[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Prabhakar Ramdas Patil vs Chairman And M.D. Union Bank Of India And ... on 9 December, 2025
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2025:BHC-NAG:13920-DB
1 wp19.2012..docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 19 OF 2012
Prabhakar Ramdas Patil,
Age 56 yrs, Occ. Retired,
r/o. 12 Renuka Nagri
Behind Uddyog Bhawan,
Waghpur Road, Yeotmal .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. Chairman & Managing Director
Union Bank of India 239 Back
Reclamation, Nariman Point
Vidhan Bhawan Marg,
Mumbai 400 021
2. The General Manager (P)
HRMD Union Bank of India,
Central Office Nariman Point
Mumbai 400 021
3. Regional Manager
Union Bank of India
Regional Office 34/2
Ashirvad Commercial Complex
Central Bazar Road, Ramdaspeth
Nagpur 440 010
4. Chief Manager
Union Bank of India,
Zonal Office 67 Jivan
Prakash Shivaji Nagar,
LIC Building
Pune 411 005 .....RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Joher Shakir, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Rajeev Chhabra, Adocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- ANIL S. KILOR, &
RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ.
Belkhede, PS
2 wp19.2012..docx
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT :20.11.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT : 09.12.2025
JUDGMENT (PER : RAJNISH R. VYAS)
Heard Mr. Johar Shakir, learned counsel for petitioner and
Mr. Rajendra Chhabra, learned counsel for respondents.
2. By way of this order, we are testing validity and propriety of the
Disciplinary Proceedings initiated by the respondent bank against its
employee i.e. the present petitioner. The petitioner has been awarded
punishment of compulsory retirement from services. The evidence and the
proceedings of Disciplinary Enquiry are tested in the backdrop of various
propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The learned
counsel for the respondent bank has cited following judgments in support
of its case.
i) Indian Oil Corporation & Ors Vs. Ajit Kumar Singh &
Anr, decided by Hon'ble Apex Court on 17.5.2023, in Civil
Appeal No. 3663/2023,
ii) State of Karnataka and anr Vs. Umesh, (2022)6SCC 563,
iii) State of Rajasthan and Ors Vs. Heem Singh, (2021)12SCC 569,
iv) Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others Vs.
Ajai Kumar Srivastava, (2021)2SCC 612,
v) State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya,
Belkhede, PS
3 wp19.2012..docx
(2011)4 SCC 584,
vii) M.L. Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank and Anr, (2018) 18 SCC
21,
viii) B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Ors, (1995)6 SCC 749,
xi) State of Mysore and Os Vs. Shivabasappa Shivappa Makapur,
AIR (1963) SC 375,
xii) Sripati Ranjan Biswas Vs. Collector of Customs and Other, AIR
1964 Calcutta 415.
3. We have gone through the aforesaid judgments. What emerges
are the following principles while deciding the Departmental Enquiry:
a) Power of judicial review is evaluation of the decision
making process and not the merits of the decision;
b) Court in exercise of judicial review, must restrict its view
to determine whether -
(i) rules of natural justice have been complied
with and the findings of misconduct based on
some evidence;
(ii) statutory rules governing conduct of
disciplinary enquiry were followed;
(iii) findings of disciplinary authority suffer from
perversity,
(iv) penalty disproportionate to prove
misconduct.
4. The proof in disciplinary proceedings is preponderance of
probability. Court will not interfere except where findings are based on no
Belkhede, PS
4 wp19.2012..docx
evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The facts narrated above
would be decided on the basis of aforesaid principles.
5. The petitioner, an employee of the respondent bank was
appointed on 30.6.1983, as a Clerk in the bank. On 12.1.2007, he was
posted as Assistant Manager at Dhanki Branch, Yavatmal but working as
Cashier. On 17.4.2009, memorandum containing article of charges was
served upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority/Chief Manager of
the bank and the charges were as under:
i) Failure to discharge his duties with almost devotion and
diligence,
ii) Failure to discharge his duties with almost honesty and
integrity,
iii) Failure to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the
interest of bank,
iv) Acting otherwise than his best judgment in performance
of his official duties.
Memorandum containing article of charges was also supported
by statement of allegations. In short, it was the case of the respondent bank
that petitioner, while working as Assistant Manager at Dhanki branch, had
accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 20,000/- from one of the proposed
Belkhede, PS
5 wp19.2012..docx
borrowers. The petitioner subsequently returned the said amount in two
installments of Rs. 17,000/- and Rs. 3,000/-, during vigilance enquiry.
This fact indicates acceptance of illegal gratification from borrowers of
bank.
6. It was also the case of the bank that an amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs
was credited in his account on 19.10.2007. The clarification given by the
petitioner regarding source of income was not satisfactory. As per bank,
the petitioner had visited some of the borrowers at their residence along
with the agent of tractor dealer for canvasing loan proposal. It was also
stated that the person from whom amount of Rs. 20,000/- was accepted
was Mr. Punjaram Halde.
7. In order to further support its case, it was the case of the bank
that the petitioner had gone to residence of Mr. Chim (superior officer of
the petitioner) and brought the amount of Rs. 20,000/- from Mr. Chim for
repaying to Mr. Halde. Consequently, the respondent bank, after following
certain procedure, appointed Inquiring Authority Presenting Officer. The
petitionerchargesheeted officer (CSO), was given assistance by the
Belkhede, PS
6 wp19.2012..docx
Assistant Officer (AO) Mr. R.A. Bhosale. The respondent bank, in order to
prove the case on the basis of preponderance of probabilities has examined
a witness by name Mr. A.K. Pandit, attached to respondent bank as Senior
Manager. Further, he was subjected to cross examination. Defence witness
was one Mr.Vilas Kautkar and thereafter, the enquiry was closed. Enquiry
Officer, after preparation of inquiry report submitted the same to the
Disciplinary Authority by giving opportunity to the petitioner to rebut his
finding given against him. On 27.4.2010, the Disciplinary
Authority/Chief Manager imposed the Manager penalty of "compulsory
retirement from the services of the bank with immediate effect". An appeal
filed against the order met the same fate, on 28.2.2011, at the hands of
Appellate Authority/Assistant General Manager (IR). Even before the
Reviewing Authority fortune did not favour the petitioner which resulted
into dismissal of the review proceedings on 29.8.2011. Thus, the petitioner
has approached this Court.
8. We have extensively heard Mr. Johar Shakir, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Rajiv Chhabra, learned counsel for respondents
bank. We have also gone through various judgments cited by both the
Belkhede, PS
7 wp19.2012..docx
parties.
9. It is the case of the petitioner that there is absolutely no
evidence to punish the him and therefore, the Court, considering the
parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, should interfere with the
orders impugned. According to him, the allegations are not even proved
on the basis of preponderance of probability. It is his case that the principle
of burden of proof be shifted upon delinquent on the basis of
preponderance of probability also. The employer is required to at least
demonstrate a prima facie case.
10. In this matter, it is clear that though it has been alleged that the
petitioner has accepted an amount towards illegal gratification to the tune
of Rs. 20,000/- from one of the proposed borrower Mr. Punjaram Halde
(page 30) but fact remains that he has not been examined by the
respondent bank. Further, the contention of the employer that the
aforesaid amount of Rs. 20,000/- was returned in two installments is also
not supported by any evidence. In this regard, reference can be made to
page 90 which is statement of allegations (annexure to Article of Charge)
Belkhede, PS
8 wp19.2012..docx
wherein it is observed that "one of the proposed borrower Mr Punjaram
Halde has paid an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to Mr. Patil for sanction of his
loan. Vigilance Department officials discussed this issue with Mr. Patil.
He denied of having taken of any money. Subsequently on 10.3.2008,
Mr. Patil visited the hotel room of the Vigilance Department officials at
Yavatmal and stated that he is connected unnecessarily in the involvement
of controversy and on the previous day he has gone to the residence of
Mr. Chin, the then Branch Manager of Dhanki Branch and brought an
amount of Rs. 20,000/- from Mr. Chin for repaying it to Mr. Halde.
If the said statement of allegations are perused in the
background of the Disciplinary Enquiry which is carried out, it would be
crystal clear that neither Mr. Halde, Mr. Chim and the officer for Vigilance
Department were examined. The foundational facts even for deciding the
allegations on the basis of per-ponderance of probability are missing,
therefore, it can be said that there is absolutely no evidence in support of
charge.
11. In so far as charge levelled against the petitioner that a credit
entry of Rs. 1,15,000/- which is allegedly disproportionate to the known
Belkhede, PS
9 wp19.2012..docx
source of income appear in the O.D. account is concerned, the said
allegation is also not based on any evidence. In his explanation, the
petitioner has specifically stated (page 91), that the credit entry of Rs.
1,15,000/- cannot be termed as an income disproportionate to his known
sources as according to him, amount was withdrawn from his OD account
to lent to his father in law. He has further stated that on 6.4.2009, he has
received amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from his father in law for marriage of
petitioner's daughter. He further stated that witness of employer though
took into consideration credit entry but did not notice the debit entry.
Thus, there is absolutely no evidence to arrive at the conclusion that the
said amount was in any manner disproportionate.
12. So far as contention of counsel for the bank that in order to
prove the innocence, the employee/petitioner could have examined either
Mr. Halde or Chim is without any substance. In this regard it is necessary
to mention here that the concept of preponderance of probability clearly
means that the bank is required to prove at least prima facie case and
thereafter, can proceed against the employee. Preponderance of probability
would mean that one version is more convincing and probable than other.
Belkhede, PS
10 wp19.2012..docx
In this case, shifting burden on the employee will not be permissible as one
set of fact at least will have to be proved (in case in hand by bank) in order
to disbelieve story of the employer. Thus, scale tilts in favour of the
probability that employee did not accept any amount.
13. It is further necessary to mention here that the enquiry officer
in his enquiry report has observed as under: (page 25)
"When, defence claim that CSO was innocent and falsely
implicated by Mr. Chim in this episode, then why he went
to Mr. Chim on 9-3-2008 and brought back Rs. 20,000/0-,
in order to pay back the amount to Mr. Halde? The
Chargesheeted Officer did denied initially that Mr. Halde
paid him Rs. 20,000/- but did not remain firm on his
denial, why?
The aforesaid observation clearly shows that the reasoning
adopted by the enquiry officer is strange and it is very difficult to gather
what is "firmness" according to the enquiry officer.
14. The further observations of the enquiry officer at page 25, are
produced herein below:
"ii) The CSO did not resist the serious nature wrong
practices in general and more particularly the practices of
giving and taking of illegal gratifications. There is no
evidence brought by the CSO to show that he did report to
Belkhede, PS
11 wp19.2012..docx
the controlling office about the serious natured practice
going on in the branch, under managership of Mr. Chim.
The CSO was silent about this issue. His silence speaks
volume about his misconduct at the branch. Merely,
arguing that CSO was innocent does not refute the
allegation."
It is thus crystal clear that the report was thus best more than
inferences than the facts. In fact, in articles of charge, no such allegations
were made (page 88 of Pursis dated 30.3.2023).
15. As far as allegations regarding that CSO did canvas with the
agent of tractor dealers for the loan proposals of the prospective buyer is
concerned, we could not find any material in support of said allegations.
As already stated, only one witness was examined during the inquiry at the
behest of employee-bank. The documentary evidence produced also does
not support the charge. Recently, Hon'ble Apex Court while deciding Civil
Appeal No.13017/2025 on 27.10.2025, (arising out of SLP (Civil No.
30819/2025) V.M. Saudagar (dead) through legal heirs Vs. The Divisional
Commissioner Manager, Central Railway and another, has set aside the
punishment imposed upon the employee of dismissal. In that case, the
delinquent was serving as a travel ticket examiner and on a day a surprise
Belkhede, PS
12 wp19.2012..docx
check was conducted by vigilance team. It was alleged that delinquent had
demanded illegal gratification from passengers which included Rs. 25/-
from one Hemant Kumar, unrefunded Rs. 20/- from Dinesh Chaudhary
and unrefunded Rs. 5/- from Rajkumar Jaiswal for allotment of bus. The
delinquent was found in possession of excess cash of Rs. 1254/- excluding
personal and railway cash. During course of enquiry, Dinesh Chaudhary
and Rajkumar Jaiswal, along with vigilance inspector were examined but
primary complainant - Hemantkumar whose written statement formed the
basis of charge, was not examined during the enquiry and his statement
was never subjected to cross-examination.
16. Hon'ble Apex Court, in para 17.1 has observed "in respect of 1 st
charge of demanding illegal gratification from 3 passengers for allotment of
berths in the train, it to be seen that one of the passengers, namely, Hemant
Kumar was not examined and the other two passengers, namely Dinesh
Chaudhary and Rajkumar Jaiswal have not supported the charge against
the appellant".
Considering the aforesaid aspect also, the Court, in paragraph
18, while setting aside punishment of dismissal has observed as under:
Belkhede, PS
13 wp19.2012..docx
"The High Court has failed to take note of legal position
that when the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse
basing on completely misleading of the material produced
before the enquiry officer, CAT was fully justified in setting
aside the order of penalty".
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied upon
judgment in case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi and ors Vs. Jai
Bhagwan, reported in 2011(6)SCC 376 and relevant portion is reproduced
as under:
15. In the present case, although there is some evidence that
an amount of Rs. 100 was returned by the respondent to the
complainant but there is no such direct and reliable
evidence produced by the appellants in the departmental
proceedings which could clearly prove and establish that the
respondent demanded and received an illegal gratification of
the said denomination. It seems that the proof of taking
such illegal gratification has been drawn from the evidence
of returning of Rs. 100/- to the complainant by way of a
link-up.
16. It also seems quite impracticable to presume that in the
presence of so many passengers, the respondent could have
extorted money. The allegation of receiving Rs. 100 as
illegal gratification is framed on suspicions and possibilities
while trying to link it up with the instance of returning back
of Rs. 100/- by the respondent to the complainant. There
are many other shortcomings in the entire investigation and
the enquiry like the statement of Mr.s Ranjana Kapoor was
not recorded by the Inspector and the Inspector also did not
take down in writing and also attest the complaint made by
her. The statement of S.P. Narang was also not recorded by
the Inspector nor did the Inspector seize Rs. 100 note nor
Belkhede, PS
14 wp19.2012..docx
noted down its number. Mr. Narang was also not examined
during the course of departmental proceedings. Non
examination of the complainant and P.S. Narang during the
departmental proceeding has denied the respondent of his
right of cross examination and thus caused violation of Rule
16(iii) of the Delhi Police (F&A) Rules, 1980.
The underlying principle of the aforesaid judgment can very
well be made applicable to the case in hand as in the instant case also, there
is absence of definite /clear proof supporting the case of the bank to a
finding of taking illegal gratification by the petitioner employee.
18. In the aforesaid background, we also of the view that there was
absolutely no material before the enquiry officer to arrive at the conclusion
that charges are proved. The disciplinary authority ought not to have
awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement and should have
considered the fact that there was absolutely no evidence. Just because
there is an entry in bank account, we cannot arrive at the conclusion that it
was illegal gratification. Even the Disciplinary Authority has not taken
into consideration the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to return the
finding of guilt. The Enquiry Officer thus, relied upon no evidence and
held charges to be proved. In the aforesaid background, we are of the
Belkhede, PS
15 wp19.2012..docx
opinion that case is of no evidence and therefore, petition needs to be
allowed. Accordingly, we allow the petition and quash and set aside the
order dated 27.4.2020 (at annexure 3 dated 27.4.2010) passed by
disciplinary authority/Chief Manager of Union Bank of India and
subsequent order passed by the appellate authority and reviewing
authority. Consequently, the petitioner shall be entitled for all service
benefits.
(RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)
Belkhede, PS
