Ashutosh S/O Anil Joshi vs Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9396 Bom

J.210-wp3187.2013.odt                                            1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                 WRIT PETITION NO.3187 OF 2013

           Ashutosh s/o Anil Joshi
           Aged about 45 years,
           Occupation - Nil,
           R/o. 27, Prabhat Society,
           Arni Road, Wadgaon,
           Yavatmal
                                                      ...PETITIONER
                              VERSUS

1.         Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank
           having its Head Office at Madhumalti
           Building, Gupte Marg,
           Jatharpeth, Akola - 444 005

2.         The Chairman and Disciplinary Authority,
           Vidharbha Kshetriya Gramin Bank,
           having its Head Office at Madhumalti
           Building, Gupte Marg, Jatharpeth,
           Akola - 444 005

3.         The Board of Directors & Appellate Authority,
           Vidharbha Kshetriya Gramin Bank,
           having its Head Office at Madhumalti
           Building, Gupte Marg, Jatharpeth,
           Akola - 444 005
                                                  ...RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________
           Shri Rohit Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
           Shri A.S. Jaiswal, Sr. Advocate with Ms Aditi Panpalia,
           Advocate for the respondents.
______________________________________________________
 J.210-wp3187.2013.odt                                                      2


                       CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR AND
                                URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.
                  RESERVED ON : SEPTEMBER 06, 2022.
               PRONOUNCED ON : SEPTEMBER 19, 2022.


JUDGMENT (Per Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order

of respondent No.3-The Board of Directors and Appellate Authority,

Vidharbha Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Akola dated 03/11/2012 by which

the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by denying any interference in

the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority in the enquiry

proceedings.

3. The petitioner herein was initially appointed as a

Probationary Officer with the Yavatmal Gramin Bank and subsequently

appointed as a Junior Management Scale-I Officer with the said Bank.

On 12/09/2005, during the amalgamation of rural banks, respondent

No.1-Vidharbha Kshetriya Gramin Bank was constituted and the

petitioner was absorbed in it on the same post. The service conditions of

Officers and Employees of the respondent No.1-Bank are regulated by

the Vidharbha Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service

Regulations, 2005. The respondent No.2 is the Chairman acting as a

Competent Authority and respondent No.3 is the Board of Directors

acting as an Appellate Authority.

4. The petitioner was working as a Second Officer at Wadgaon

Branch of respondent No.1-Bank from May, 2007 to May, 2009. The

respondent No.1-Bank had issued two separate charge-sheets to the

petitioner alleging certain acts of misconducts while he was posted at

Wadgaon Branch. After holding departmental enquiry the petitioner was

dismissed from service vide order dated 27/03/2012 passed by

respondent No.2-Competent Authority. The petitioner had preferred an

appeal before respondent No.3-Board of Directors acting as an Appellate

Authority. The said appeal also came to be dismissed on 03/11/2012.

The termination order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority is under

challenge in this petition.

5. The first charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner by

respondent No.1-Bank dated 16/10/2009 bearing No.VKGM/HO/

VIG/2009/233/1. The following three charges were framed against the

petitioner :

               (i)         On 09/03/2009, Mr. A.A. Joshi (petitioner) has

               attempted    to   defraud/misappropriate   an   amount   of

Rs.3150/- by closing the cash on 09/03/2009 with malafide

intention. This is an act of gross negligence and dereliction of

duty which violates the Regulation No.19 of the Vidharbha

Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service

Regulations, 2005.

(ii) Mr. Joshi being Second Officer in the Branch

Wadgaon has passed the withdrawal for Rs.30,000/- dated

19/03/2009 by overlooking the specimen signature of

Smt. Khatri. It is observed from the above withdrawal with

naked eyes that Mr. Joshi has filled up the withdrawal form

and put himself a forge signature of Smt. Khatri. The

signature on the withdrawal form is also not tallied with the

signature on no objection letter submitted by Mr. Joshi

obtained from Smt. Khatri regarding transaction in her HSS

account No.5029 which is an act of falsification and

unbecoming of an Officer of the Bank, which violated the

Regulation No.19 of the Vidharbha Kshetriya Gramin Bank

(Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2005.

(iii) Mr. Joshi has availed loan from outside financial

agencies without obtaining permission of the Competent

Authority, which is the violation of Regulation No.26 of the

Vidharbha Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees)

Service Regulations, 2005.

6. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the said

charge-sheet on 06/11/2009. The sum and substance of the petitioner's

reply that entry regarding Rs.3150/- ought to have taken on the credit

side. It was wrongly taken on debit side. The mistake of taking entry

was noticed at the time of verification which was corrected. The

petitioner had further explained regarding second charge that he

withdrawn the amount on behalf of Mrs. Khatri who had no complaint

about the said transaction. As respondent No.1-Bank despite repeated

request not responded to the request of the petitioner hence he availed

financial assistance from outside agencies. As respondent No.1-Bank was

not satisfied with the explanation, decided to initiate an enquiry. The

petitioner had participated in the said enquiry. The petitioner examined

himself during the enquiry whereas Presenting Officer had examined two

witnesses namely Shri Sanjay Pralhad Jatkar working as a Messenger

and Shri Gautam Ramkrushna Taksande working as a Branch Manager.

After recording the evidence, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges

(i) to (iii) are proved.

7. During the pendency of initial enquiry another charge-sheet

dated 25/01/2010 bearing No.VKGB/HO/VIG/2010/349 was issued to

the petitioner. The charges in the second charge-sheet levelled against

the petitioner as follows :

(i) On 27/03/2008, Mr. A.A. Joshi has filled the

withdrawal form of HSS account No.5029 for Rs.40,000/- in

his own handwriting and payment was made on the basis of

forge signature of the customer, by posting and by passing

the withdrawal. Thus, he had committed the forgery in

making the payment which is violation of Regulation No.19

of the Vidharbha Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Officers and

Employees) Service Regulations, 2005.

(ii) Mr. A.A. Joshi with malafide intention to conceal

his act of misappropriation of Rs.6.49 lacs had issued

unauthorised/altered/tampering statements of account

No.1385 of Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti,

Yavatmal for the month of November, 2008 to May, 2009

generated from old system i.e. Bank 2002 Software i.e. New

Line Soft Informatics (P) Ltd., Udaipur whereas the data of

the Branch was converted to new software of Zenith i.e. Bank

724 on 14/11/2008. He has also altered/tampered the

entries of saving account No.1385 and other accounts. The

above acts of Mr. Joshi was prejudicial to the interest of the

Bank and lightly to involve the Bank in a serious financial loss

which is a violation of Regulation No.19 of the Vidharbha

Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service

Regulations, 2005.

(iii) Mr. A.A. Joshi had unauthorisedly and with

malafide intention kept the back-up C.D. of Wadgaon Branch

with him even after his transfer was effected from Wadgaon

Branch on 30/05/2009 which is the violation of Regulation

No.19.

8. The petitioner had submitted reply regarding charges and

denied all the charges. He claimed that the charges levelled against him

of misappropriation and data tampering are baseless, frivolous and

malafide. Respondent No.1-Bank decided to initiate an enquiry. The

petitioner participated in the enquiry. The Presenting Officer examined

Mrs. Ganar who was working as a Clerk and Shri Gautam Ramkrishna

Taksande, Branch Manager to prove the charges. The petitioner had not

examined any witnesses in support of his defence. Besides oral evidence

Presenting Officer relied on handwriting expert's report, various types of

vouchers and documentary evidence. The Enquiry Officer held the

charges (i) and (ii) are proved and charge (iii) is not proved. The

opportunity to submit the reply regarding the findings by the Enquiry

Officer is given to the petitioner. Accordingly, he submitted his reply on

the findings by the Enquiry Officer. After considering the evidence oral

as well as documentary, and the submissions of the petitioner, the

Competent Authority accepted the enquiry report by passing common

order by which major punishment of dismissal of service was imposed

under Regulations 39(1)(b)(iv) and 39(1)(b)(v) of the Vidharbha

Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations,

2005.

9. Being aggrieved with the final order passed by the Competent

Authority the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Appellate

Authority. The Appellate Authority had also dismissed the appeal and

confirmed the findings of the Competent Authority. By this petition, the

petitioner has challenged the findings of Competent Authority and

Appellate Authority on the ground that the petitioner was forced by the

Enquiry Officer to lead evidence in support of his defence prior to

leading of evidence of management witnesses. He further urged that the

second charge is not supported by any evidence as Mrs. Khatri and

handwriting experts were not examined during the departmental

enquiry. Mrs. Khatri's two letters were not considered either by the

Enquiry Officer or by the Competent Authority and the Appellate

Authority. The petitioner had further challenged that he demanded

some documents like cheques, vouchers and withdrawal forms but the

same was rejected. Thus, there were various fallacies in the enquiry

report and violation of natural justice which had caused prejudice to

him. Therefore, the intereference by this Court is called for.

10. Heard Shri Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. He

submitted that the first charge was of misappropriation of Rs.3150/-. It

was sheer mistake of posting. It was not an intentional mistake. To

prove the second charge material witnesses Mrs. Khatri was not

examined. The Presenting Officer had also not examined handwriting

expert. The letters of Mrs. Khatri by which she had not raised any

grievances are not considered. There was no evidence regarding

tampering of documents or deletion of entries. Non-examination of

witnesses is fatal. The burden is on the management to prove the

misappropriation. Thus in the absence of evidence, punishment was

imposed which is liable to be set aside.

11. On the other hand, Shri Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel for

the respondents submitted that the documentary evidence on record

shows that the petitioner who was working as a Cashier on a relevant

date i.e. on 19/03/2009 withdrawn Rs.30,000/- from the account of

Mrs. Khatri. On her oral complaint, enquiry was conducted and it

revealed that it was the petitioner who withdrawn the said amount.

Intentionally, the petitioner had made wrong entry of Rs.3150/- on

09/03/2009 which is revealed from the documentary evidence i.e.

statement signed by the petitioner. Second charge-sheet was issued to

the petitioner as misconducts by way of illegal withdrawal of Rs.40,000/-

from the account of Mrs. Khatri was observed. Not only the withdrawal

but the petitioner had tampered the statement of account No.1385 which

was the account of Government officials. He further submitted that

there was no perversity in the findings recorded by the authorities while

conducting the departmental enquiries. The points raised are questions

of fact and have been satisfactorily answered in the enquiry itself.

Therefore, no interference is called for. The petition is devoid of merits

and liable to be dismissed.

12. In support of the contention Shri Joshi, learned Counsel for

the petitioner relied upon Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank

and ors. (2009) 2 SCC 570 wherein it is held that mere production of

documents is not enough. Contents of documentary evidence has to be

proved by examining the witness. He further relied upon Nirmala J.

Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat and anr. (2013) 4 SCC 301 wherein it is held

that the departmental enquiry, enquiry procedure, natural justice, nature

and standard of proof, principle of preponderance of probabilities is

applicable. On the other hand, Shri Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel for

the respondents relied upon Deputy General Manager (Appellate

Authority) and ors. Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (2021) 2 SCC 612 wherein

it is held that the power of judicial review exercised by constitutional

courts under Articles 32/136/226 of the Constitution is circumscribed by

limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest

injustice or violation of principles of natural justice.

13. Admittedly, by this petition, the petitioner had challenged the

findings of the Enquiry Officer and order passed by the Competent

Authority by invoking the writ jurisdiction. This Court has very limited

jurisdiction in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. It is well settled that in the exercise of judicial review, the Court

does not act as an Appellate forum over the findings of the Disciplinary

Authority. The Court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of

which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a

disciplinary enquiry. The Court in exercise of judicial review must

restrict its review to determine whether (a) the rules of natural justice

have been complied with, (b) the finding of misconduct is based on some

evidence, (c) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary

enquiry have been observed, whether the findings of the disciplinary

authority suffer from any perversity or the punishment is

disproportionate to the proven misconduct.

14. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had urged that the

petitioner was forced by the Enquiry Officer to lead evidence in support

of his defence prior to leading evidence of management witnesses. This

submission is considered in the light of the material placed on the

record. The record shows that first time the petitioner had raised this

issue before this Court. The petitioner had not raised this ground in the

appeal before the Appellate Authority. Another point raised in this

petition is that second charge is not supported by any evidence. Mrs.

Khatri and handwriting experts are not examined. On perusal of enquiry

report, evidence recorded during the enquiry and order passed by the

Competent Authority is revealed that the petitioner was looking after the

cash on 09/03/2009 as both Clerk and Cashier were on leave. He

generated the cash payment of Rs.3150/- by generating the cash in hand

statement. He had written the cash balance and tallied the cash as

Rs.7,62,159/-. The evidence on record further indicates that he left the

Bank by keeping the key on the table in absence of Branch Manager.

The Branch Manager subsequently verified the cash and found that

payment of Rs.3150/- was made by making posting and authorisation by

petitioner without voucher. On the call from Branch Manager, the

petitioner had corrected the entry and added Rs.3150/- to the existing

cash balance. It is observed by the Disciplinary Authority that posting of

voucher can be a mistake but passing and authorisation of the same by

the petitioner himself without voucher cannot be called a mistake. The

oral evidence of Shri Taksande, Branch Manager and the document

shows that the voucher was passed and authorised wrongly. After

pointing out the mistake the petitioner corrected the same and added the

amount from his pocket. This fact is very well established not only by

the oral evidence of Branch Manager Shri Taksande but the documentary

evidence. The second and corrected closing cash balance statement was

generated by the petitioner, written in his own handwriting and

corrected the cash in hand. The difference in denomination of two

cash-in-hand statements show that the description of currency were

added to the existing cash balance. Moreover, the petitioner himself

during the enquiry accepted that he had confirmed the earlier closing

balance and subsequently corrected the same. The contention of the

petitioner that it was only a mistake cannot be accepted in the above

background. As regards the charge (ii) evidence of Branch Manager

shows that Mrs. Khatri orally informed that amount of Rs.30,000/-

shown to be withdrawn from her account which she has not withdrawn.

On investigation, it revealed that delinquent had filled and signed the

withdrawal and passed the withdrawal as an Officer and collected the

cash. The disputed handwriting was forwarded to the handwriting

expert. The report of handwriting expert shows that the signature of

withdrawal was not made by account holder and opined that writing of

withdrawal i.e. disputed writing was written by same person who wrote

comparative writing which is specimen writing of the petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Mrs. Khatri filed two

applications stating that she had no complaint about the transaction.

Learned Senior Counsel Shri Jaiswal invited the attention towards the

said letters which are placed on record. She merely mentioned in both

the letters that she has no complaint about the said transactions. She

received the entire amount. He submitted that the wordings of the letter

nowhere shows that on her behalf the petitioner had withdrawn the said

amount. He further submitted that the statement ( eyk ek>k iw.kZ iSlk

feGkyk) is sufficient to show that her grievances made by her before the

Branch Manager are compensated and, therefore, she had no grievances.

An opportunity was granted to the petitioner on his request to examine

Mrs. Khatri. It reveals from the enquiry report that the Enquiry Officer

has noted in the enquiry report that on the request of Chargesheeted

Officer the enquiry held at Yavatmal for convenience of presenting

witness at 29/10/2010. But on 29/10/2010 Chargesheeted Officer had

not produced the witness due to their personal problem and assured that

in the next sitting of 02/11/2010 he will produce the witness. On

02/11/2010 and 19/11/2010 he remained absent. On 30/11/2010

witness was not present and the petitioner had presented complete

documents/statements regarding three charges. It is further noted by

the Enquiry Officer that efforts was made at every point to satisfy

Chargesheeted Officer by giving due natural justice to defend him. At

every stage of presentation of management case by the Presenting

Officer the Chargesheeted Officer was given an opportunity to put up his

say or cross-examination in the interest of natural justice. All charges are

based on documentary evidence and Chargesheeted Officer was given an

opportunity for verification of documents and discovery of documents by

visiting Wadgaon Branch. Thus, from the notings of the Enquiry Officer

it is crystal clear that sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner

to examine the witness in support of his contention. The fact that he had

withdrawn the amount from the account of Mrs. Khatri is accepted by

the petitioner, his only contention was that he withdrawn the same on

behalf of Mrs. Khatri. Admittedly, the burden of proving the said fact is

on the petitioner which he has not discharged. The opinion of

handwriting expert is taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer and

Competent Authority along with the oral evidence of the witnesses.

Regarding charge (iii) the petitioner has not denied that he availed the

loan from the outside agencies.

15. The Competent Authority had considered the evidence in both

the enquiries and accordingly imposed the punishment. In second

charge-sheet, the petitioner was charged with the allegation that on

27/03/2008 he had withdrawn an amount of Rs.40,000/- from HSS

account No.5029 in his own handwriting and payment was made on the

basis of forge signature of the customer by posting and passing the

withdrawal. It is observed by the Competent Authority that the

Presenting Officer adduced the evidence that the petitioner filled up the

withdrawal in his own handwriting by putting signature of Mrs. Khatri

himself posted and passed the withdrawal of Rs.40,000/- from the

account of Mrs. Khatri. The evidence and findings of the Competent

Authority further shows that in lieu of posting the withdrawal, the

petitioner has put payment Scroll No.34 in his own handwriting on the

withdrawal and in lieu of passing it put his signature. This fact is also

clarified while verifying the original back-up by which it was observed

that the petitioner has cleverly posted the withdrawal of account

No.5029 to account No.1385. The withdrawal of Rs.40,000/- was

brought by the petitioner to the Branch and account holder had not

visited the Branch on that day. This fact was expelled by witness Mrs.

Ganar who was working as a Cashier at Wadgaon Branch. She

specifically stated that the withdrawal of Rs.40,000/- from account

No.5029 was part of transaction dated 27/03/2008. The withdrawal slip

is with the voucher but entry was not found in the payment scroll. The

petitioner had deleted the same entry from the old system that is New

Line Soft Informatics (P) Ltd., Udaipur. The findings regarding charge

(ii) of the second charge-sheet shows that the petitioner had allegedly

withdrawn Rs.50,000/- from C.D. account No.265. It is observed from

the exhibits and evidence that the act of the petitioner covered under the

Cyber crime, as per the witnesses examined by the Presenting Officer the

petitioner had issued the altered statements of HSS account No.1385 to

Block Development Officer in his capacity as an Officer. As per the

evidence, the petitioner by using his skill in the field of Computer

Application had cleverly made alterations in the software system

when he was working as a Passing Officer. The old software of New Line

Soft Informatics (P) Ltd. was terminated from 15/11/2008 and no

vouchers feeding were done in old software afterwards. The petitioner

had issued unauthorised/tampered statements of account No.1385 of

Block Development Officer's account for the month of November, 2008

to May, 2009 generated from the old system. He also issued

adjusted/tampered statement of account No.1385 to the Block

Development Officer from old software Bank 2002. It reveals from the

noting of the Enquiry Officer that Branch Manager Shri Taksande has

shown the demonstration about the same. The Competent Authority

further noted the past and previous records of the petitioner which

shows that the erstwhile Yavatmal Gramin Bank, Yavatmal kept the

petitioner under suspension and the charge-sheet was issued to him on

12/09/1995 for dishonest character, doubtful integrity and indiscipline

attitude towards Superior and punishment was awarded to him.

16. Admittedly, this Court cannot re-appreciate and re-analyze

the evidence unless it can be shown that the findings are perverse. It is

recently observed by this Court in Laxman B. Panmant Vs. Nuclear

Power Corporation of India 2022 (4) Mh.L.J. 603 that the writ Court

does not re-appreciate and re-analyze evidence unless it can be shown

that findings are perverse. Evaluation of evidence is to be left to the fact

finding Committee.

17. Though in the present case, the petitioner had claimed that he

was forced by the Enquiry Officer to lead evidence in support of his

defence prior to leading evidence of management witnesses but this

ground was not raised by him in his appeal before the Appellate

Authority. First time, he raised this issue before this Court. Even he had

not made any grievances before the Enquiry Officer to show that he was

forced to lead evidence before the evidence of management witnesses.

His second submission is that charge of withdrawal of the amount from

the account of Mrs. Khatri is not supported by any evidence is not

sustainable as there is detailed discussion regarding the evidence in

Enquiry report as well as the order passed by the Competent Authority.

The petitioner further urged that the documents claimed by him were

not produced and after repeated request said documents were not given

to him. This fact is also not supported as the Enquiry Officer has

recorded on 29/11/2010 by putting some questions to the petitioner

before starting the proceedings. The said recordings are referred here

for the reference :

"EO : TO CSO :--- Whether you have visited for verification of documents on 30/10/2010. CSO :-- Yes I have visited the Wadgaon Branch on 30/10/2010 and verified of all the documents submitted in the enquiry EO to PO :-- Proceed further.

PO:-- On 30/10/2010 CSO and my self visited Wadgaon (Yevatmal) Branch for verification of documents. During verification I have handed over certified copies of 05 vouchers to CSO. I am submitting these documents to the enquiry along with acknowledgement of CSO having received these documents. You are requested to accept these documents as Management Exhibits and give them numbers.

CSO:-- I have received these documents and I have no objection to accept them as management exhibits."

18. The Enquiry report also shows that the petitioner was given

certified copies of exhibits/documents filed by the Presenting Officer

before enquiry. He further noted that considering relevance of

documents, which may found useful to him for defence, opportunities for

verification and discovery of documents was given to the petitioner.

Efforts was made at every point of time to satisfy the petitioner by giving

due natural justice to defend him. All charges are based on documentary

evidence. The petitioner was given an opportunity for verification of

documents and discovery of documents by visiting at Wadgaon Branch.

Thus, this contention of the petitioner that the relevant documents are

not supplied to him is also not sustainable in the light of the above

findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and which is not challenged by

the petitioner before the Appellate Authority.

19. Shri Joshi, learned Counsel relied upon Roop Singh Negi

(supra) wherein it is held that no witness was examined to prove the

documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents

and did not prove the contents thereof. Here in the present case, the

witnesses are examined by the Presenting Officer and the evidence of

these witnesses shows that it was the petitioner who had generated the

closing statement as well as filled up the withdrawal form. Therefore,

cited case law is not helpful to the petitioner. In the case of Nirmala J.

Jhala (supra) the principle of enquiry procedure is discussed.

Admittedly, said procedure is to be followed in every enquiry.

20. Shri Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents

rightly relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and ors. (supra) wherein

the scope of interference by the High Court is discussed under writ

jurisdiction.

21. Integrity and honesty is the essence of the organisation

especially in banking sector. During the entire process of departmental

enquiry, the petitioner did not raise issue of being deprived of reasonable

opportunity. Though he raised the ground that the necessary documents

are not given to him but as observed that noting of the Enquiry Officer is

sufficient to show that proper opportunity was granted to him.

Admittedly, the principles which govern a disciplinary enquiry are

distinct from those which apply to criminal trial. The purpose of a

disciplinary proceedings by an employer is to inquire into an allegation

of misconduct by an employee which results in violation of service rules.

In a criminal trial, charge has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt

whereas in a disciplinary proceedings charge of misconduct has to be

established on a preponderance of probabilities.

22. As observed that in the exercise of judicial review this Court

does not act as an Appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary

authority. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of

which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a

disciplinary enquiry. While exercising writ jurisdiction the exercise of

judicial review is restricted to determine whether the rules of natural

justice have been complied with. The notings of the Enquiry Officer that

every opportunity was given to the petitioner to examine the witnesses

as well as to inspect the documents. The petitioner himself had admitted

during his statement before Enquiry Officer on 29/11/2010 by which he

had stated that he had visited the Wadgaon Branch on 30/10/2010 and

verified all the documents submitted in the enquiry. He further admitted

that he received these documents and he had no objection to accept

them as management exhibits. This fact itself is sufficient to show that

the rules of natural justice have been complied with. The statutory rules

governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry appears to be observed

by giving proper opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner had not

made out the case that the finding of misconduct is based on no

evidence. In fact, the findings of misconduct appears to be on the basis

of oral as well as documentary evidence. The petitioner also failed to

show that the finding of the disciplinary authority suffers from

perversity. Thus, none of the tests for attracting the interference of this

Court are satisfied in the present case. The enquiry was conducted in

accordance with the principles of natural justice. The findings of the

Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority are sustainable with

reference to the evidence which was adduced during the enquiry. In the

result, as writ petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.

23. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

24. Rule stands discharged.

                                      (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)                 (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)


                                *Divya




Signed By:DIVYA SONU BALDWA
Personal Assistant
Signing Date:20.09.2022 10:45