Devendra vs Union Of India And 4 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 9942 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Devendra vs Union Of India And 4 Others on 29 August, 2025

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 



 

 

 

 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
WRIT - A No. - 9241 of 2021
 

 
Devendra
 

 
..Petitioners(s)
 

 

 

 

 
Versus
 

 

 

 

 
Union Of India And 4 Others
 

 
..Respondents(s)
 

 

 
Counsel for Petitioners(s)
 
:
 
Shantanu Khare, Sr. Advocate
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)
 
:
 
A.S.G.I., Krishna Mohan Asthana
 

 

 
Judgment Reserved on 21.8.2025
 
Delivered on 29.8.2025
 
Court No. -5 
 

 
     HONBLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Mohan Asthana on behalf of respondents.

2. The petitioner was posted as an Assistant Manager at Chaumuhan Branch of Syndicate Bank/Canara Bank between 10.4.2017 and 9.1.2019. A discreet inquiry was conducted by Regional Office, Agra with regard to alleged unusual transactions in loan accounts observed at Chaumuhan Branch, therefore a detailed investigation was directed to be conducted by Vigilance Department of Corporate Office. Accordingly, Senior Manager, (Vigilance), Vigilance Unit, New Delhi inspected Chaumuhan Branch and collected documents and submitted an Investigation Report dated 10.5.2019. A copy of the same is on record.

3. From pleadings, it appears that said report has disclosed number of irregularities that in number of transactions, petitioner has missappropriated customers fund by unauthorised debits and had used accounts of his family members to layer the money and ultimately used layered money for his own benefits.

4. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner was served with a notice dated 8.1.2020 disclosing irregularities committed by him in different accounts. The nature of irregularities are as follows:

1. With malafide intention unauhorisedly debited loan/SB of customers accounts and misappropriated the bank's/customers funds to derive pecuniary benefits.

2. Defrauded the Bank and the Bank's customers by crediting the loan proceeds to your/family members account to derive pecuniary benefits.

3. Used the passwords of your colleagues by taking them into confidence to make the transactions and thus you have taken advantage of the faith of your fellow colleagues to commit your misdeeds.

4. While posting the transactions you have mentioned wrong narrations to mislead the Bank/officials and thus committed fraud on the Bank.

5. Owes an explanation to the Bank for the cash deposits in your account beyond your known source of income.

6. Misappropriated Death claim amount/insurance receipts of the customers to derive pecuniary benefits.

7. By your above acts you have tarnished fair image of the Bank.

5. Petitioner submitted his replied to the aforesaid notice, however, it appears that Bank was not satisfied with his reply, therefore a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and a charge-sheet dated 24.6.2020 was submitted disclosing article of charges and statement of imputations of misconduct having details of various bank accounts and reply was sought within 15 days.

6. In the writ petition it was not disclosed as to whether petitioner has submitted any reply to the charge-sheet or not since a copy of reply to the charge-sheet is not on record.

7. The Bank proposed only one witness i.e. Sri Sanjay Gupta, Senior Manager (Vigilance), who has submitted the Vigilance Report for examination during the disciplinary proceeding.

8. From the perusal of documents annexed along with this writ petition, it would be evident that statement of the sole witness was recorded and the petitioner has cross-examined him through his defence representative.

9. It is also evident that in reference to each charge, statement of petitioner was recorded. He has also produced defence witnesses as well as affidavit of customers was also filed that no such irregularity was committed.

10. The inquiry report dated 16.9.2020 was submitted, wherein Charge Nos.1,2 and 7 were found to be not proved and Charge No.3,4,5 and 6 were found proved and the same are reproduced hereinafter:

3. Used the passwords of your colleagues by taking them into confidence to make the transactions and thus you have taken advantage of the faith of your fellow colleagues to commits your misdeeds.

4. While posting the transactions you have mentioned wrong narrations to mislead the bank/investigating officials and thus committed fraud on the bank.

5. Owes an explanation to the bank for the cash deposits in your account beyond you know source of income.

6. Misappropriated death claim amount/insurance receipts of the customers to derive the pecuniary benefits.

11. In pursuance of above, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice dated 23.10.2020 to the petitioner to which he has filed a reply. Subsequently, the Disciplinary Authority after taking note of inquiry report and reply of petitioner, awarded punishment of removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment.

12. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23.10.2020 was rejected vide order dated 25.2.2021.

13. Last attempt by the petitioner of filing a review petition was also failed, since it was rejected vide order dated 3.6.2021. All the aforesaid three orders are impugned in present writ petition.

14. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has vehemently argued that:-

(a) During the inquiry, no independent witness was produced to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner. Only Management Witness was examined who was the author of the vigilance report and he could only prove the report and could not prove outcome of the vigilance report.

(b) Petitioner was not called for examination, therefore, he was not confronted with the material available against him.

(c) Petitioner has filed affidavits of customers that no such irregularity was committed, but the same was also not considered.

(d) The inquiry report was entirely based on the Vigilance Committee report which was not provided to the petitioner at the stage of inquiry.

15. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that petitioner has committed very serious irregularities and he refers following part of counter affidavit, reproduced hereinafter:

Therefore taking into consideration of the gravity of misconduct facts and circumstance and the connected records, the serious charges of misconduct were proved in the finding of the enquiring authority against the petitioner which are as under:-

1. Used the password of his colleagues by taking them into confidence to make the transactions and thus he has taken advantage of the faith of his fellow colleagues to commit his misleads.

II. While posting the transaction he has mentioned wrong narrations to mislead the Bank/investigation officials and thus committed fraud on the Bank and routed transactions through Bank General Ledger Account wherein ultimately, such transaction with wrong narration in the system with no transaction slips/vouchers were credited to joint account held jointly by the petitioner herein with the family members.

III. Owes an explanation to the Bank for the cash deposits in his account/joint account held with his account/joint account held with his wife to the tune of Rs. 24,84,300/-beyond his known source of income.

IV. Misappropriated death claim amount/insurance receipts of the customers to deprive pecuniary benefits.

16. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that entire procedure prescribed in relevant Regulation were followed and petitioner was granted full opportunity to record his statement and he has cross-examined the Management Witness also. Inquiry report has dealt with all the charges in detail and since the petitioner could not submit any substantial explanation to serious irregularities, therefore, on basis of proved charges, punishment of dismissal from service is not shockingly disproportionate.

17. Before considering the rival submissions, it would be relevant to take note of a recent judgement passed by Supreme Court in the case of K.Prabhakar Hegde Vs. Bank of Baroda, 2025 INSC 997, and its relevant part is reproduced hereinafter:

56. We have considered the reasoning of the High Court that the appellant was extended an opportunity by the Inquiry Officer to make his submissions before the evidence was closed. However, such an opportunity does not really match the nature of duty cast on the Inquiry Officer under Regulation 6(17). Such regulation requires the Inquiry Officer to question the charged officer, if he has not examined himself in defence, on the circumstances appearing in the evidence that are unfavourable or adverse to him. The purpose thereof is to extend an opportunity to the charged officer to explain away such unfavourable or adverse circumstances. This is one of the several procedural safeguards that the 1981 Regulations envisages. The duty cast and the opportunity extended are not equivalent. The inquiry under Regulation 6 being quasi-judicial in nature, Regulation 6 (17) places an onerous duty on the Inquiry Officer (who is generally untrained in law) to seriously apply his mind to the evidence on record and to indicate to the charged officer, as part of the process of his decision making, that circumstances exist which could weigh in his mind while arriving at the final findings in the report of inquiry. Once indicated, the charged officer may or may not explain away the circumstances but to offer an opportunity to have his say recorded without indication of the circumstances existing does not and would not amount to substantial compliance of Regulation 6(17).

18. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records.

19. Argument of learned Senior Counsel is mainly that inquiry was not conducted under the prescribed procedure. No independent witness was examined. Only management witness was examined who was author of the vigilance report and he could prove Vigilance Report and not charges. Petitioners explanation was not considered by the Appellate Authority and by the Reviewing Authority.

20. Argument of learned counsel for the respondents in brief are that the petitioner has committed very serious irregularities. He has siphoned off the money of the bank. Principles of natural justice were followed and that management witness was subjected to cross examination also. Petitioner has recorded his statement also qua to each charge. The inquiry report was based on the material produced before the Inquiry Officer and not much reliance was placed on the Vigilance Report.

21. It is not under much dispute that petitioner was charged with very serious allegations and out of 7 charges, 4 were found to be proved that he used passwords of his colleagues by taking them into confidence to make illegal transactions. Secondly, while posting the transactions he mentioned wrong narrations to mislead the bank/investigating officials. He owned an explanation to the bank for the cash deposits in his account beyond source of income and also misappropriated death claim amount/insurance receipts of the customers to derive their pecuniary benefits.

22. When the unusual transactions came into light, an inquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Department of the Bank and on basis of material available on records of the bank, responsibility was fixed on the petitioner, therefore, independently disciplinary proceedings was initiated and a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner.

23. It is not on record as to weather the petitioner has submitted his reply to the charge-sheet or not but has submitted his defence such as affidavits of various customers.

24. From a bare perusal of the records available in this writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner has actively participated in the inquiry and has also cross-examined the sole management witness in regard to each charge. The petitioner (CSO) has recorded his statement qua to some charges also, therefore, Court is of the opinion that principles of natural justice was followed and there was no procedural error in the disciplinary proceedings.

25. An argument which was vehemently advanced before this Court by the learned Senior Counsel was that no independent witness was produced by the bank to prove the charges and the only witness produced was the management witness who was the author of the vigilance report and petitioner was not called to record his statement.

26. In this regard the Court takes note of K.Prabhakar Hegde (Supra) that in case of disciplinary inquiry, if any preliminary report such as Vigilance Report is relied upon, a copy of the same ought to have been provided to the delinquent.

27. In the present case, it is the argument of learned Senior Counsel that copy of vigilance report was not provided to the petitioner.

28. Now the Court proceeds as to whether during inquiry said report was relied upon or not and for that even on a careful perusal of records, Court does not find that inquiry was totally based on the Vigilance Report.

29. In the above background, now the Court proceeds to consider the status of the management witness who was author of the vigilance report.

30. Management witness has made a statement only on basis of materials available on records of the bank, therefore, it was his personal knowledge based on records and that he represented the bank during the inquiry.

31. On the perusal of the Vigilance Report, it reflects that it was not based on the statement of customers, rather it was entirely based on records and the said records were also placed during the inquiry, (MEXI-139), therefore, only on the ground that management witness was the author of the vigilance report, therefore, could not act as an independent witness during inquiry has no substance. Said witness has acted as an independent witness and not as an author of vigilance report, since he was acquainted with the records, therefore, he was the most relevant witness for this purpose.

32. Petitioner has not come with any substantial evidence that proved charges were not based on materials available.

33. Petitioner was not able to make out a statement which could favour him in the cross-examination, therefore, there is not much substance in the argument made by the learned Senior Counsel.

34. Now the Court considers the last argument made by learned Senior Counsel as to what would be the affect if the statement of the petitioner was not recorded during disciplinary proceedings.

35. In K.Prabhakar Hegde (Supra) it was reiterated that a delinquent is required to be confronted with the circumstances appearing in the evidence that are unfavourable or adverse to him.

36. Court takes note of the records annexed in this writ petition, that petitioner was provided opportunity to make his statement in regard to each charge and not only he has cross-examined the management witness, but he has made statement qua to some charges also recorded in the inquiry report, therefore purpose to record the statement of petitioner that he may be confronted with the material was fulfilled.

37. The Court further takes note of following paragraphs of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Boloram Bordoloi vs. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank and others, (2021) 3 SCC 806:-

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 sayinghe 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. (Emphasis supplied)

38. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any substance in the argument made by learned Senior Counsel to interfere with the impugned orders.

39. Writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.

(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)

August 29, 2025

SB