Allahabad High Court
Panna Lal vs Uco Bank Head Office Thru General ... on 26 August, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
2025:AHC:145662
Reserved :- 19/08/2025
Delivered :- 26/08/2025
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 65861 of 2013
Petitioner :- Panna Lal
Respondent :- Uco Bank Head Office Thru General Manager And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amarnath Tiwari,Ramendra Nath Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- Yashwant Singh
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Amarnath Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Om Subhash Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent-Bank.
2. This writ petition was filed by Panna Lal (original petitioner) against an order of dismissal from service dated 31.12.2012 and an order of rejection of Departmental Appeal dated 26.08.2013. He was working as Senior Manager in Uco Bank at Jaunpur Branch.
3. During pendency of this writ petition, original petitioner Panna Lal died and his legal heirs were brought on record vide order dated 23.03.2023.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that allegations made against original petitioner for commission and omission in the matter of misappropriation of subsidy, related to beneficiaries of loan and advances under SCPE Scheme which led subsidy amount went into fake and fraudulent hands, and led to huge loss of money and reputation of Bank were unsustainable since original petitioner was a whistle blower.
5. Petitioner had found that Head Cashier Nagendra Kumar Pandey and Assistant Manager Niladri Chakraborty have committed fraud during his absence when he was on leave for a week between 17.05.2011 and 27.05.2011 and there was excess cash balance in bank against the retention limit, therefore, he had sought explanation from them. The erring officers have accepted the guilt, however, petitioner was wrongly involved in above referred irregularities which was actually committed by said two officers.
6. Learned counsel has further submitted that entire inquiry was conducted in haste and was concluded within 13 days. The charge sheet was defective since it did not have specific contents of charges. The original petitioners reply was not considered and despite above referred two officers accepted their guilt and made a declaration that original petitioner had not committed any irregularities, still original petitioner was awarded maximum punishment of dismissal from service.
7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon judgments of this Court as well as Supreme Court passed in C/M Lok Bharti Inter College, Ghazipur vs. State of U.P. and others, 2010 (1) ESMC 347 ; S.P. Gupta vs. PNB and others, 2014 (2) ALJ 537 ; SBI and others vs. DC Aggarwal and another, AIR 1993 SC 1197.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned orders and submitted that inquiry was initiated against petitioner and other two referred employees viz. Nagendra Kumar Pandey and Niladri Chakraborty and they were also awarded punishment of dismissal from service and both of them have challenged their respective orders by way of filing a Writ Petition.
9. The writ petition filed by Niladri Chakraborty was dismissed vide order dated 20.04.2015 (2015:AHC:55155-DB). A review was also dismissed vide order dated 31.07.2015.
10. Other employee viz. Nagendra Kumar Pandey has also challenged order of dismissal from service by way of filing writ petition being Service Single No. 162 of 2014 (Nagendra Kumar Pandey vs. G.M./Appellate Authority Uco Bank and others) which was dismissed vide a judgment dated 11.12.2018. Said order was challenged in Division Bench at Lucknow Bench in Special Appeal No. 65/2019 (Nagendra Kumar Pandey vs. G.M., Uco Bank, Hazratganj, Lucknow and others) which was also dismissed by an order dated 30.11.2023. A challenge to order of Special Appeal before Supreme Court by way of S.L.P. (C) No. 16956/2024 was also failed since it was dismissed by an order dated 02.08.2024.
11. Learned counsel has further submitted that argument raised by learned counsel for legal heirs of original petitioner so far as alleged irregularities in disciplinary proceedings was concerned has already been rejected in above referred order, therefore, he has submitted that this Court may not take a contrary view which has already been upheld up to Supreme Court.
12. I have considered above submissions and perused the records.
13. Effect of writ petitions filed by other two delinquents and fate thereof could not be disputed and an attempt on behalf of learned counsel for petitioner to distinguish facts of present case from the facts of case of other two delinquents has no substance since nature of proceedings were similar and allegations were also similar in other two disciplinary proceedings.
14. Therefore, outcome of challenge at the behest of two other delinquents would have an adverse effect on present proceedings.
15. I have carefully perused the impugned order dated 31.12.2012 wherein all allegations were found proved and serious allegations that original petitioner has verified 60 saving bank accounts wherein substantial amount to the tune of Rs. 30,00,000/- were realized and all accounts were later on found fictitious was proved and that original petitioner during inquiry proceedings had accepted that he used to handover his ID/Passwords to his ABH for working in the branch.
16. Original petitioner had also credited entries of Rs. 12.90 lakhs in an unrelated account and no material was brought on record that amount did not relate to Government subsidy. As such, money was siphoned off.
17. Aforesaid proved allegations are serious and being a Branch Head, original petitioner was under obligation to monitor functioning of each staff working under him. He misutilized his password and created fictitious accounts wherein money was siphoned off. Aforesaid proved charges are serious misconduct which has caused huge financial loss due to gross negligence by original petitioner while holding the post of Branch Head in Jaunpur Branch.
18. Court also takes note of following part of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Nagendra Kumar Pandey (supra) affirmed by the Supreme Court :-
(29) In the present case, it is available from records that there are concurrent findings by the Enquiry officer, Appellate Authority as well as the learned Single Bench of this Court that the appellant/petitioner being the employee of the bank has illegally debited an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the accounts of the Zila Panchayat and allegedly his username & password were used to transfer huge money in 20 fictitious accounts, which was subsequently withdrawn. Apparently, the appellant/petitioner has failed to discharge his duty as banker and protect the money and the trust bestowed on him as a Banker and as such the punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be disproportionate to the proved charges. This Court finds that the Apex Court in Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy (2005) 6 SCC 321, which was a case of the punishment of dismissal on the bank employee, with respect to the quantum of punishment, held that the order of dismissal passed by the Bank did not suffer from any infirmity, as in that case the proved charges clearly established that the employee failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and his acts were prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. The said judgment at paragraph Nos. 21, 22 and 29 mentions as under:
21. Coming to the question whether the punishment awarded was disproportionate, it is to be noted that the various allegations as laid in the departmental proceedings reveal that several acts of misconduct unbecoming of a bank official were committed by the respondent.
22. It is to be noted that the detailed charge-sheets were served on the respondent employee who not only submitted written reply, but also participated in the proceedings. His explanations were considered and the inquiry officer held the charges to have been amply proved. He recommended dismissal from service. The same was accepted by the disciplinary authority. The proved charges clearly established that the respondent employee failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and his acts were prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. In the appeal before the prescribed Appellate Authority, the findings of the inquiry officer were challenged. The Appellate Authority after analysing the materials on record found no substance in the appeal.
29. Aforesaid being the position, the decisions of the learned Single Judge on the quantum of punishment and of the Division Bench regarding alleged violation of the principles of natural justice cannot be maintained and are, therefore, set aside. The inevitable conclusion is that the order of dismissal as passed by the appellant Bank does not suffer from any infirmity. Appeal is accordingly allowed, but with no order as to costs.
(30) To the same effect is the case reported as M.L.Singla v. Punjab National Bank ( 2018) 18 SCC 21 which was also a case of punishment of dismissal imposed on a Bank employee, wherein the Honble Apex Court held that once it is held that there is no violation of principle of natural justice in the domestic enquiry and the charges are serious in nature, the order of dismissal cannot be faulted with nor could be said to be in any way disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. In the said case, the punishment of dismissal was held to be proportionate with the gravity of the charges and was upheld. Paragraph Nos. 44, 46 and 50 of the said judgment in clear terms bring out the aforesaid proposition as under:
44. Having perused the enquiry proceedings along with the enquiry report, we are of the view that no fault of any nature can be noticed in the domestic enquiry proceedings for more than one reason. Firstly, the appellant was given full opportunity at every stage of the proceedings which he availed; secondly, he never raised any objection complaining of any prejudice of any nature being caused to him before the enquiry officer; thirdly, he received all the papers/documents filed and relied upon by Respondent-Bank in support of the charge-sheet; fourthly, he filed reply, cross-examined the employer's witnesses, examined his witnesses in defence, attended the proceedings and lastly, the enquiry officer appreciated the evidence and submitted his reasoned report running in several pages holding the appellant guilty of both the charges.
46. Once it is held that the domestic enquiry is legal and proper, the next question that arises for consideration is as to whether the punishment imposed on the appellant is just and legal or it is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges.
50. In our opinion, both the charges being serious in nature, therefore, the order of dismissal passed against the appellant cannot be faulted with and nor can it be said to be, in any way, disproportionate to the gravity of charges. In other words, punishment of dismissal was proportionate with the gravity of the charges and hence deserves to be upheld.
(31) In any case, this Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that it is not the normal jurisdiction of the superior Courts to interfere with the quantum of sentence, unless it is wholly disproportionate to the misconduct proved. This Court finds that considering the nature of the allegations, its proof and that the petitioner was in banking service, the punishment of dismissal from service is not disproportionate.
(32) Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the case law cited by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner does not come to his rescue and the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition is perfect from all respects and no interference is required in the said finding.
19. In view of above circumstances, Court is of the view that not only due process was followed in disciplinary proceedings but on basis of proved allegations, punishment of dismissal from service is not disproportionate.
20. Court also takes note that challenge of orders passed in disciplinary proceedings in regard to same allegations levelled against two other delinquents remained legally unsustainable up to Supreme Court, therefore, there is no reason for this Court to grant a relief to petitioner sought in this writ petition which would be against the order passed by Division Bench of this Court as well as Supreme Court.
21. Court also takes note of following paragraphs of judgment of Supreme Court in Boloram Bordoloi vs. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank and others, (2021) 3 SCC 806 which are quoted below :-
12.Even, the last submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of charges, also cannot be accepted. The charges framed against the appellant in the departmental enquiry are serious and grave. If we look at the response, in his letter dated 16-8-2005, to the show-cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority, it is clear that he has virtually admitted the charges, however, tried to explain that such lapses occurred due to work pressure. Further he went to the extent of saying he is ready to bear the loss suffered by the Bank on account of his lapses.
13.The Manager of a bank plays a vital role in managing the affairs of the bank. A bank officer/employee deals with the public money. The nature of his work demands vigilance with the in-built requirement to act carefully. If an officer/employee of the bank is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the bank will disappear. When the procedural guidelines are issued for grant of loans, officers/employees are required to follow the same meticulously and any deviation will lead to erosion of public trust on the banks. If the Manager of a bank indulges in such misconduct, which is evident from the charge memo dated 18-6-2004 and the findings of the enquiry officer, it indicates that such charges are grave and serious. In spite of proved misconduct on such serious charges, disciplinary authority itself was liberal in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings on the appellant, is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. As such, this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant also cannot be accepted.
22. Accordingly, present writ petition lacks merit, hence, dismissed.
Order Date :- August 26, 2025
N. Sinha
[Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]
