Allahabad High Court
Ashutosh Kumar Verma And 3 Others vs Uco Bank, Head Office And 2 Others on 27 October, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SPECIAL APPEAL NO.921 OF 2025
Ashutosh Kumar Verma and 3 others
..Appellant(s)
Versus
UCO Bank, Head Office and 2 others
..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Dhananjay Singh, Satyendra Narayan Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Birendra Prasad Shukla
Reserved on 07.10.2025
Delivered on- 27.10.2025
Court No.21
HONBLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
HONBLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
(Per: Honble Siddharth Nandan,J.)
1. Heard Shri Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Om Subhash Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The aforesaid intra court appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26.08.2025 passed in Writ-A No.65861 of 2013, (Panna Lal Vs. UCO Bank, Head Office through General Manager and 2 others).
3. By way of the said writ petition filed by Panna Lal (original petitioner), he had assailed his dismissal order dated 31.12.2012 and order dated 26.8.2013 passed in the Departmental Appeal.
4. The present special appeal has been filed by the legal heirs of the said Panna Lal, who had died during pendency of the writ petition and accordingly the legal heirs were also brought on record.
5. In order to appreciate the controversy, the compendium of facts are as follows:-
6. The petitioner was working as a Senior Manager in UCO Bank at Jaunpur branch. In view of the misappropriation of subsidy, a charge-sheet dated 06.02.2012 was served upon him with following charges:-
1. On 08.03.2011, Shri Panna Lai, Sr Manager, posted/verified an entry of Rs. 30 lac Transaction ID AA 242257) in the account of 'Bills Realized (18991030030001)' on the strength of a debit voucher. On scrutiny it is found that this account i.e. "Bills Realized (18991030030001)" was intentionally wrong credited with the amount of SCP subsidy which was meant for SC/ST loances/beneficiaries and was supposed to be credited in the 'Subsidy Reserve Fund A/c'. This debited amount of Rs. 30 lac from 'Bills Realized (18991030030001)' was then credited to 60 fictitious SB A/c (Rs. 50,000/- in each SB A/c) from there this amount was withdrawn in cash. Thus government money was defulcated by him in collusion with others.
2. On 03.05.2011, again, Shri Panna Lal posted/verified an entry of Rs. 12.90 lac(Transaction ID AA2493:2) in the account of 'Bills Realized (18991030030001)' on the strength of a debit voucher. On scrutiny it is found that this account i.e. 'Bills Realized (18991030030001)' was intentionally wrongly credited with the amount of SCP subsidy which was meant for SC/ST loanees/beneficiaries and was supposed to be credited in the 'Subsidy Reserve Fund A/c'. This debited amount Rs. 12.90 lac from 'Bills Realized (18991030030001)' was then credited to 26 fictitious SB A/cs from there this Government money was withdrawn in cash. Thus government money was defalcated by him in collusion with others.
3 Futher, On 30.06.2011, Shri Panna Lal posted/verified an entry of Rs. 5 lac ( Transaction ID AA 211258) in the account of 'Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Jaunpur (18990210000427) unauthorizedly on the strength of a debit voucher which was neither signed/authorized by any Officer nor this debit was authorized by the account holder knowing well that this is a Govt. A/c which needs proper official authority for allowing a debit. On scrutiny it is found that this account i.e. Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Jaunpur (18990210000427) was intentionally wrong credited with the amount of SCP subsidy which was meant for SC/ST loanees/beneficiar.es and was supposed to be credited in the 'Subsidy Reserve Fund A/c'. This debited amount Rs. 5 lac from 'Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Jaunpur(18990210000427)' was then withdrawn in cash. Thus government money was defalcated by him. in collusion with others.
4. Shri Panna Lal while functioning as Senior Manager/Branch Head, Jaunpur (1899) Brunch, did not exercise proper control and supervision in the routine functioning of the branch which lead to occurrence of series of frauds in the branch and in some of them he was direct party thus he failed to protect the Interest of the Bank as well as Government money i.e. Subsidy knowing well that SCP subsidy is meant for granting loans to SC/ST beneficiaries misappropriation/defalcation of subsidy is a crime.
7. The said Panna Lal submitted his reply on 09.4.2012, which has been annexed as Annexure-5 at page 120 of the paper book. On the perusal of the same it indicates that the reply was submitted in a very cursory manner and the charges were not replied to separately or point wise.
8. Though, averments have been made that documents were sought while furnishing his reply, for example, petitioner sought the list of beneficiaries in whose account the funds were transferred and eventually withdrawn in cash and further alleges that the Enquiry Officer did not care to consider to supply him the documents. However, he himself has annexed a copy of the list of beneficiaries and it is also not disputed that the said beneficiaries have received payment of the disputed amount. He has made a general denial that it was Nagendra Kumar Pandey, Head Cashier and Niladri Chakraborty, Assistant Manager, who have committed fraud during his absence when he was on leave for a week between 17.5.2011 and 27.5.2011.
9. At this juncture, learned Single Judge has noted the fact that the aforesaid two employees namely Nagendra Kumar Pandey, Head Cashier and Assistant Manager Niladri Chakraborty had also challenged the order of punishment of dismissal from service and the same was rejected upto the stage of Apex Court and, in substance, since there was a joint liability and allegations were in the same chain of events, therefore, no different view can be taken at this stage in the case of Panna Lal with which we respectfully agree.
10. Even otherwise, a perusal of the enquiry report, which is the genesis of the impugned order, also clearly indicates that the prosecution has given ample opportunity to Panna Lal, including providing him a defence representative namely Lalit Kumar Pandey-Manager, to defend his case, on his request. The report also records that on 26.6.2012 the defence representative had consented that he does not propose any further argument/exhibit/witnesses for the case and it is still thereafter that the Enquiry Officer has further allowed him to submit his brief, which was also done and as such no violation of principles of natural justice can also be asserted or proved.
11. The charges, stated herein above are clearly serious in nature and in the context that Panna Lal had admitted that while posted at Jaunpur branch, due to heavy workload and short of staff in the branch, he had given his ID to Nagendra Kumar Pandey, Head Cashier allegedly for the smooth functioning of the bank while he was outside the branch for bank business the finding of the Enquiry Officer pertaining to dereliction of duty cannot be faulted. This conduct itself demonstrate that he has failed to discharge his duties, which amounts to dereliction of duty.
12. Time and again, this Court as well as the Honble Apex Court have held that a bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity since he deals with money of depositors and the customers and if a bank employee does not exercise diligence in discharge of its duty, the same shall be nothing, but, an unbecoming of a bank officer.
13. As observed by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, 1996 (9) SCC 69, there is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulting in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. A very discipline of an organization, more particularly a bank, is depending upon each of its officer and officer acting and operating within the allotted sphere acting beyond ones authority by itself is a breach of discipline and is a misconduct.
14. The charges pertains to certain acts or omission in the matter of misappropriation of subsidy, which were related to beneficiaries of loans and advances under SCP scheme and due to such acts, subsidy amount went in fake/fraudulent hands, leading to huge loss of money and reputation to the bank.
15. The Enquiry Officer, in relation to the charge number-1, has clearly mentioned that Panna Lal, Senior Manager, posted/verified an entry of Rs.30,00,000/- (Transaction ID AA 242257) in the account of 'Bills Realized (18991030030001)' on the strength of a debit voucher, which was intentionally, wrongly credited with the amount of SCP subsidy which was meant for SC/ST loanees/beneficiaries and was to be credited in the 'Subsidy Reserve Fund A/c'.; relying on the exhibit ME-1(a) to ME-1(z), ME-1(aa) to ME-1(az) and ME-1(ba) to ME 1(bu), dated 08.03.2013.
16. Similarly, the respective exhibit numbers have been mentioned regarding transactions attributed to the functioning of Shri Pannal Lal. The Enquiry Officer has also recorded that the defence representative never sought any document pre-evidence or submitted any documents to contradict the allegations, coupled with the facts that delinquent employee had admitted giving his ID to some other employee, itself shows his involvement either as a negligent officer of the bank, who was defending himself by such malicious arguments or had no other choice but to except that he along with other used to sanction the government funds.
17. Similar exhibits were also relied upon in respect to charge Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The glaring feature of the transaction was that clearly the funds were transferred into a wrong account denying the SCP subsidy which was meant for SC/ST loans/beneficiaries, i.e. into huge number of accounts and immediately thereafter from the said fictitious accounts, Rs. 50,000/- each were withdrawn in cash. The Enquiry Officer also took note of the written brief dated 10.07.2012 in which also the defence representative did not produce any documents or witness to prove that the amount did not relate to government subsidy and was for some other purpose for which it was released in favour of the UCO bank, by the Government Authorities and he could not explain why the amount was subsequently transferred to saving bank account without any authority by the account holder, which was actually a case of defalcation.
18. There was an irrefutable conclusion based on the documentary evidence that a vouchers were duly prepared by Niladri Chakraborty Head Cashier and was entered into the system by Nagendra Kumar Pandey, who accepted that the verification was made by use of ID of Panna Lal. Even assuming for a moment that it was culpability of Niladri Chakraborty and Nagendra Kumar Pandey Head Cashier, then also, it is an admitted fact that knowingly once the ID and password was given by the delinquent employee, ipso facto it amounts to a misconduct.
19. Having regard to the charges and the finding of the enquiry report, coupled with the fact that the dismissal order of Niladri Chakraborty and Nagendra Kumar Pandey who were co-accused in the same transactions, which has attained finality upto the stage of Apex Court, we are of the view, that the reasoning of the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with and scope of judicial review being limited, no relief can be granted to the delinquent employee. Panna Lal has failed to meet the standard which a bank employee is expected, to maintain the trust of the public in the baking sector.
20. Supreme Court in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur versus Nemi Chand Nalwaya (2011) 4 SCC 584 held that termination by way of punishment was justified for loss of confidence in an employee by a bank for causing loss to the bank. Similarly, in State Bank of India and others Versus S.N. Goyal, (2008) 8 SCC 92 the Apex Court held that temporary misappropriation of customer's money by Bank employee is a serious misconduct warranting removal from service and tantamounts to breach of trust.
21. We also do not find that the order of removal was disproportionate, in view of the charges of misconduct which are serious in nature and has caused huge financial loss due to gross negligence of the original petitioner, during his posting as Branch Head in Jaunpur Branch. The same is also fortified by the judgment in the case of Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and Another Vs Munna Lal Jain reported in (2005) 10 SCC 84 and as also has been followed in the case of Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy (2005) 6 SCC 321. The case of Damoh Panna (supra) has been cited with approval by the Apex Court recently as well in the case of General Manager Personnel Syndicate Bank and others Vs. B.S.N. Prasad (2025) 3 SCC 601.
22. We are in respectful agreement with the finding of the learned Single Judge that due process was followed in the disciplinary proceedings and on the basis of the allegations, punishment of dismissal from service is not disproportionate.
23. Accordingly, the aforesaid appeal lacks merit and, is dismissed.
(Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta)
October, 27, 2025
piyush
