Ram Lal vs Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 10566 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ram Lal vs Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank And Others on 15 September, 2025

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 



 

 

 

 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
WRIT - A No. - 66918 of 2011
 

 
Ram Lal
 

 
..Petitioners(s)
 

 

 

 

 
Versus
 

 

 

 

 
Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank And Others
 

 
..Respondents(s)
 

 

 
Counsel for Petitioners(s)
 
:
 
.
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)
 
:
 

 

 

 
Judgment Reserved on 10.9.2025
 
Delivered on  15.9.2025
 

 
Court No. -5 
 

 
           HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Heard Sri P.R. Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K.Kakkar, learned counsel for the respondents-Bank.

2. Petitioner, was a Passing Officer at main Branch Karvi Tulsi Gramin Bank District-Chitrakoot (now known as Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank) Head Office Karvi District Banda.

3. An incident occurred on 16.5.2005 that by impersonation, an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- and Rs.75,000/- were withdrawn on basis of withdrawal form and since the petitioner failed to scrutinize signatures of the account holders with the records and thus has caused loss to the Bank.

4. On 17.5.2005, a First Information Report was lodged in regard to aforesaid incident against the petitioner and subsequently petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 18.5.2005.

5. Petitioner also submitted complaints to Superintendent of Police, Chitrakoot as well as before Director of Police (Vigilance) U.P. Lucknow that aforesaid occurrence took place due to conspiracy of his Senior Officers. However, it appears that no F.I.R. was lodged on his complaint.

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, a charge-sheet dated 7.7.2005 was served on the petitioner making above referred charges in the Disciplinary Proceedings.

7. Petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 27.7.2005 and sought further time to reply to the allegations levelled against him.

8. Disciplinary Authority thereafter sent a letter dated 23.8.2005 to the petitioner that he may co-operate with the inquiry so that it may be concluded expeditiously. It appears, that thereafter petitioner has not filed any reply. However during inquiry, petitioner appeared and has cross-examined three witnesses.

9. Inquiry Officer, on basis of material and cross-examination submitted an inquiry report dated 30.8.2006 and copy of the same was forwarded to the petitioner with a show cause notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority.

10. Petitioner, thereafter submitted his reply to the show cause notice and alleged malafides against his senior officers that due to their conspiracy he was falsely implicated in the case.

11. Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 3.4.2007 passed an order whereby the inquiry report was accepted and petitioner was served with maximum penalty of dismissal. Relevant part of the order is reproduced hereinafter:

6. Having considered the matter from all angles and on application of my mind and on careful perusal of the Enquiry Officer's report and findings and point to point analysis of the evidences put forth in the enquiry, I find that the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet have been found fully proved by the Enquiry Officer as per report and findings. I concur with the said findings of the enquiry officer and accept the same.

7. The charge stand proved and shows the involvement of charged officer in it.

On 16-05-2005 the CO passed two withdrawls of Rs.175000/- and Rs. 75000/-, having A/c No-12188 & 12301 and bearing names of Dinesh Gupta and Ramadhar respectively. Actually these two were face withdrawls with fake signatures. Actual accounts (A/c No.-12188 & 12301) were in the name of Narvada Prasad Tiwari and Kumari Rama. These withdrawls were passed by the CO without checking of account details and without tallying signatures. Due to such an extreme negligent act of CO, the Bank suffered a loss of Rs. 2.50 Lacs. The CO filed case in the court to declare himself as innocent. But the court found him liable for loss vide its decision dated 26-08-2006.

The aforesaid acts of misconduct committed by Sri Ram Lal are in violation of Regulation 19 of (Erstwhile Tulsi) Triveni Gramin Bank Officers & Employees Service Regulations-2000 amounting to misconduct under regulation 38 of the said regulation.

Since the said acts of misconduct committed by Sri Ram Lal is serious in nature, I have decided to deal with the case in terms of Reg 38-1(b) (v) of the (Erstwhile Tulsi) Triveni Gramin Bank Officers and Employee Service Regulation 2000 which will meet the ends of justice.

As Sri Ram Lal has committed serious nature of lapses as established/proved in the departmental enquiry, I impose a penalty of "Dismissal" on Sri Ram Lal. The punishment will be effective from the date of this order.

I further order that he will not be treated on duty during suspension period and he will not be paid any pay, increment & allowance etc. other than subsistence already paid to him for the period of suspension

12. Petitioner thereafter filed an appeal on 30.5.2007, however,it was dismissed by the Chairman/Board of Directors of the Bank vide order dated 28.11.2007. Relevant part of the order is reproduced hereinafter:

विभागीय जांच कार्यवाही से यह तथ्य सिद्ध हुआ है कि आरोपी अधिकारी द्वारा दो फर्जी निकासी पत्र पारित किये गये थे जिसकी कुल राशि रु० 250000/- का भुगतान कैशियर द्वारा किया गया था। इस तथ्य को स्वयं अपलीार्थी द्वारा अपने पूर्व में प्रेषित उत्तर, विभागीय जाच कार्यवाही में तथा प्रस्तुत अपील में भी स्वीकार किया गया है।

घटनाक्रम इस प्रकार है कि-

दिनांक 16.05.05 को कर्वी शाखा में आरोपी अधिकारी पारण कार्य कर रहे थे जब उनके द्वारा दो फर्जी निकासी फार्म पारित किये गये। उक्त निकासी पत्रों का विवरण निम्न प्रकार है-

1. रु0 175000/- का निकासी पत्र जिस पर बचत खाता सं० 12188 अंकित है तथा जो दिनेश गुप्ता नामक फर्जी व्यक्ति द्वारा "दिनेश गुप्ता" की शौली में हस्ताक्षरित है। जबकि उक्त खाते के असली खातेदार श्री नर्वदा प्रसाद तिवारी है। आरोपी अधिकारी द्वारा उक्त निकासी विवरण को अपने स्काल में क्रम सं० 119 पर अंकित कर उक्त निकासी पत्र को बिना खाते के विवरण व हस्ताक्षर सत्यापित किये पारित किया गया।

2. रु0 75000/- का निकासी पत्र जिस पर बचत खाता स0 12301 अंकित है तथा जो रामाधार नामक फर्जी व्यक्ति द्वारा "रामाधार" की शैली में हस्ताक्षरित है। उक्त खाते के असली खातेदार कु० रमा हैं। आरोपी अधिकारी द्वारा उक्त निकासी विवरण को अपने स्क्राल में क्रम सं० 118 पर अंकित कर उक्त निकासी पत्र को बिना खाते के विवरण व हस्ताक्षर सत्यापित किये पारित किया गया।

उपरोक्त दोनों ही निकासी पत्रों में फर्जी व्यक्तियों ने असली खातेदधारकों के नाम के बिल्कुल अलग नाम से हस्ताक्षर किये हैं। फिर भी आरोपी अधिकारी द्वारा इनको पारित किया गया। आरोपी अधिकारी के इस कृत्य से बैंक को रु0 250000/- की क्षति हुई।

आरोपी अधिकारी ने वाद दायर तथा अपनी अपील में उपरोक्त प्रकरण को अन्य स्टाफ द्वारा कूटरचित साजिश कहा है जबकि न्यायालय ने अपने दिनांक 26.08.06 के निर्णय में आरोपी अधिकारी को बैंक की हुई क्षति के लिये जिम्मेदार माना है।

आरोपी अधिकारी द्वारा पूर्व में की गई अनियमितता-

आरोपी अधिकारी ने रैपूरा शाखा में अपनी पदस्थापना के दौरान कई ऋणियों से प्राप्त की गई वसूली राशि को सम्बन्धित ऋणियों के खाते में जमा नहीं किया। उक्त अनियमितता के लिये उनको आरोप पत्र सं० प्र० का०/सत/88/12415 दिनांकित 05.10.1988 जारी किया गया। सम्बन्धित विभागीय जांच कार्यवाही के उपरानत उन्हें सेवा से बर्खास्त किया गया। उनके द्वारा उच्च न्यायालय में अपील की गई। उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश पर उन्हें दिनांक 03.05.1999 को अधिकारियों के इनीशियल मूल वेतन पर पुनः बहाल किया गया।

आरोपी अधिकारी के अपील में उठाये गये बिन्दुओं पर निदेशक मण्डल द्वारा अपना अभिमत अंकित करते हुये दण्ड को यथावत् रखा गया।

13. Orders dated 3.4.2007 and 28.11.2007 were challenged by the petitioner by way of filing present writ petition in the year 2011 i.e. almost after three years.

14. During the pendency of present writ petition, criminal trial pending against the petitioner was concluded and learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 26.8.2016 convicted the petitioner for offences under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and sentenced him for seven years.

15. Petitioner challenged the judgment and order dated 26.8.2016 by way of filing a Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2016 which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 25.11.2021 whereby the order impugned dated 26.8.2016 was set-aside and petitioner was granted acquittal. A copy of the said judgment is placed on record by way of a Supplementary Affidavit filed on 22.2.2022. Relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced hereinafter:

प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में बैंक से फर्जी निकासी पत्र के द्वारा दिनेश गुप्ता व रमाधार द्वारा की गयी फर्जी निकासी में जितनी त्रुटि पारण अधिकारी रामलाल की होना दर्शित होता है उतनी ही कैशियर व शाखा प्रबंधक की भी दर्शित होती है क्योंकि यदि पासिंग अफसर द्वारा त्रुटिपूर्वक पास किये गये निकासी पत्र से किसी फर्जी व्यक्ति को भुगतान किसी अन्य टोकन नंबर से शाखा प्रबंधक की जानकारी में किया गया तो उक्त व्यक्ति के द्वारा किये गये फ्रॉड की जानकारी शाखा प्रबंधक को भी क्यों नहीं हुई इसका कोई स्पष्टीकरण अभियोजन की ओर से नहीं दिया गया है।

प्रकरण में यह स्पष्ट है कि फर्जी निकासी दिनेश गुप्ता व रमाधार द्वारा की गयी और उन्हीं के द्वारा भुगतान प्राप्त किया गया एवं अभियुक्त रामलाल की दिनेश गुप्ता व रमाधार से सहभागिता होने का कोई साक्ष्य पत्रावली में नहीं है।

बैंक मैनेजर बादी मुकदमा द्वारा भी तथाकथित दिनेश गुप्ता व रमाधार के विरुद्ध एफ०आई०आर० न कराने का कोई स्पष्ट कारण नहीं है जबकि उन दोनों ने खाता धारकों का पासबुक अपने पास होते हुए फर्जी भुगतान प्राप्त किया है।

अतः प्रकरण के संपूर्ण परिस्थितियों के दृष्टिगत अभियुक्त रामलाल द्वारा बेईमानीपूर्ण आशय से, कूटरचना करके फर्जी विड्राल फार्म बनाकर व फर्जी निकासी प्राप्त करने वाले दिनेश गुप्ता व रमाधार से कोई सहयोग होने का अभियोजन कथानक युक्तियुक्त संदेह से परे अभियोजन द्वारा साबित नहीं किया जा सका है। विद्वान अवर न्यायालय द्वारा इस संबंध में निकाला गया निष्कर्ष पत्रावली में उपलब्ध साक्ष्य का अपूर्ण विश्लेषण व अभियुक्त द्वारा त्रुटिपूर्वक पास किये गये विड्राल फार्म की स्वीकारोक्ति मात्र के आधार पर निकाला गया है व अभियुक्त को कूटरचना करने, बेईमानीपूर्ण आशय से छल द्वारा बैंक से धनराशि निकालने का निष्कर्ष विद्वान अवर न्यायालय द्वारा साक्ष्य पर आधारित न होकर अनुमान मात्र है।

इस प्रकार उपरोक्त विश्लेषण से स्पष्ट है कि अभियोजन अभियुक्त रामलाल के विरूद्ध आरोपित अपराध को युक्तियुक्त संदेह से परे साबित करने में असफल रहा है। विद्वान अवर न्यायालय द्वारा निर्णय व निष्कर्ष साक्ष्य के अपूर्ण विश्लेषण तथा अनुमान व संभावनाओं पर आधारित है जो त्रुटिपूर्ण है। अतः विद्वान अवर न्यायालय द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में पत्रावली में उपलब्ध अभियोजन साक्षीगण के साक्ष्य के परिशीलन में तथ्यतः त्रुटि के साथ ही विधितः सही निष्कर्ष नहीं निकाला गया है। अतः विद्वान विचारण न्यायालय द्वारा अभियुक्त रामलाल को दोषसिद्ध करने में त्रुटि की गयी है।

विद्वान विचारण न्यायालय का अभियुक्त रामलाल के विरूद्ध दोषसिद्धि आदेश त्रुटिपूर्ण है।

विनिश्चयात्मक बिन्दु संख्या 1 उपरोक्तानुसार निस्तारित किया जाता है।

12. निस्तारण विनिश्चयात्मक बिन्दु संख्या 2

क्या प्रश्नगत निर्णय/दण्डादेश अपास्त कर अभियुक्त दोषमुक्त किये जाने योग्य है ?

विनिश्चयात्मक बिन्दु संख्या 1 के निस्तारण के अनुकम में यह पाया गया है कि अभियुक्त रामलाल की दोषसिद्धि के संबंध में विद्वान विचारण न्यायालय का निर्णय/आदेश त्रुटिपूर्ण है। अतः अभियुक्त रामलाल के संबंध में विद्वान विचारण न्यायालय का निर्णय व दण्डादेश निरस्त किये जाने योग्य है व अभियुक्त रामलाल दोषमुक्त किये जाने योग्य है।

विनिश्चयात्मक बिन्दु संख्या 2 तदनुसार निस्तारित किया जाता है।

अतः विश्निश्चयात्मक बिन्दु संख्या 1 व 2 के निस्तारण व विद्वान विचारण न्यायालय की पत्रावली में उपलब्ध साक्ष्य के सम्यक् परिशीलन उपरान्त यह स्पष्ट है कि अपीलार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत दाण्डिक अपील स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य है।

आदेश

दाण्डिक अपील संख्या 43/2016 स्वीकार की जाती है। अभियुक्त रामलाल के विरूद्ध विद्वान विचारण न्यायालय द्वारा पारित दोषसिद्धि व दण्डादेश दिनांकित 26.08. 2016 को त्रुटिपूर्ण पाते हुए खण्डित किया जाता है व अभियुक्त रामलाल को दोषमुक्त किया जाता है।

इस निर्णय की प्रति के साथ विचारण न्यायालय की पत्रावली संबंधित न्यायालय को अविलंब प्रेषित की जाए।

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is an innocent person and he was not involved in the alleged withdrawal of money by impersonation. It was his consistent case that his Senior Officials were involved in the occurrence, but no action was taken against them and petitioner was made a scapegoat. Petitioner has asked for further time to file reply to the charge-sheet, but the same was not provided and inquiry was proceeded, however, learned counsel for the petitioner has not able to deny on basis of records that petitioner has participated in the inquiry and has cross examined the witnesses also.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring the documents annexed in this writ petition submitted that it was a case of no evidence. Counsel for the petitioner also referred reasons assigned in the judgment passed by Sessions Judge in above referred Criminal Appeal that same witnesses were disbelieved and the petitioner was granted acquittal, therefore, on basis of subsequent events, impugned orders be set-aside.

18. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents Bank has supported the impugned orders and submitted that inquiry was conducted independently and on basis of evidence and documents, charge was found proved against the petitioner. Principles of natural justice was followed and prayed that the impugned orders may not be interfered with.

19. Learned counsel for the respondents Bank further submitted that outcome of criminal appeal whereby the petitioner was granted acquittal would not have any impact or effect on the outcome of disciplinary proceedings since both were conduct independently and nature of proof is also different. In the criminal trial it is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in the disciplinary proceedings it is on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.

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

21. In the present case, due process of departmental inquiry was followed. Petitioner was issued with a charge-sheet and despite opportunity, he has submitted a vague reply and not replied to the charges effectively.

22. Petitioner has undisputedly participated in the inquiry and has cross-examined the witnesses also. Thereafter, on basis of inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice to which the petitioner has submitted his reply and thereafter order of punishment was passed, therefore, principles of natural justice were substantially followed.

23. In the inquiry report, charges were found proved on the basis of material available and considering the nature of evidence including the cross-examination.

24. The Disciplinary Authority has also considered the material available on records and came to the conclusion that charges were found proved, therefore, in view of judgment passed by Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhupendra Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1908, no case of interference is made out.

25. Now the Court takes note of other issue that only on the basis of a subsequent event that petitioner was granted acquittal in the criminal appeal wherein same nature of charges were framed and same witnesses were examined.

26. In this regard Court takes note of a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors, (2024) 1 SCC 175. Relevant paragraph thereof is reproduced hereinafter:

Legal Position

10. 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 SBI v. A.G.D. Reddy [SBI v. A.G.D. Reddy, (2023) 14 SCC 391: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1064:2023 INSC 766)] 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, the courts are not powerless to interfere. (See United Bank of India v. Biswanath Bhattacharjee , (2022) 13 SCC 329:(2023) 2 SCC (L&S) 705:2022 INSC 117)]

11. 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 State of T.N. v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598:(2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 566 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 229)]

12. 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 v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446:2006 SCC (L&S) 1121], State Bank of Hyderabad v. P. Kata Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 657:(2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 489] and S. Samuthiram (State of T.N. v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598:(2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 566:(2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 229].)

Effect of acquittal in the criminal proceedings.

28. Expressions like benefit of doubt and honourably acquitted, used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations. A court of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such terminology. In the present case, the Appellate Judge has recorded that Ext. P-3, the original marksheet carries the date of birth as 21-4-1972 and the same has also been proved by the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. The conclusion 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 can only be arrived at after a reading of the judgment in its entirety. The Court in judicial review is obliged to examine the substance of the judgment and not go by the form of expression used.

29. We are satisfied that the findings of the Appellate Judge in the criminal case clearly indicate that the charge against the appellant was not just, not proved in fact the charge even stood disproved by the very prosecution evidence. As held by this Court, a fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. A fact is said to be not proved when it is neither proved nor disproved (see Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P., (1990) 3 SCC 190:1990 SCC (Cri) 378)]

27. The Appellate Court has granted acquittal since prosecution has failed to prove charges against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and that no responsibility was fixed on Branch Manager and that petitioner was not involved in withdrawal done by Dinesh Gupta and Ramadhar.

28. The said nature of acquittal is not a honorable acquittal and it is not a case that criminal charge was completely disproved, therefore, no benefit could be granted to the petitioner of said judgment of acquittal.

29. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)

September 15, 2025

SB