Allahabad High Court
Diwakar Tripathi vs Central Bank Of India Thru ... on 19 August, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140703
Reserved on 12.08.2025
Delivered on 19.08.2025
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12330 of 2002
Petitioner :- Diwakar Tripathi
Respondent :- Central Bank Of India Thru Chairman/Managing Director And Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- B.R. Rai,B.C. Rai,Mahipal Singh,Prashant Kumar Singh,Rishi Chadha
Counsel for Respondent :- S.S. Tewari,K R S Jadaun,S.C.,Sahab Tiwari
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. This writ petition was filed in the year 2002 and now it is finally decided by present judgment after about 23 years.
2. From perusal of order sheet, it is evident that this matter was adjourned at request of counsel for petitioner on various dates and on some dates even counsel for petitioner remained absent.
3. During pendency of this writ petition, original petitioner-Diwakar Tripathi, has died and his legal heirs were substituted.
4. The present case is arising out of a disciplinary proceeding initiated against original petitioner that while he was posted as Head Cashier at Extension Counter, DAV College, Dehradoon of Central Bank of India, he has embezzled an amount of Rs. 89,970/- and destroyed the evidence, i.e., relevant folios, even after he was transferred to other place.
5. Both aforesaid charges were found proved and Disciplinary Authority, i.e., Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Officer, Meerut, vide order dated 24.07.2001 passed punishment of recovery of Rs. 89,970/- and petitioner was discharged from service with superannuation benefits, as would be due at that stage and without disqualification from future employment.
6. Appeal against aforesaid order of punishment was dismissed by Appellate Authority of Central Bank of India vide order dated 04.12.2001. Both these orders are impugned in present writ petition.
7. Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that during disciplinary proceeding relevant documents sought by original petitioner were not provided; witnesses were introduced without prior information; complete opportunity was not granted for cross-examination and statement of original petitioner was not recorded. He further submitted that copy of inquiry report was not provided to original petitioner and charges were held to be proved without any evidence as well as considering the nature of allegation, punishment awarded was disproportionate.
8. Learned counsel also submitted that a First Information Report was lodged against original petitioner on same set of evidence, however, he was discharged vide order dated 09.08.1999, i.e., prior to impugned punishment order and, therefore, punishment order is void ab initio.
9. In support of above submissions, learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments passed by Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991)1 SCC 588; State Bank of India and others vs. T.J. Paul, (1999)4 SCC 759; G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2006)5 SCC 446; and, Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and others, (2009)2 SCC 570.
10. Per contra, Sri K.R.S. Jadaun, learned counsel for respondents-Bank has vehemently opposed the above submissions. He submitted that on basis of documents, i.e., the deposit slips, it was proved at the anvil of preponderance of probability that above referred amount was deposited by customers, however, cash was not deposited in Bank. The aforesaid act being a misconduct and proved on basis of documents and evidence, which could not be denied, therefore, punishment awarded for recovery of said amount and dismissal from service, was not shockingly disproportionate.
11. Learned counsel for respondents further submitted that original petitioner was granted opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses which he has availed and from perusal of cross-examination nothing contrary was revealed that original petitioner has not committed aforesaid two misconducts. By referring some part of cross-examination, learned counsel submitted that witnesses (customers) have specifically stated that cash was given to original petitioner, however, he has failed to deposit the same immediately and was deposited after two days.
12. Learned counsel for respondents also submitted that during disciplinary principles of natural justice were followed and punishment order was passed considering the principle of preponderance of probability, on basis of statement of witnesses, therefore, the order of discharge in criminal case will not have a positive effect so much as that the order of punishment would go. The nature of evidence led during investigation of FIR was not on same set of facts.
13. In support of above submissions, learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur vs. State Bank of India and another (2005)1 UPLBEC 354 as well as this Court's judgments in H.K. Obrai vs. Union of India and others (2002)2 UPLBEC 1376; S.R. Kashyap vs. Canara Bank and others (2004)1 UPLBEC 581; and, Prem Narain Khanna vs. Central Bank of India and others, 2016:AHC:202433-DB.
14. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record as well as the judgments cited at Bar.
15. Before considering rival submissions it would be appropriate to reproduce few paragraphs of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan and others, 2023 INSC 1047 would be relevant since a similar issue was involved therein:
"11. We have examined both the questions independently. We are conscious of the fact that a writ court's power to review the order of the Disciplinary Authority is very limited. The scope of enquiry is only to examine whether the decision-making process is legitimate. [See State Bank of India vs. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023:INSC:766 = 2023 (11) Scale 530]. As part of that exercise, the courts exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority have ignored material evidence and if it so finds, courts are not powerless to interfere. [See United Bank of India vs. Biswanath Bhattacharjee, 2022:INSC:117 = (2022) 13 SCC 329]
12. We are also conscious of the fact that mere acquittal by a criminal court will not confer on the employee a right to claim any benefit, including reinstatement. (See Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598).
13. However, if the charges in the departmental enquiry and the criminal court are identical or similar, and if the evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same, then the matter acquires a different dimension. If the court in judicial review concludes that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge, the Court in judicial review can grant redress in certain circumstances. The court will be entitled to exercise its discretion and grant relief, if it concludes that allowing the findings in the disciplinary proceedings to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. Each case will turn on its own facts. [See G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat & Others, (2006) 5 SCC 446, State Bank of Hyderabad vs. P. Kata Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 657 and S. Samuthiram (supra)]"
16. Petitioner was charged with two allegations. Firstly, he has not deposited Rs. 89,970/- at Bank despite being deposited by respective customers and secondly, he has torn the relevant folios in order to destroy the evidence.
17. From perusal of impugned order passed by Disciplinary Authority, it appears that petitioner was granted ample opportunity for cross-examination and, therefore, principle of natural justice was followed though it is not reflected, whether copy of inquiry report was supplied to petitioner or not and thereafter petitioner was awarded punishment.
18. Petitioner was aged about 53 years when this writ petition was filed in the year 2002 and he died in the year 2020, i.e., when he was around 71 years old. Court also takes note that in criminal trial petitioner was discharged, i.e., the evidence collected during investigation was not found sufficient even to frame charges, hence, it is a case where even the charge was not framed against petitioner in criminal case, therefore, it is on better footing than honourable acquittal.
19. Even in such circumstances, the Court has to consider, whether in disciplinary proceeding it was same set of evidence or not as well as inquiry was conducted properly or not.
20. Inquiry report is not on record. However, in impugned order Disciplinary Authority has considered in detail about statements recorded during inquiry and its cross-examination and, therefore, it is not a case that there was no evidence.
21. It is also not under much dispute that disciplinary proceeding has to be conducted on basis of principle of preponderance of probability and Court does not find any illegality in decision taken by Disciplinary Authority since all materials were considered and even the cross-examination was considered.
22. In aforesaid circumstances, the Court does not find any ground to interfere with impugned order as well as that on basis of proved charges punishment awarded is not shockingly disproportionate. Petitioner was discharged from service with superannuation benefits, therefore, he has received benefit of service period. Original petitioner has died about five years ago, therefore, also relief sought cannot be granted.
23. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.08.2025
AK
