Gauhati High Court
Chitta Ranjan Das vs The Punjab National Bank And 3 Ors on 19 May, 2021
Page No.# 1/39
GAHC010209642015
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/187/2015
CHITTA RANJAN DAS
S/O LT. NABIN CH. DAS, FOUZDARI PATTY, NEAR S.P. BUNGLOW, P.O.
andDIST- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782001
VERSUS
THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK and 3 ORS
REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD
OFFICE AT BHIKAJI COMAPLACE, NEW DELHI-1
2:THE GENERAL MANAGER PAD
APPELLATE AUTHORITY
PNB
HEAD OFFICE
7 BHIKAJI COMAPLACE
NEW DELHI-1
3:THE DY. GENERAL MANAGER
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
PNB
AG TOWARS
3RD FLOOR
125/1
PARK STREET
KOLKATA-17
4:THE CHIEF MANAGER
CIRCLE OFFICE
NORTH EAST CIRCLE NILGIRI MANSION
GS ROAD
BHANGAGARH
GHY-5
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/39
5:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI 19
6:THE DIST. ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER D.E.E.O
DHUBRI
ASSAM.
7:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER B.E.E.O
GOLAKGANJ
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.D PHUKAN
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.A GANGULYR-1TO3
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
The petitioner, herein, has sought to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order dated 25.01.2014, passed by the
disciplinary authority, imposing the petitioner, a major penalty of removal from service and
rejection order of the appellate authority vide order dated 30.04.2014 as well as the order of
the reviewing authority dated 24.09.2014.
2. Brief case of the petitioner that can be recapitulated from the pleadings that the
petitioner was serving in the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter, in short, 'PNB') for 34 years
and he was promoted to the post of Branch/Deputy Manager in Nagaon Branch of the Bank.
While he was posted as Branch Head of the Singia Branch of the Bank during the period from
26.07.2010 to 09.01.2013, large numbers of customers complained of non-receipt of loans
sanctioned against Kisan Credit Card (KCC), which was given to persons other than the actual
Page No.# 3/39
applicants.
Based on such complaints, the Zonal Audit Office conducted an investigation and the
internal auditor submitted a Special Report on 13.05.2013. In the report, auditor pointed out
certain irregularities committed at Branch Officer at Singia during the incumbency of the
petitioner in the said branch. In order to ensure a proper enquiry, the petitioner was placed
under suspension under the provisions of Punjab National Bank Officers' (Discipline and
Appeal) Regulations, 1977 ( the 1977 Regulations) and the petitioner was served with the
audit report, pointing the irregularities committed by him, vide letter dated 17.05.2013. Being
not satisfied with the reply, charge sheet under Provision 6 of the 1977 Regulations was filed
with article of charges, statement of imputations of charges in support of article of charges.
Statement of article of charges is as follows:-
"Article-I:
Shri Das, as Branch incumbent of BO, Singia, Assam, did not adhere to the
prescribed guidelines of the Bank. He sanctioned several KCC loans but did not ensure
proper pre-sanction appraisal. He sanctioned and disbursed the loans without
recommendation of 2nd man. Shri Das used third persons as middleman in the process
of sanction and disbursement of KCC loans and committed various irregularities.
Article-II:
Shri Das did not ensure KYC compliance in due loans sanctioned by him proper
identification of the borrowers/guarantors was not done.
Article-III:
Shri Das disbursed KCC loans but did not ensure that the loan amounts have
gone to the actual beneficiaries. There are cases of impersonation where KCC have
been sanctioned to persons other than the actual applicant or owner of the land. He
did not verify the end-use of funds.
Page No.# 4/39
Article-IV:
There are several cash and transfer transactions in his personal account which
are not related to his salary or any other known source of his income.
Thus, Shri Chitta Ranjan Das failed to take all possible steps to exercise and
protect the interest of the Bank and did not discharge his duties with utmost honesty,
integrity, devotion and diligence and has committed misconduct in terms of regulation
3 (i), read with regulation 24 of the PNB Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations,
1977."
3. Statement of imputation of misconduct in support of article of charges against the
petitioner read as follows:-
Sri Chitta Ranjan Das, Deputy Manager, BO, Nagaon, while working as an incumbent,
in-charge of BO, Singia, from 26.07.2010 to 09.01.2013, is alleged to have committed certain
irregularities, jeopardizing bank's interest. He did not adhere to the prescribed guidelines of
the bank and has committed the following irregularities:-
Charge-1 (1) Shri Das had engaged one Shri Nawaj Sharif as an agent for sanctioning
the loans. Shri Das did not visit to the place of the borrowers and sent them to Mr Nawaj
Sharif for processing the said loans. He used to route all fresh KCC borrowers through that
agent. Blank forms and documents were allowed to be kept under the custody of Shri Nawaj
Sharif. Shri Sharif used to execute all the loan documents either at his residence or at the
residence of the borrowers and submitted them to the Bank.
After Shri Das sanctioned the loans to the borrowers, the disbursements of the loans
were handed over to Shri Nawaj Sharif for distribution to the borrowers and in several cases
paid lesser amount to them. In a large number of cases loan proceeds were released to the
persons other than the actual applicants. There are 62 such cases. To quote a few:-
(Sl. Nos. 1 to 10) (For brevity, detail list, not mentioned).
Charge 1 (2) 264 cases of KCC loans sanctioned by Shri Das at the branch, the same
were sanctioned by him without the recommendation of the 2 nd man/2nd person of the
Branch. To quote a few (Rs. In lacs):-
Page No.# 5/39
(Sl. Nos. 1 to 20) (For brevity, detail list, not mentioned).
Charge 2 In 141 KCC loans sanctioned by Shri Das, proper ID proof and address
proof have not been held but loans have been sanctioned and disbursed by him. Thus, he did
not ensure KYC compliance in the loans sanctioned and disbursed by him. To quote a few
(Rs. In lacs):-
(Sl. Nos. 1 to 18) (For brevity, detail list, not mentioned).
Charge 3 (1) In the following 39 KCC loans sanctioned and disbursed by Shri Das during
his incumbency at BO Singia, the borrowers have neither signed the loan documents or
withdrawal forms of KCC, nor both and have not received the loan amounts, although in the
books of the Bank loan amounts are outstanding in their names. (Amt. in lacs)
(Sl. Nos. 1 to 39) (For brevity, detail list, not mentioned).
Charge 3 (2) There are impersonation in several KCC loans sanctioned by Shri CR Das
during his incumbency at BO: Singia. Photographs used for availing the loans are not the
persons whose bio-date, i.e., name, fame, address, and signature have been used in loan
documents in the following accounts:-
(Sl. Nos. 1 to 3) (For brevity, detail list, not mentioned).
Charge 3 (3) The following serious anomalies are also observed in several accounts:-
1. In Loan Account No. 88-9825 of Abul Basser, borrower is an illiterate person but
signature is appended in the loan documents and withdrawal forms which are
apparently forged.
2. Signature of the borrower UDDIN of Account 88-9791 tally with of a/c 88-9436
and a/c 88-9278. The borrowers have claimed that they have not signed the
documents and withdrawal forms of KCC.
3. Signature of the borrower UDDIN of Account 88-9287 tally with a/c 88-8394 and
borrowers have also claimed that they have not signed the documents and
withdrawal forms of KCC.
4. Signature of borrower ISLAM of Account 88-8482 tallies with signatures of a/c 88-
9685, a/c 88-8543, a/c 88-8659, a/c no. 88-8613, a/c no. 88-11064, a/c no. 88-
Page No.# 6/39
864-, a/c no. 88-9171, a/c no. 88-8279 and a/c no. 88-9214, but Shri ISLAM has
claimed that he has not signed the other documents and withdrawal forms of KCC.
5. Signature of borrower RAHMAN of account 888093 tallies with signatures of a/c
88-8118, a/c no. 88-8084, a/c. 88-9302. Shri Rahman has also claimed that he has
not signed the documents and withdrawal forms of KCC.
6. Signature of borrower ALI of account 88-8871 tallies with signatures on a/c 88-
11453, a/c No. 88-10214 borrowers have claimed that he has not signed the
documents and withdrawal forms of KCC.
7. Signature of borrower ALI of Account 888485 tallies with the signature of a/c No.
889889.
8. Signature of borrower ALI of Account 88-8710, tallies with signatures of a/c 88-
8808, a/c 88-7942, a/c 88-8792 and a/c 88-9056.
9. Signatures of borrower ALI of account 88-9834, tallies with signatures of a/c
889490 and a/c No. 889180.
10. It appears that signature of borrower of ALI of Account 88-9117, 88-8862, 88-
8817, 88-11238, 88-7924 and a/c 88-8570, 88-7915 and 88-8792 tally.
11. Signatures of borrower UDDIN of Account 88-8729, tallies with signatures of a/c
88-8978, a/c 88-8853 and 88-8852.
12. Signature of borrower ABUL of account 889241, tallies with signatures of a/c No.
889825 and a/c no. 889782.
13. Signature of borrower HUSSAIN of account 88-11082 tallies with signature of a/c
no. 88-8260, 88-9597, a/c no. 88-7599 and a/c no. 88-11426.
14. Thumb impressions of borrowers of loan documents and KCC withdrawal forms
differ from their actual thumb impressions of a/c 87544, a/c 88437, a/c no. 88385,
a/c 88136, a/c 88-9807, a/c 89755, a/c 88-9922, a/c 88-9630, a/c 88-8905 and
borrowers have claimed that they have neither put their thumb impressions on the
loan documents nor on withdrawal forms of KCC and not received the loan
amounts as shown as disbursed.
Page No.# 7/39
15. Thumb impressions of borrowers on KCC withdrawal forms differ from their actual
thumb impression of a/c 88-11134, a/c 88-10515, a/c 88-11028, a/c 88-9074, a/c
88-10454 and borrowers have claimed that they have not put their thumb
impression on both withdrawal forms of KCC and not received the loan amount as
disbursed.
16. Borrowers of the account number 88-9791, 88-10269, 88-9302, 88-8871, 88-9782,
88-11082, 88-9311, 88-9816, 88-9250 are claiming that they have neither signed
the loan documents nor withdrawal forms of KCC and not received the loan amount
as disbursed.
17. In KCC account number 88-11064, 88-8446, 88-11107, 88-10162, 88-10490, 88-
9773, 88-9777, 88-10506, 88-10092, 88-10117, 88-10171, there are two
withdrawals. The borrowers have claimed that they have not signed the 2 nd
withdrawal forms of KCC and not received the loan amount as shown disbursed as
per bank's record.
18. Borrowers of the account number 88-9214, 88-9825, 88-9533, 88-9223, have
claimed that they are illiterate borrowers and cannot sign. They have neither
signed nor put thumb impression on loan documents or on withdrawal forms of
KCC and not received the loan amount as shown disbursed as per the books and
record of the Bank.
The following cash deposit transactions in the personal accounts of Shri Das are of
suspicious nature as these entries do not relate to his known sources of income.
S.N. A/C DATE DEPOSIT
1 373000200023242 03-10-2011 18000
Page No.# 8/39
2 373000200023242 13-10-2011 40000
3 373000200023242 20-10-2011 100000
4 373000200023242 14-12-2011 20000
5 373000200023242 21-12-2011 10000
6 373000200023242 22-12-2011 5000
7 373000200023242 24-12-2011 40000
8 373000200023242 13-03-2012 20000
9 373000200023242 18-07-2012 30000
10 373000200023242 16-08-2012 10000
11 373000200023242 21-09-2012 20000
12 373000200023242 10-12-2012 10000
13 206000100064942 05-03-2012 50000
14 206000100064942 02-06-2012 40000
15 206000100064942 04-06-2012 20000
16 206000100064942 05-06-2012 13000
17 206000100064942 08-06-2012 20000
18 206000100064942 11-06-2012 50000
19 206000100064942 12-06-2012 53000
20 206000100064942 07-07-2012 30000
Page No.# 9/39
21 206000100064942 09-07-2012 25000
22 206000100064942 31-08-2012 10000
23 206000100064942 12-09-2012 10000
GRAND TOTAL ------ 644000
4. After receipt of the notice of charge and statement of imputations, the petitioner
submitted his statement on 06.02.2013, refuting all the charges. As against the Charge No. 1,
the petitioner submitted that one Nawaz Sharif was not an agent of the petitioner but he was
a business correspondence of the Bank, as per the record itself and the said Sharif was never
allowed by the petitioner to involve in the loan portfolio of the Branch, during his tenure at
that Branch. Further, it is stated that the allegations of 62 complainants that loan proceeds
have been given to persons other than the actual applicants, is also false as KCC withdrawal
slip contained the signature of the borrowers. Further as regards the allegations of
income/bank transactions, it has been contended that the amounts so deposited were the
contributions given by other family members, which were deposited in his account, in order
to construct a new house by demolishing the old one.
5. After conducting the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry
report on 28.01.2013, before the disciplinary authority, concluding that-
Charge 1 (1), proved.
Charge 1 (2), not proved.
Page No.# 10/39
Charge 2, not proved.
Charge 3 (1), not proved.
Charge 3 (2), not proved.
Charge 3 (3), partly proved.
Charge 4, proved.
And disciplinary authority accepted the same.
6. According to the petitioner, the disciplinary authority, without giving due opportunity to
the petitioner being heard and also without due consideration of the relevant records and
evidence, as raised by the petitioner, came to wrong findings of facts and law and held the
petitioner guilty of charges as reported to be proved by the Enquiry Officer and passed the
order dated 25.01.2014, imposing a major penalty of removal from service under Regulation
4 (1) of the PNB Officers Employees Regulations and further hold that the period of
suspension of petitioner will not be treated as a period spent on duty and that the petitioner
will not be entitled for any salary/increment for the period, except the subsistence allowance.
In terms of the impugned order of disciplinary authority, the petitioner was removed from the
service. On the appeal so preferred by the petitioner, challenging the impugned order of the
disciplinary authority, the appellate authority without proper appreciation of the matter and
good reasoning rejected the appeal by order dated 01.02.2014 and confirmed the major
penalty of removal from service of the petitioner. The review petition preferred against the
order of the appellate authority was rejected vide order dated 13.12.2014, without application
of mind.
7. Now, the petitioner challenges that none of the charges were proved as against the
Page No.# 11/39
petitioner as held by the Enquiring authority and confirmed by the disciplinary authority and
all the subsequent order(s) of the appellate authority as well as the reviewing authority are
void and liable to be quashed and set aside. It is alleged that the findings of the Enquiry
Officer itself is based on no evidence, but despite the petitioner was hurriedly held guilty by
all the respondent authorities, accepting the report of the Enquiry Committee. It contends
that the respondent authority has totally discarded the evidence adduced by the petitioner
that 5 (five) defence witnesses (which were out of the 62 complainants of the case) have
given the evidence in favour of the petitioner. Those defence witnesses (who were alleged
complainants in the said case) have specifically stated that the loans have been disbursed to
them by cash payment by the insurer of the Bank, which is also reflected from the copy of
withdrawal slip of the Bank. Strangely, the cashier of the bank concerned was also not
(examined)/produced before the Enquiry Officer, so as to show his signature on the
withdrawal documents, while arriving at the findings-"that large cash of loan amount was
released to the persons other than the applicants," without supporting evidence.
8. Further, it contends that findings of departmental authority is not based on materials
on record, hence, perverse. The disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority and
the reviewing authority have failed to apply their minds judiciously and imposed a very harsh
punishment, without taking into consideration, the materials on record and discarded the
evidence adduced by the petitioner's side in a haste manner. The respondent authorities did
not consider the prayer of the petitioner to verify the signature on the documents by a
Government Examiner for the Questioned Documents (GEQD). It is submitted that despite
there being no any conclusive proof of the allegations in Charges Nos. 1 (1), 3 (3), 4, they
came to an unreasonable conclusion that the charges have been proved, based on conjecture
Page No.# 12/39
and surmises. The Presenting Officer (PO) could not produce all the relevant records and
documents, as required, to arrive at a conclusive finding to prove the charges, whereas the
petitioner has been able to raise all legal defence to refute the charges. It contends that the
departmental enquiry and disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority and the
reviewing authority decided the matter, not according to the prescribed Rules and law and
violated the basic principles of natural justice, by not following such settled principles of law
and whereas, the punishment imposed is also not proportionate to the charges leveled.
Accordingly, it is submitted that it is a fit case for judicial review and the petitioner is liable to
be exonerated from the charges and to provide him all the service benefits, including the
pensionary benefit.
9. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4, in their joint affidavit have submitted that the petitioner
has not approached the Court with clean hands, but has suppressed the material facts. It is
stated that the petitioner, while posted at Singia Branch, during the period from 26.07.2010 to
09.01.2013, a large number of complaints were received, related to bank transactions and
based upon such complaints, Zonal Audit Office, Kolkata conducted an investigation and the
Internal Senior Auditor submitted a special report on 13.05.2013. As per the report, very
serious irregularities were committed by at the Branch Office, Singia during the service tenure
of the petitioner at the said Branch. Accordingly, in order to ensure a proper enquiry, the
petitioner was placed under suspension as per the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees
(Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977 and he was asked to reply upon the charges, which
was issued by the Circle Head/Disciplinary Authority and forwarded to him by the letter dated
17.05.2013.
10. Accordingly, the reply submitted by petitioner was duly considered and rejected, as the
Page No.# 13/39
Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the said reply. As per the statement of
Imputation of Misconduct in support of the Article of Charge against the petitioner, the
allegations were framed into four separate charges in relation to the various acts of
commission and omission on the part of the petitioner during his service as the Branch
Manager of Singia Branch. The petitioner was directed to file his reply thereto within a period
of seven days from the date of receipt of the same. The 4 articles of charges have been
divided as follows:-
Article-I: Charge 1 (1) and 1 (2)
Article-II: Charge 2
Article-III: Charge 3 (1) to Charge 3 (3)
Article-IV: Charge 4
11. The Enquiry Officer initiated the enquiry proceedings and a preliminary hearing was
conducted on 27.11.2013, at the Circle office, Guwahati and, thereafter, the regular hearings
were held on 04.12.2013, 09.12.2013, 14.12.2013 and 17.12.2013. The enquiry concluded on
17.12.2013. The Presenting Officer produced a large number of documents in support of the
charges, which were brought on record in the Proceeding Register and were marked as
Management Exhibits, ME-1 to ME-126. The petitioner as charged officer, produced 5
witnesses in his defence and they were cross-examined by the Presenting Officer. On
completion of the enquiry, written brief was submitted by the Presenting Officer on
30.12.2013 and by the petitioner on 07.01.2014. On completion of the Enquiry proceedings,
the Enquiry Officer on 10.01.2014, submitted his Enquiry Report to the Disciplinary Authority.
The Disciplinary Authority endorsed the view with some own findings.
Page No.# 14/39
Consequently, Article-I is proved, Article-II is not proved, Article III is partly proved and
Article IV is proved. Denying all the allegations that there is violation of natural justice and
non-adherence to the procedure, that denial of opportunity of presenting the defence
statement properly, that there is violation of Rules in every stage of proceeding, it has been
contended that all the proceeding has been conducted having regard to the Rules and
procedure and on natural justice. The allegation about non-examination of the author of
document is totally immaterial and inconsequential as the documents were introduced and
exhibited during the enquiry proceedings without any objection. Finally, it contends that the
petition lacks merit and liable to be dismissed.
12. Countering the affidavit filed by the respondents, the petitioner, herein, has also filed
affidavit-in-reply, contending that the five witnesses who were the borrowers, as well as
alleged complainants in the said proceeding have admitted that they have received the
amount sanctioned against the KCC. So far as regards the engagement of Nawaj Sharif, it is
stated that he was engaged by the respondent Bank under the scheme of i-Mitra and Nawaj
along with other 7 persons were selected by the bank, to carry out the financial inclusion
activities and Nawaj not only helped the concerned branch manager to recover the loan
amount, but also he conveyed any information either oral or written regarding loan to the
borrower sanctioned by the bank. In addition to doing said works sometimes, the Field
Business correspondent helped the borrower to fill up the loan application as well as other
clerical works. Therefore, the branch manager of the particular branch has no role to play
regarding their selection and appointment. So, the question of Nawaj Sharif who was
appointed as a Field Business Correspondent under the scheme of i-25 was working as an
agent of the present deponent does not arise and all the borrowers who applied for KCC loan
Page No.# 15/39
has received the loan amount by signing the PNB Krishi Card withdrawals voucher available in
the documents submitted by the Presenting Officer which were marked as ME33, MEJ, ME2,
ME39 to ME70. The Presenting Officer had also confirmed that the signature of various loan
documents have tallied with the specimen signature in the respective account opening form,
which were opened with same customer ID of borrowers. The Presenting Officer has failed to
substantiate the charges with proper documents.
Further, it submits that no fresh record is required to be produced before the appellate
authority as contended. The disciplinary authority rejected the prayer of the petitioner to
verify and examine the signatures/handwriting of borrowers through Government examiner
for question documents. The authority has not taken note of 34 years' of unblemished career
of the petitioner and without appreciating the relevant documents as well as the defence
witnesses produced by the petitioner and whereas, those witnesses/borrowers have
categorically stated that they have received the loan amount and on the pressure of the
senior Investigating Officer, they have signed the complaint letters. Thus, it contends that the
punishment imposed is quite illegal and against the settled principles of law and natural
justice. The disciplinary authority has failed to verify the withdrawal slips through concerned
bank as the borrowers have savings account at the time of granting the loan with all details,
but no such due verification of documents of borrowers, bank accounts etc. was done to
prove the charge.
13. Initiating the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr S K Talukdar, has
vehemently, submitted that it is a case of no evidence to prove the charge to hold the
petitioner guilty of the allegation that has been made. Despite the petitioner adduced
evidence to rebut the allegations, the same was not at all considered at any levels. Finding of
Page No.# 16/39
Enquiry Officer is totally out of logic as he came to a conclusion of proof of charge against the
petitioner, whereas, the Presenting Officer did not examine any witness. They chose to reject
the evidence of the petitioner's side without any justifiable/cogent reasons with pre-occupied
mind.
14. Referring to the report of the Presiding Officer as well as the Enquiry Officer, it has
been submitted that there is no application of mind by the Enquiry Officer and he failed to
exercise a quasi-judicial function. While the Presenting Officer himself failed to examine any
witnesses in support of the allegations, the findings of the Enquiry Officer of its own
interpretation, while arriving at the conclusion is prima facie illegal. The findings of the
Presenting Officer and the Enquiry Officer has been read out before this Court to submit that
while the Presenting Officer himself is confused about the proof of the charge, the Enquiry
Officer imposed opinion of his own without any basis. Similarly, finding of the disciplinary
authority is again perverse as there is no appreciation of Enquiry Report, rather wrong
appreciation. Same is the fate of appellate authority as well as reviewing authority, who has
simply echoed the report of the Enquiry Officer, without any sort of appreciation of their own
as to whether the foundation of charge has been substantiated by requisite evidence.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner has led this Court towards the relevant Punjab
National Bank Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 and has submitted that
there is blatant violation of the rules and procedure at every stage by the Department.
However, the departmental proceeding was concluded with an unprecedented haste, as
enquiry was initiated on 27.11.2013 and concluded on 22.12.2013 and furnished on
25.12.2013, prior to his retirement, on 31.12.2013. Further, it has been vehemently
contended that decision relied by the respondents' side are factually different and not
Page No.# 17/39
applicable in the present case, as it is a case of no evidence, whereas the proposition of law
laid down in the aforesaid decisions is on different context that in absence of direct evidence
circumstantial evidence can be relied. But it has not set forth a proposition that a charge can
be proved without evidence, whereas, the present case is of no direct or circumstantial
evidence. Without even producing the original document/concerned complainant/bank
officials etc. charges are held to be proved on disputed/unsubstantiated document.
Further, it has been submitted that the contention raised by the respondents' side, that
the petitioner has not denied the authenticity of the complaint and document is totally
without basis and beyond record. The reply of the petitioner to the Enquiry Officer has been
referred, wherein he has denied the complaint and some admission on undisputed documents
would not amount to admission of the allegation as has been projected by the respondents'
side. The decision relied upon by the respondents speaks about a situation when witness is
not necessary to examine, while the genuineness of the document is not objected, whereas,
same is not the case of the petitioner.
16. Mr Talukdar further contends that there is blatant violation of 6 (3) (5) (11) (12) (13)
(16) (21), 7 (4), 17 (4) and 18 of the PNB Regulations, in all stages of proceeding by the
respondent authority, while imposing such major penalty and thereby causing serious
prejudice to the petitioner, resulting in miscarriage of justice. Livelihood of the petitioner has
been taken away by imposing extreme penalty without prescribed legal procedure. It has
been vehemently contended that without examining any of the complainants and witnesses,
petitioner has been condemned to extreme penalty at the whims and caprice of the
respondent authority. The respondent authority cannot held the complaints to be proved,
unless the content is supported by the author of the document and mere exhibiting the
Page No.# 18/39
documents is not enough, in the parlance of law.
17. Refuting other contention of the respondents' side that there is no scope of judicial
review by the High Court under writ jurisdiction against the departmental proceeding (that
has been duly conducted by the bank authority), learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr
Talukdar has relied upon the following decisions, wherein, nature of departmental proceeding
and the scope of judicial review has been discussed:-
1) In Sawai Singh -Vs- State of Rajasthan (1986) 3 SCC 454 , it has been held that
where the charges are vague and the evidence is not sufficient to connect the
charged officer with the alleged misconduct, departmental enquiry is vitiated for
non-compliance of principles of natural justice and the consequent order of removal
from service held to be invalid.
2) In Kuldip Singh -Vs- Commissioner of Police; 1999 2 SCC 10, it has been held that
scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India is not
totally barred. Relevant paragraphs- 6, 7, 8 and 9 are reproduced below:-
"6. It is no doubt true that the High Court under Article 226 or this Court
under Article 32 would not interfere with the findings recorded at the
departmental enquiry by the disciplinary authority or the enquiry officer as a
matter of course. The Court cannot sit in appeal over those findings and
assume the role of the appellate authority. But this does not mean that in no
circumstance can the Court interfere. The power of judicial review
available to the High Court as also to this Court under the Constitution
takes in its stride the domestic enquiry as well and it can interfere
Page No.# 19/39
with the conclusions reached therein if there was no evidence to
support the findings or the findings recorded were such as could not
have been reached by an ordinary prudent man or the findings were
perverse or made at the dictates of the superior authority.
7. In Nand Kishore Prasad -Vs- State of Bihar, (1978) 3 SCC 366, it was
held that the disciplinary proceedings before a domestic tribunal are of quasi
judicial character and, therefore, it is necessary that the Tribunal should arrive
at its conclusions on the basis of some evidence, that is to say, such evidence
which and that too, with some degree of definiteness, points to the guilt of the
delinquent and does not leave the matter in a suspicious state as mere
suspicion cannot take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries. If,
therefore, there is no evidence to sustain the charges framed against the
delinquent, he cannot be held to be guilty as in that event, the findings
recorded by the enquiry officer would be perverse.
8. The findings recorded in a domestic enquiry can be characterized as
perverse, if it is shown that such findings are not supported by any evidence on
record or are not based on the evidence adduced by the parties or no
reasonable person could have come to those findings on the basis of that
evidence. This principle was laid down by this Court in State of A.P. -Vs- Rama
Rao; AIR 1963 SC 1723; in which the question was whether the High Court
under Article 226 could interfere with the findings recorded at the departmental
enquiry. This decision was followed in Central Bank of India Ltd. -Vs- Prakash
Chand Jain; (1969) 2 LLJ 377 and Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai
Page No.# 20/39
Patel; AIR 1976 SC 98. In Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn; (1984) 4 SCC
635, it was laid down that where the findings of misconduct are based on no
legal evidence and the conclusion is one to which no reasonable man could
come, the findings can be rejected as perverse. It was also laid down that
where a quasi judicial tribunal records findings based on no legal evidence and
the findings are its mere ipse dixit or based on conjectures and surmises, the
enquiry suffers from the additional infirmity of non-application of mind and
stands vitiated.
3) Narendra Mohan Arya -Vs- United Insurance Company Limited; (2006) 4 SCC 713,
speaks about the role of appellate authority, that order of the appellate authority
should be a speaking one and it must contain reasons, so as to enable the writ
Court to ascertain whether there was application of minds to the points required by
the relevant rules and the appellate authority cannot ignore the said exercise of
power. Further, it has also been held that nature of enquiry is quasi judicial and the
Enquiry Officer is entitled to draw his own inference supported by the materials on
record. Despite limited jurisdiction of civil Court, it was entitled to interfere in a
case, where the report of the Enquiry Officer is based on no evidence. Suspicion or
presumption cannot take the place of proof, even in a domestic enquiry and the
writ Court is entitled to interfere with the findings of fact of any authority in certain
circumstances. In a domestic enquiry, fairness in the procedure is a part of
principles of natural justice.
4) In Roopsing Negi -Vs- Punjab National Bank & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 570, it has been
held that nature of departmental enquiry is quasi judicial proceeding and function
Page No.# 21/39
of enquiry officer is also quasi judicial in nature. Mere production of document is
not enough and the content of documentary evidence has to be proved by
examining witnesses. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be
found to have been proved and the Enquiry Officer is duty bound to arrive at a
finding, taking into consideration all the materials brought on record.
5) Similar view [as taken in Narendra (supra)] is endorsed in (2013) 4 SCC 301;
Nirmala Ghala -Vs- State of Gujarat and Ors. (as regards the scope of judicial
review) that judicial review is not akin to the adjudication on merits by re-
appreciating the evidence as an appellate authority. The only consideration of the
Court in a judicial review is to consider whether the conclusion is based on
evidence or no evidence.
6) Similarly, in Mani Shankar -Vs- Union of India; (2008) 3 SCC 484 it has been held
that while exercising the power of judicial review it can determine whether relevant
evidence is taken into consideration, irrelevant evidence is excluded and requisite
standard of proof made in the given case and the purpose of departmental enquiry
is to afford an opportunity to the charged employee to explain circumstances
appearing against him. It has been held that in any event, where there was no
material brought on record by the Department, for drawing such conclusion,
without there being any factual foundation, interference by judicial review is
permissible.
18. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr Ganguly has submitted that, it
is settled law that once an institution such as, the Bank in the present case loses confidence
Page No.# 22/39
in any of its officers/employees, it is not possible to retain such person in service. In
particular, a senior ranking officer of the Bank is required to observe and exercise high
standards of honesty and integrity. Such officers deal with the money of the depositors and
the customers, which is public money. Hence, such officer/employee is expected to perform
his duties with the utmost devotion, integrity, honesty and diligence, and should do nothing,
which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are the cornerstone of the
functioning of every officer/employee of the Bank. The discipline of an organization such as
the bank depends on the officers/employees performing their duties within the norms and
guidelines of the Bank, and nothing beyond the allotted sphere. Whenever an
officer/employee acts beyond the sphere of authority, that ipso facto constitutes an act of
indiscipline and amounts to misconduct. There is no requirement that an officer/employee
can be punished only when there is pecuniary loss to the bank, and equally there is no law
that in the absence of such loss, the officer/employee cannot be punished. The disciplinary
action is the prerogative of the Bank and it is up to the Bank to maintain the standards of
conduct of its officers/employees in terms of the Service Rules and Regulations framed by it.
19. Further, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner is not a case of no evidence, or a
case where the evidence on record does not justify the punishment served upon the
petitioner. The petitioner has not alleged that there is any element of malafide or bias on the
part of the Enquiry Officer, or on the part of the Disciplinary Authority and the appellate
authority. The charges against the petitioner were not casual or frivolous, and hence the
punishment is not shockingly disproportionate to the guilt of the petitioner. The punishment
is not such which would shock the conscience of this Hon'ble Court. In the absence of all
these elements, it is submitted that this Hon'le Court should not exercise its extraordinary
Page No.# 23/39
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to sit as an appellate
body to review and re-appreciate the evidence on record, which has already been gone into
and examined in detail by the Bank at different levels, and the petitioner deserves no
indulgence from this Hon'ble Court.
20. It contends that all the issues raised by the petitioner in the appeal have already been
considered and the decision rendered by the disciplinary authority was upheld as no new
facts were found to have been raised by him in the appeal. Similarly, the reviewing authority
also duly considered all relevant aspects while rejecting the prayer.
21. It is submitted that during the Enquiry proceeding, the Presenting Officer had
submitted 35 nos. of documents being [ME1(1) to ME 70 (7)], which are the complaint letters
of the borrowers, who denied having received the loan amounts sanctioned by the petitioner.
Reading the letters together, it becomes clear that the petitioner engaged one agent Sri
Nawaj Sharif who was handed over the loan amounts and the said agent did not hand over
the entire loan amounts to the applicants. The petitioner did not visit the applicants or the
concerned village and there is no entry in the village visit register regarding when the
petitioner went on any visit. During their deposition before the Enquiry Officer, the five DWs
brought by the petitioner denied the allegation that they did not receive the loans as
complained, but they admitted having signed the complaint letters. Some of them alleged
that the Senior Investigating Officer pressurized them to sign the complaints which they did
by affixing their thumb impressions. However, no reason was cited by the petitioner or the
witnesses as to why the said officer would biased against the petitioner to pressurize the
complainants and manufacture complaints against the petitioner. The witnesses admitted
their signatures and thumb impressions and also denied that they did not receive the loan
Page No.# 24/39
amounts. The Enquiry Officer did not find their depositions reliable in the said facts and
circumstances and hence the charge 1 (1) was found to be proved. In the Enquiry Report, the
Enquiry Officer did not simply go by the version as submitted by the Presenting Officer, but
he analysed the evidences minutely, and came to his own independent conclusions.
22. It is further submitted that a domestic enquiry such as one involving the petitioner, not
required to be based upon the Rules and/or spirit of the Evidence Act, 1872, but on natural
justice alone, which has been clearly followed in this case. It is specifically denied that the
petitioner has suffered any prejudice on account of non-examination of any witness who was
the author of the documents against him, or any witness who was conversant with those
documents. It is submitted that in a domestic enquiry of like nature, when a document has
been introduced, marked as an exhibit, and proved during the Enquiry proceedings, and no
objection is taken to the same, the non-examination of the author of the document is totally
immaterial, and inconsequential.
23. In his arguments, learned counsel for the respondents, Mr Ganguly submits that the
reasons given by the Enquiry Officer in the Enquiry Report are not required to be as elaborate
as in the decision of a Court of law. The Enquiry Officer is not a Judge and is not expected to
record reasons as are recorded in a judgment. The requirement of recording reasons is to
ensure fairness and compliance with natural justice. Reliance has been placed in the case of
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education -Vs- K S Gandhi &
Ors.; (1991) 2 SCC 716, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court followed the earlier decision of
the Constitution Bench in the case of S N Mukherjee -Vs- Union of India; JT 1990 (3) SC 630
and observed that- ".......it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the
decision of a Court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular
Page No.# 25/39
facts and circumstances. It has been further held that in cases of forgery, fraud etc. direct
evidence is rarely available and only circumstantial evidence will furnish the proof. The Court
held that it is permissible to make inferences from the evidence and facts on record and such
inferences can be made from circumstantial evidence, if direct evidence of a fact is not
available. The standard of proof in a domestic enquiry is the same as that of civil cases, i.e.,
preponderance of probabilities. The High Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate the evidence and cannot go into the question of
burden of proof and onus of proof. The writ jurisdiction is a supervisory one and not an
appellate one. The findings of the enquiry authority cannot e altered merely because the High
Court upon re-appreciation of the evidence is of the view that the conclusions of the enquiry
authority should have been different.
Reliance has also been placed upon Sub-Divisional Officer Konch -Vs- Maharaj Singh;
(2003) 9 SCC 191, wherein, it is held that each and every violation for non-compliance of a
provision of the disciplinary regulations in a domestic enquiry does not imply that there has
been violation of principles of natural justice. Observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State Bank of Patiala & Others -Vs- S K Sharma; (1996) 3 SCC 364, has been referred,
wherein, it is held that the principles of natural justice and the approach of the writ Court to
any violation is the same.
24. Justifying the findings of the disciplinary authority that there is no irregularity in the
findings, inasmuch, as the documents produced before the authority are not challenged,
rather exhibited without objection, it is submitted that the contention raised by the petitioner
is not sustainable as the petitioner has not denied the authenticity of the various documents
including the complaint petition (as averred in Annexure-7) and so, cannot deny that he is
Page No.# 26/39
deprived of verification of documents. Further, as the petitioner has not challenged the
authenticity of documents before the Enquiry Officer, so no witness was examined and as
such, there is no violation of rules. Moreover, Enquiry Officer is not biased as he has not
mechanically proved all the charges and only three charges have been stated to be proved
against all the charges.
Decisions of Kailash Sharma -Vs- PNB; 2014 (5) GLT 284 and Aboni Saikia -Vs-
Hindustan Paper Corporation and Others; 2001 (1) GLT 124, have been referred to submit
that the Bank Officer is required to exercise higher standard of honesty and integrity and
there is no requirement that absence of loss to the Bank is to be considered, while imposing
punishment and there is no requirement that the author of document must be examined if
the document is produced and exhibited before the enquiry. In Aboni Saikia (supra), it has
been held that if the documents were produced and the copies were submitted to the
delinquent officer, the basic principles of natural justice are complied with, and it is not
necessary to produce any witness if the genuineness of the documents is not objected to and
admitted into evidence without objection.
25. As regards the role of the appellate authority, decision of three-Judge-Bench in CA No.
4394/2010, Boloram Bordoloi -Vs- Lakhimi Gaolia Bank, has been raisedwherein, it has been
held that if the disciplinary authority accepts the findings of the Enquiry Officer and passes an
order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in order imposing punishment. As the
punishment is based on the findings recorded in the enquiry report, no further elaborate
reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary authority.
26. Further, reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra
Page No.# 27/39
Sharma -Vs- Punjab National Bank & Anr.; (2007) 9 SCC 15, has been made, wherein, it is
held that in cases involving serious allegations it is permissible for the bank to continue with
the disciplinary proceedings even after the retirement of the charged officer. The punishment
of dismissal from service is also permissible because such an officer does not deserve to be
continued in service in all.
27. Thus, it is submitted that, in case if the writ Court is of the view that the procedure
adopted in the enquiry proceeding is vitiated and the penalty is required to be set aside, the
employer must be given the liberty to continue the departmental proceeding afresh from the
stage of conducting the enquiry onwards. The charged officer can be placed under
suspension for the duration of the fresh enquiry. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the
case of Himadri Shekhar Bhattacharjee -Vs- Punjab National Bank; 2018 (1) NEJ 490.
28. Due consideration is given to the rival contentions of learned counsel for both the
parties. For proper appreciation of the matter, the relevant regulations 6 (3) (5) (11) (12)
(13) (16) (21), 7 (4), 17 (4) and 18 of the PNB Regulations is quoted as below:
"6. Procedure for imposing major penalties:
(3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority shall, frame
definite and distinct charges on the basis of the allegations against the officer
employee and the articles of charge, together with a statement of the allegations, list
of documents relied on along with copy of such documents and list of witnesses along
with copy of statement of witnesses, if any, on which they are based, shall be
communicated in writing to the officer employee, who shall be required to submit,
Page No.# 28/39
within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority (not exceeding 15
days), or within such extended time as may be granted by the said Authority, a written
statement of his defense;
(5) The Disciplinary Authority shall, where it is not the inquiring authority, forward
to the inquiring authority:
i) a copy of the articles of charges and statements of imputations of misconduct
or misbehavior;
ii) a copy of the written statement of defense, if any, submitted by the officer
employee;
iii) a list of documents by which and list of witnesses by whom the articles of
charge are proposed to be substantiated;
iv) a copy of statements of the witnesses, if any;
v) evidence proving the delivery of the articles of charge under Sub-Regulation
(3);
vi) a copy of the order appointing the 'presenting officer' in terms of sub-
regulation (6);
(11) The Inquiring Authority shall, on receipt of the notice for the discovery or
production of the documents, forward the same or copies thereof to the authority in
whose custody or possession the documents are kept with a requisition for the
production of the documents, on such date as may be specified.
(12) On receipt of the requisition under Sub-Regulation (11), the authority having the
Page No.# 29/39
custody or possession of the requisitioned documents, shall arrange to produce the
same before the Inquiring Authority on the date, place and time specified in the
requisition.
Provided that the authority having the custody or possession of requisitioned
documents may claim privilege if the production of such documents will be against the
public interest or the interest of the bank. In that event, it shall inform the Inquiring
Authority accordingly.
(13) On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral and documentary evidence by which the
articles of charge are proposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of the
Disciplinary Authority. The witnesses produced by the Presenting Officer shall be
examined by the Presenting Officer and may be cross-examined by or on behalf of the
officer employee. The Presenting Officer shall be entitled to re-examine his witnesses
on any points on which they have been cross-examined, but not on a new matter,
without the leave of the Inquiring Authority. The Inquiring Authority may also put such
questions to the witnesses as it thinks fit.
(16) The evidence on behalf of the officer employee shall then be produced. The
officer employee may examine himself in his own behalf, if he so prefers. The
witnesses produced by the officer employee shall then be examined by the officer
employee and may be cross-examined by the Presenting Officer. The officer employee
shall be entitled to re-examine any of his witnesses on any points on which they have
been cross-examined, but not on any new matter without the leave of the Inquiring
Authority.
Page No.# 30/39
(21) (i) On the conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiring Authority shall prepare a report
which shall contain the following:
(a) a gist of the articles of charge and the statement of imputations of
misconduct or misbehavior;
(b) a gist of the defence of the officer employee in respect of each article of
charge.
(c) an assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge.
(d) the findings on each article of charge and the reasons thereof.
7. Action on the Inquiry Report:
(4) If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the
articles of charge, is of the opinion that no penalty is called for, it may pass an order
exonerating the officer employee concerned.
17. Appeals:
(4) The Appellate Authority shall on receipt of the comments and records of the
case from the authority whose order is appealed against, consider whether the order
of suspension/findings are justified or whether the penalty is excessive or inadequate
and pass appropriate orders. The Appellate Authority may pass an order confirming,
enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty/suspension or remitting the case to
the authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such directions
as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
18. Review:
Page No.# 31/39
Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations, the Reviewing
Authority may at any time within six months from the date of the final order, either on
his own motion or otherwise review the said order, when any new material or evidence
which could not be produced or was not available at the time of passing the order
under review and which has the effect of changing the nature of the case, has come
or has been brought to his notice and pass such orders thereon as it may deem fit.
Provided that-
(i) .........(ii)..............N/A
29. It is the stand of the respondent side that as the petitioner (as a charge officer) has
not challenged the document/complaint, filed against him. So, it was not necessary to
produce the original documents and to examine those complainants. Now, let us verify the
aforesaid matter from the proceeding pertaining to the enquiry. On the very first day of the
enquiry, on 27.11.2013, the petitioner denied the charges levelled against him; on the very
next day of hearing, on 04.12.2013, he acknowledged the receipt of documents, and stated
that authenticity of the documents cannot be confirmed, unless the original is verified. So, it
is apparent that there is no admission about the content of complaints.
30. On the next, the Charge -1 (1) itself is vague, in which it is stated that after
sanctioning the loan, petitioner handed over the same to Nawaz Sharif, an agent of the Bank,
for distribution and Sharif did not pay the amount to the borrowers. No irregularities or
illegalities alleged, while sanctioning the loan and the loan was duly handed over to Nawaz
and the allegation is attributed to Nawaz only, but said Nawaz was not brought within the
purview of enquiry. The Presenting Officer, although has recorded his opinion that the
Page No.# 32/39
petitioner did not visit the places of borrowers as per the Village visit register, but such
register was never produced and nobody was examined in support of such contention and the
Enquiry Officer although was aware of the fact that no such document was produced and no
witnesses were examined in support of the charge, accepted the version of the Presenting
Officer. On the other hand, the evidence adduced by the petitioner's side, i.e., DW-1 to DW-5
(alleged complainants) have confirmed the receipt of the loan amounts and denied filing of
such complaint, but despite their evidence was totally discarded only, on the fact that
complaints bear their signatures. It is to be noted that those complainants specifically stated
in their evidence that being illiterate, they were not at all aware about the content written in
the complaints and at the behest of some superior officers of the Bank, they signed those
complaints. Obviously, the content of the complaints is not supported by the complainants
themselves (5 complainants), nor the original complaints were produced before the Enquiry
Officer. Admittedly, none of the complaint was examined by the Enquiry Officer. Enquiry
Officer has also noted that Presenting Officer has produced some documents, but did not
produce any witness. Such a lackadaisical approach by the Presenting Officer as well as
Enquiry Officer, is violative of Section 5 (13) of the PNB Regulations and against the principles
of law and natural justice. By no stretch of imagination, one can accept that only on the
photocopy of documents/complaints, which was never admitted by the delinquent officers,
the guilt of an officer can be proved in the way that has been done in the present case.
In view of above, finding that the Charge 1 (1) is proved, is not at all sustainable.
31. So far as regards the Charge 3 (3), it is to be noted that the Presenting Officer himself
is confused to consider the charge as proved and after examination of all documents he
opined that various borrowers have submitted that they have withdrawn the loan amount and
Page No.# 33/39
some of the borrowers have put their thumb impressions in the loan documents and
withdrawal, so it is difficult for him to tally the thumb impressions of the borrowers. So, he
held that charge cannot be considered to be proved, but the Enquiry Officer considered the
charge as partly proved, observing that Presenting Officer has failed to present the case
convincingly and has found it difficult to recommend for considering the charge as proved.
Without appreciating all details of the matter and the reasons for rejecting such finding of the
Presenting Officer, the Enquiry Officer has abruptly held that the charge is partly proved,
which is bereft of reasons.
32. Similarly, while holding the charge proved, as regards the Charge No. 4, that the
accused has disproportionate transaction to his own source of income, the requisite data,
such as, his monthly income, allowances, deductions, arrears etc. etc. (known source of
income), has not at all been shown in the chart so prepared, as has been mentioned above,
which again indicates the mechanical approach by the respondent department. Only certain
deposits of amount w.e.f. 03.10.2011 to 12.09.2012, amounting to Rs. 6,44,000/- (Rupees
Six Lacs Forty Four Thousand Only) has been shown, which is totally inconclusive to show the
income of the petitioner at the relevant period. Apart from the chart prepared, no other
supporting evidence was adduced. The plea of the petitioner that such an amount was
deposited by family members for construction of his house, was not taken into account, nor
he was given adequate opportunity to adduce evidence in this regard. The entire enquiry was
concluded within a very short span of less than one month, flouting the prescribed procedure,
ignoring the vital aspect. The respondent department is bound to adhere to their own rules
and regulations as well as the established principles of law to ensure fair play and justice,
which is not reflected in the matter in hand.
Page No.# 34/39
33. While considering the matter pertaining to the enquiry, it reveals that in response to
the notice served upon the petitioner and as against the Enquiry Report, the petitioner,
herein, in his written submission, raised certain objections that-
· Contents of all complaint letters are same, drafted by someone and then
photocopied and signed by different persons. Because of this tailored complaint,
the Bank did not carry out any investigation.
· Nawaz Sharif was not engaged by him, as an agent for sanction of loan,
rather he was engaged by the Bank authorities as i-mitra.
· The village visit register is not produced to prove that he did not visit the
places of borrowers and send them to Nawaz Sharif for processing the loan.
· The first investigation made by the B K Pattanayak (CM Vigilance Officer do
not contain irregularities but same was not produced. The authorities now has
conducted the investigation with a ulterior motive to victimize him.
· As per the PNB Krishi Card Cash Withdrawal Voucher, payments were
received by the genuine borrowers.
· PO did not verify the accounts of the borrowers concerned, by which, loan
was disbursed. All accounts are KYC compliance, but same was not produced
before the enquiry.
· The PO has also admitted that in the first 17 accounts, borrowers have
signed the documents and withdrawal forms as well as other 22 A/cs, is not in a
position to verify the same, as some borrowers have put thumb impressions.
Page No.# 35/39
· PO has confirmed about the signature in their documents/accounts and
about the first withdrawal by the loanees, but he was not sure about the second
withdrawal, as the signature did not tally. The petitioner requested the authority
to verify the signature by GEQD.
· As regards the deposit in his account he asked the authority to verify the
aspect that those amounts were deposited by his family members for the
purpose of construction of their house.
None of the aforesaid aspects was appreciated by the disciplinary authority and
the finding of the disciplinary authority is as below:-
"I have observed that PO has submitted some documents, but did not produce
any witness. I have also observed that although the DW-1 to DW-5 have confirmed
having received the loan amounts, they have accepted that they have signed the
complaint letters. They have further alleged that the Senior Investigating Officer
has misguided them and told them to confirm that they have not received the
money. As the complainants have signed/put thumb impressions in the complaint
letters, confirming that they have received the loan amounts and alleging misuse of
loan amount, their deposition during enquiry are not found reliable.
In view of above, I consider the Charge 1(1) as proved.
As regards the Charge 3 (3), the findings of the PO have been observed that PO
failed to prove the charge, in view of many of the documents tallies the specimen
signature of the complainants in their accounts as well as withdrawal and the
Enquiry Officer put his findings as below:-
I have observed that the PO has failed to present the cases convincingly in
respect of Sl. No. 1, 3 to 15 and 17, PO has himself found it difficult to recommend
for considering the charge as proved. However, in respect of irregularities reported,
Sl. Nos. 2 and 16, the documents produced and the arguments placed by PO have
Page No.# 36/39
been found acceptable. Hence, I consider the Charge 3 (3) as partly proved.
The Charge No. 4, regarding disproportionate income in the salary of the
petitioner, both the PO and the Enquiry Officer held that both cash deposit
transaction in the account of the petitioner are suspicious in nature and
disproportionate to his salary income. Hence, Charge No. 4 is proved.
Enquiry Officer held as below:-
I have observed that some of transactions are disproportionate to the
known sources of income of Mr Das, although he has mentioned that five other
members of the family pooled their salary income in his account for construction of
a building, no documentary proof has been submitted. Therefore, his statement is
not supported by any acceptable authentic documents. I consider the charge as
proved.
34. The disciplinary authority on the other hand, accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer
in toto, without any hesitation and no any appreciation was made on his part. Similarly, the
appellate authority and reviewing authority upheld the findings. In the entire process, none of
the authority has addressed/discussed any of the vital issues, raised by the petitioner as
mentioned above. The sole and the very basis of the enquiry was the various complaints filed
by the complainants, which was taken up in the enquiry. Peculiarly, none of the original
complaints, was brought into the record nor any author of the complaint was examined to
prove such complaints. The entire proceeding crept into nullity for the sole reason. The
genuineness of the document was never admitted by the petitioner. Neither the respondent
authority deemed it proper to produce the original documents nor offered any explanation for
non-production of the original complaints and the complainants, which has vitiated the entire
proceeding. All norms of the Rules and Regulations as well as established principles have
been thwarted by the respondent authority.
Page No.# 37/39
35. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in K S Gandhi & Ors. (supra),
that unless the Rule expressly or by necessary implications, excludes the recording of
reasons, it is implicit that the principles of natural justice or fairplay thus, require recording of
reasons, as a part of fair proceeding. In an administrative decision, its order/decision itself
may not contain reasons. It may not be the requirement of rules, but at least the record
should disclose reasons. It may not like a judgment, but reasons may be precise. Further, it is
held that strict rules of Evidence Act and standard of proof envisaged therein, do not apply to
the departmental proceedings or domestic tribunal, but must be proved by pre-ponderance of
probabilities. It must be germane, relevant to the facts and issues and the inference from the
evidence and circumstances, must be carefully distinguished from conjectures or
speculations. The inference of facts must be based on evidence, which meet the requirement
of legal principles. In the said decision relied by the petitioner, it has been held that appellate
jurisdiction under Article 136/226 of the Constitution of India, cannot re-assess the evidence
and to come to its own different conclusion, where finding of facts recorded in domestic
enquiry are based on evidence. In the matter in hand, we found that except some mere
speculations on some disputed/Photostat documents, no any evidence was recorded.
36. As has been referred above, the bank authority has own prescribed Rules and
Regulations regarding conducting enquiry prior to imposition of penalty. But in the instant
matter, prescribed Rules were not followed by the respondent authority. The findings of the
PO and the Enquiry Officer is based on the observation on the documents that was produced
but none of the concerned persons like the complainants and the persons from the Bank
authority was examined to prove the factum of non-withdrawal of the loan amount from the
KCC. Whatever was written in the photocopies of complaints and other documents, was taken
Page No.# 38/39
into account, while arriving at such finding.
37. As has been held in the aforesaid decisions, nature of departmental proceeding is a
quasi judicial one and where the findings of the respondent authority is based on no legal
evidence and the conclusion is one to which no reasonable man would come, the findings can
be rejected as perverse and the enquiry suffers from additional infirmity of non-application of
mind and stands vitiated. If such finding of guilt is based on no evidence, it will be amenable
to judicial scrutiny.
38. As has been held in Nirmala Ghala (supra), it has been pointed out that judicial review
is confined to correct errors of law or procedural law, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage
of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. In the present case, the original
complaints were not placed on record, nor any other witnesses were examined and the
absence of original complaints indicate that there was, in fact, no complaint in existence,
which support the contention raised by the petitioner that loan was duly disbursed to the
person concerned and whereas, no bank officials have been examined about non-withdrawal
of amount. The Enquiry Officer failed to hold an impartial domestic enquiry, which is the
essential component of principles of natural justice. The faulty reasoning of the Enquiry
Officer attributing guilt to the petitioner, even after non-production of the complainants, made
the enquiry as bias, perverse and against the principles of natural justice. A person has been
removed from the service by such departmental enquiry, which is per se illegal. All the
authorities have closed their eyes to the findings of facts that it is not supported by evidence
at all, but on speculations and conjectures.
39. It follows from the foregoing discussions that the impugned order of removal from
Page No.# 39/39
service is invalid and legally not sustainable. The impugned findings of all the respondents,
are hereby quashed and set aside. The manner in which the enquiry proceeding was
conducted in absence of the original complainants and whereas, some of the complainants
appearing as defence witnesses, have denied such complaints and the PO has already
confirmed that there is no such irregularities in transaction, so far as the 17 complaints are
concerned and various other aspects that have been discussed above as well as the fact that
the petitioner has retired from service far back as on 21.12.2013, further departmental
proceeding cannot be directed to continue, as sought for by the respondents.
39. Consequently, the respondent authority is hereby directed to give all the pensionary
benefits to the petitioner within a period of 3 (three) months from today (including the
payment of salary since the day of suspension).
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
