far as the contention regarding element of coercion exerted upon the petitioner by the Chairman by asking the petitioner to attend the Head Office on 17.08.2017 is concerned, the respondent Bank has refuted such allegation in its counter affidavit. After 17.08.2017, the petitioner is found to have responded to the Letter dated 14.09.2017 on 03.10.2017 without raising any kind of objection, save and except a request to drop the allegation regarding misappropriation in respect of the transaction made in connection with the Bank Account of Shri Ashraf Ansari. The petitioner had stated that as the transaction in connection with the Bank Account of Shri Ashraf Ansari was done to facilitate the customer in withdrawal of fund, he should be exempted on that count. Subsequently, when the petitioner was served with the Charge-Sheet along with the Statement of Articles of Charges and the Statement of Allegations showing Imputation of Lapses, the petitioner did not refer to any incident of coercion upon him. Rather, the petitioner is found to have responded to the allegations of misappropriation by way of admission to the extent to be mentioned hereinbelow. The petitioner had thereafter, participated in the preliminary hearing. In the regular hearing stage of the Departmental Enquiry, the petitioner was allowed to take assistance of another staff as his Defence Representative by the Letter dated 01.02.2018 whereby the Disciplinary Authority had ordered for holding a Departmental Enquiry into the allegations/charges against the petitioner with the appointment of EO and the PO. The petitioner participated at all the stages of hearing and subscribed his signatures in the proceedings reduced into writing along with the EO and the PO, without raising an eyebrow. In such obtaining fact situation, the allegation as regards exertion of coercion by the Disciplinary Authority –cum- Appellate Authority is found untenable. 22. When the petitioner was served with the Charge-Sheet along with the Statement of Articles of Charges and the Statement of Allegations showing Imputation of lapses committed by him, the petitioner was informed in detail about nature of activities relating to his acts of misappropriation in connection with the accounts of the customers and the Bank, which were done in contravention of the Bank’s procedure, resulting in damage to the Bank’s image and reputation. The details of the amounts involved in such transactions with dates were mentioned to the petitioner with the charges that such acts were allegedly committed by the petitioner. The petitioner is found to have responded on 14.01.2018 in the following manner :– Allegation No.1 Date Allegation Response 28.03.2016 Transfer of Rs. 10,000/-from Shri. Yhuo's A/c No. 99000352730 to Smt. Mhabeni's Account 99000379648 Shri. Yhuo's account has since been regularized by me via cash credit of Rs. 44,700/- on 07/08/2017, Rs. 6,300/-on 16/08/2017 and henceforth no remaining liability in his a/c. 20.12.2016 Transfer of Rs. 26,000/-from Shri. Yhuo's A/c No. 99000352730 to Smt. Zanabeni's Account 99000205015 Shri. Yhuo's account has since been regularized by me via cash credit of Rs. 44,700/- on 07/08/2017, Rs. 6,300/-on 16/08/2017 and henceforth no remaining liability in his A/c. 07.12.2016 Transfer of Rs. 4,000/-from Shri. Ashraf Ansari's A/c No.99000467220 to Smt. Loreni's A/c 99000402885 This transfer was done to enable the customer in withdrawal of his money as he had withdrawn the limit of Rs. 24,000/- that week. I have personally contacted the customer on 10-10- 2017 and he also acknowledges the fact that there is no discrepancy in his A/c and agreed to sign on related documents as and when called for. 08.08.2016 Transfer of Rs. 8,000/-from Shri. Yhuo's A/c No.99000352730 to own A/c 27008012544 Shri. Yhuo's account has since been regularized by me via cash credit of Rs. 44,700/-on 07/08/2017, Rs. 6,300/-on 16/08/2017 and henceforth no remaining liability in his A/c. 26.04.2017 Transfer of Rs. 700/-from Shri. Mhalezolie & Pukolie's A/c No. 27003001728 to own A/c 27008012544 A/c regularized and henceforth no remaining liability via cash credit by me to Sundry A/c Chpz Branch 92564000038 on 10.10.2017. 18.04.2017 Transfer of Rs. 3,000/-from VDB Chiechama's A/c No. 27003002029 to own A/c 27008012544 A/c regularized and henceforth no remaining liability via cash credit by me to Sundry A/c Chpz Branch 92564000038 on 10.10.2017. 18.08.2016 Transfer of Rs. 4,000/-from Shri. Yhuo's A/c No.99000352730 via NEFT to SBI A/c 20062666424 Shri. Yhuo's account has since been regularized by me via cash credit of Rs. 44,700/-on 07/08/2017, Rs. 6,300/-on 16/08/2017 and henceforth no remaining liability in his A/c. 04.04.2017 Transfer of Rs. 76,000/-from M/s Baptist church A/c No.99000466678 to VDB Ciechama A/c 27003001648 A/c regularized and henceforth no remaining liability via tfr on 06.05.2017. 04.04.2017 Transfer of Rs. 30,000/- from A/c regularized and henceforth no M/s Baptist church A/c No. 99000466678 to own OD A/c 99000298023 remaining liability via tfr on 06.05.2017. 27.09.2016 Transfer of Rs. 40,000/- from VDB Nachama A/c 27003001648 via NEFT to Shri. Renbi A/c regularized and henceforth no remaining liability via tfr on 04.04.2017. 20.12.2016 Transfer of Rs. 24,000/- from VDB Nachama A/c 27003001648 to Smt. Loreni's A/c 99000402885 A/c regularized and henceforth no remaining liability via tfr on 04.04.2017 20.12.2016 Transfer of Rs. 23,000/- from VDB Nachama A/c 27003001648 to Smt. Mhabeni's A/c 99000379648 A/c regularized and henceforth no remaining liability via tfr on 04.04.2017 31.03.2017 Transfer of Rs. 3,000/- from VDB Nachama A/c 27003001648 to Smt. Kethoneilhou's KCC A/c 99000403050 A/c regularized and henceforth no remaining liability via tfr on 04.04.2017 Allegation No. 2 Date Allegation Response 06.05.2017 Transfer of Rs. 1,06,000/-from DAC A/c to M/s Baptist Church A/c No.99000466678 Entire DAC amount of Rs. 2,07,513/- has been recovered by me via cash credit to Sundry A/c Chpz Branch 92564000038 on 25.08.2017 and hence no remaining liability. 11.05.2017 Transfer of Rs. 21,500/- from DAC A/c to to Smt. Loreni's A/c 99000402885 Entire DAC amount of Rs. 2,07,513/- has been recovered by me via cash credit to Sundry A/c Chpz Branch 92564000038 on 25.08.2017 and hence no remaining liability. 25.05.2017 Transfer of Rs. 49,000/- from DAC A/c to Smt. Mhabeni's A/c Entire DAC amount of Rs. 2,07,513/- has been recovered by me via cash credit to Sundry A/c Chpz Branch 92564000038 on 25.08.2017 and hence no remaining liability. 12.05.2017 99000379648 1106 Transfer of Rs. 49000/- from DAC A/c to own A/c 27008012544 Entire DAC amount of Rs. 2,07,513/- has been recovered by me via cash credit to Sundry A/c Chpz Branch 92564000038 on 25.08.2017 and hence no remaining liability. 18.05.2017 Transfer of Rs. 9,000/- from DAC A/c to own A/c 27008012544 Entire DAC amount of Rs. 2,07,513/- has been recovered by me via cash credit to Sundry A/c Chpz Branch 92564000038 on 25.08.2017 and hence no remaining liability. 03.07.2017 Transfer of Rs. 11,013/- from DAC A/c to own A/c 27008012544 Entire DAC amount of Rs. 2,07,513/- has been recovered by me via cash credit to Sundry A/c Chpz branch 92564000038 on 25.08.2017 and hence no remaining liability. 06.06.2017 Transfer of Rs. 1,50,000/- from CA/SBI A/c No.92858000034 to Shri. Yhuo's A/c No. 99000352730 Entire amount of has been recovered by me via cash credit to SundryAa/c Chpz branch 92564000038 on 25.08.2017 and hence no remaining liability. Allegation No. 3 The mentioned customers namely Smt. Loreni Odyuo, A/c 99000402885, Smt. Mhabeni Odyuo, A/c 99000379648, and Smt. Zanabeni Tungoe a/c 99000205015, are persons known to me well but they have no involvement in any kind of misappropriations/ discrepancy. Whatever illegal transactions that existed in these accounts are fully owned by me for which I have repaid to the Bank up to a single paisa, even before the issuance of this entire allegations as per closed door meeting with the Chairman and Chief Inspector on 17.08.2017 forenoon. 23. Again during the preliminary hearing, held on 15.06.2018, when the EO after allowing the petitioner to go through the documents exhibited by the PO, invited petitioner’s comments if he wished to do so, the petitioner responded in the following manner :- CSE to EO - admit and accept all the Charges of Allegations No. 1, & 2 against me except that Customer's Account No. 99000467220 of Shri Ashraf Ansari for Rs. 4,000/- dated 07.12.2016. That during demonetization period there were limit set out for withdrawal of Rs. 24,000/- per week. Since Shri Ashraf Ansari had exhausted withdrawal limit, his wife came to the Branch and requested to get the amount of Rs. 4,000/- transferred and helped get the amount withdrawal for him. Accordingly, I helped him by doing so and there is no such complaint against me on this amount. I have refunded/repaid all the misappropriation amount by cash/transfer as advised by the Chief Inspector and the Chairman of the bank. Moreover, I have clarified all the charges leveled against me vide my letter dated 14.01.2018 addressed to the Chairman of NRB, Head Office, Kohima. Regarding the Allegation No. 3, I also accept the charges of allegation against me. I have used the following accounts [1] Smt. Loreni Odyuo A/C No. 99000402885 of Chiphobozou Branch [2] Smt. Mhabeni Odyuo A/C No. 99000379648 of Chiphobozou Branch [3] Smt. Zanabeni Tungoe A/C No. 99000205015 of Chiphobozou Branch for fraudulent transaction by myself only. The accounts holders are in no way or any manner involved in the fraudulent transaction of the misappropriation amount as these accounts opened and operated mostly by me. I solely owned the charges of allegation. 24. The Order of penalty of removal from service was passed on 07.02.2019. The Order of penalty was passed in terms of Regulation 39[2][b][v], which shall not provide for disqualification from future employment. It is one of the major penalties in terms of the NRB Regulations, which can be imposed upon an employee of the Bank. Regulation 49 of the NRB Regulations has provided a right to an officer/ employee of the Bank to prefer an appeal. An appeal against any order passed under the NRB Regulations lies to the Appellate Authority mentioned in Regulation 50 within a period of forty-five days from the date of receipt of such order. As per Regulation 50, an appeal lies before [i] the Board where the Chairman is the competent authority; and [ii] the Chairman where any other officer is the competent authority. Page 19 of 24 25. The Order of penalty in the case of the petitioner was passed on 07.02.2019. It is an admitted position that the Enquiry Report dated 03.09.2018 of the EO which was considered by the Disciplinary Authority –cum- Appointing Authority in passing the Order of penalty on 07.02.2019, was not supplied to the petitioner when the Order of penalty was communicated to him. The petitioner was found applying for a copy of the said Enquiry Report to the Bank authorities in the subsequent period and finally, he approached the Nagaland Information Commission. Before the Nagaland Information Commission, it was submitted by the respondent Bank that a copy of the Enquiry Report dated 03.09.2018 of the EO was sent to the petitioner by speed post on 02.08.2019. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner that he acknowledged the receipt of the copy of the Enquiry Report of the EO on 10.12.2019. Thus, it transpires that the copy of the Enquiry Report was received by the petitioner belatedly. The issue is if it is that the petitioner had received the copy of the Enquiry Report belatedly, whether the same had amounted to violation of the principles of natural justice. There is no denial to the fact that the petitioner had admitted about the commission and omission committed by him in respect of the transactions in the Bank Accounts of the customers and the Office Account of the Bank in the manner alleged, by his admission in the Reply to the Charge-Sheet as well as before the EO at the stage of preliminary hearing on 15.06.2018. The proceedings of preliminary hearing and the regular hearing of the Departmental Enquiry were drawn up under the joint signatures of the EO, PO and the petitioner [CSE]. The versions given by the petitioner at the stage earlier to the Departmental Enquiry and at those stages have never been denied by the petitioner at any subsequent stage by way of any retraction. In the writ petition, the petitioner has admitted about his such admission at those earlier stages. 26. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.M. Shastri vs. Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, [2023] 18 SCC 197, to the effect that the Bank officials are required to exercise and follow the highest standards as they are dealing with the money deposits by their customers on faith of the Bank. Therefore, the officials of the Bank are required to be performed with utmost devotion and diligence for reposing trust on the Bank, otherwise it is unbecoming of Bank official. The allegation against the appellant therein was to the effect that while he was working as an officer of the Varada Grameena Bank [a Regional Rural Bank] constituted under the Rural Banks Act, he was not supervising the work of a subordinate clerk who committed fraud and misappropriation of funds of the Bank causing loss to the Bank. The charges were found proved and penalty of dismissal was imposed against the appellant. The Hon’ble Court has observed, on perusal of the allegations leveled against the appellant, that it was apparent that the appellant did no verify the genuineness of the debits of interest on deposit; did not notice non-genuine/fraudulent transactions; did not verify or notice the fraudulent/unauthorized alterations, inflating of the amounts; failed to check/verify vouchers; etc. and as a result, there were fraudulent reduction and defalcation of the balance under interest account and diversion of funds, etc. Having found that the appellant had facilitated the subordinate clerk to commit such fraud resulting in misappropriation of money, the Hon’ble Court did not find any perversity in the impugned order of penalty of dismissal on the ground that the working of a Bank is required to be of a highest standard, otherwise the trust and confidence reposed by the customers would be shaken. In the case in hand, it is not for lack of supervision on any subordinate staff, but commission of act of misappropriation by the petitioner himself. 27. In Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC vs. Hoti Lal, [2003] 3 SCC 605, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under :- 10. […..] If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable. Judged in that background, conclusions of the Division Bench of the High Court do not appear to be proper. We set aside the same and restore order of the learned Single Judge upholding the order of dismissal. 28. In Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank vs. P.C. Kakkar, [2003] 4 SCC 364, the Honb’ble Supreme Court has observed as under :- 14. A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with the 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 Manager vs. 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. 29. Reverting back to the facts of the case in hand, the petitioner is found to have made transactions in the Bank Accounts of a number of customers as well as the office accounts in a manner which is unbecoming of an employee of a Bank. Even it is a case of temporary misappropriation, still it is a case of loss of confidence in the petitioner as an employee of the Bank. 30. The principles of natural justice require supply of a copy of the Enquiry Report to a charge-sheeted employee if the Enquiry Officer is not the Disciplinary Authority. It is settled that non-supply of the Report of the Enquiry Officer would be in breach of natural justice. But, it is also settled that failure to supply the Report of the Enquiry Officer to a charge-sheeted employee would not ipso facto result in the proceedings being declared null and void and the order of punishment non-est and ineffective. It is for the charge-sheeted employee to plead and prove that non-supply of such Report had caused prejudice to him and resulted in miscarriage of justice. If he is unable to satisfy the court on that point, the Order of punishment cannot automatically be set aside. In the case in hand, though the petitioner has stated that he received the copy of the Enquiry Report much later than the Order of penalty, the petitioner has failed to show as to how non-supply of the Enquiry Report at an earlier point of time and its supply at a belated stage had caused any prejudice to him and had resulted in miscarriage of justice. The aspect assumes relevance in the backdrop of the petitioners’ clear admission as regards his acts of misappropriation, one can term it temporary, through numerous unauthorized transactions in the Bank Accounts of a large number of customs and also, in the office account of the Bank, as mentioned above. All those transactions were made by him solely in unauthorized manner while he was serving in the officiating capacity as Branch In-Charge of Chiephobozou Branch and in his substantive capacity as Office Assistant [Multi Purpose] during the relevant time. As such, this Court is of the unhesitant view that supply of the copy of the Enquiry Report of the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner at a belated stage has not caused prejudice to him resulting in any miscarriage of justice in the process. Page 23 of 24 31. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is exercisable to examine whether the individual concerned had received fair treatment. When an enquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by an employee, the court is concerned to determine whether the enquiry was held by a competent officer, or whether rules of natural justice were complied with, or whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, or whether the authority entrusted to hold the enquiry had jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. When the Disciplinary Authority accepts the evidence and the conclusion receives support therefrom, the Disciplinary Authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer guilty of the charge. The court in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The court may interfere only where the Disciplinary Authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of 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 is such that no reasonable person would have ever reached, the court may interfere with the conclusion or the finding. The Disciplinary Authority is held to be the sole judge of facts. None of the above situations is found present in the case in hand. 32. Having regard to the scope and ambit of the power of judicial review available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and upon consideration of the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case in hand, this Court does not find any reason, not to speak of good and sufficient reason, to interfere with the Order of penalty dated 07.02.2019 passed by the Chairman of the Bank as the Disciplinary Authority –cum- Appointing Authority who under the NRB Regulations had been invested with the power, authority and jurisdiction to pass such an Order of penalty. Page 24 of 24 33. The other reliefs sought for by the petitioner against the suspension order, the Charge-Sheet, the Enquiry Report and the Order passed by the Appellate Authority, etc. are found to have no merit in view of the fact that the Order of penalty is found to have been passed in observance of due procedure. 34. Resultantly, the writ petition is found to be devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Ananta Konwar Digitally signed by Ananta Konwar Date: 2026.06.12 12:26:29 +05'30'