[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Reserved On: 05.02.2026 vs Managing Director & Ceo on 13 February, 2026

Author: Sanjay Dhar

Bench: Sanjay Dhar

                                                                           2026:JKLHC-JMU:328




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT JAMMU

                             WP(C) No. 826/2025
                             CM No. 1976/2025



                                             Reserved on: 05.02.2026
                                          Pronounced on : 13.02.2026
                                            Uploaded on : 13.02.2026
                                      Whether the operative part or full
                                        judgment is pronounced: Full

Gagandeep Singh Sambyal
                                                               ....Petitioners

                 Through:-        Mr. Vijay Gupta, Advocate.

                              V/s

Managing Director & CEO
Jammu and Kashmir Bank
Ltd and Ors.
                                                           .....Respondents

                 Through:-        Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG with
                                  Ms. Saliqa Sheikh, Assisting Counsel.
\

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

(JUDGMENT)

01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present

petition, has challenged order No. CHQ/DD/2024-717 dated

24.01.2025 issued by respondent No. 3 whereby the petitioner

has been removed from service. Challenge has also been

thrown to order No. JKB/ED/CHQ/2025-468 dated

20.03.2025 issued by respondent No. 2 whereby order

regarding his removal from service issued by respondent No. 3

2026:JKLHC-JMU:328

has been confirmed. Besides this, the petitioner has also

challenged enquiry report dated 05.09.2024 drawn by

respondent No. 4. The petitioner has further sought a

direction upon the respondents to reinstate him in service with

all consequential benefits.

02. As per case of the petitioner, he joined the service of

respondent-Bank on 18.03.2017 as Relationship Executive

Officer at Branch Unit, Janipur. Thereafter he was transferred

to Branch Unit, Vijaypur and later on transferred to Branch

Unit, Sumb Baletar. The petitioner was designated as

Assistant Manager as a Probationer Officer and after

completing his probationary period, he was made permanent

officer and transferred to Branch Unit, Aminabad Lucknow

where he was posted as Assistant Manager.

03. According to the petitioner on 08.09.2022,

Sh. Paras Singh Sambyal, cousin brother of the petitioner was

in urgent need of Rs. 98,000/-, so the petitioner deposited two

entries of Rs. 49,000/- each in his account but later on he

came to know that his afore-named cousin had already

received cash from his father so he reversed the transaction

within few hours through CRT mode. Again on 27.01.2023,

the petitioner is stated to have transferred an amount of Rs.

7.74 lakhs from the account of his father to his personal

account with the consensus of the officials.

04. It is the further case of the petitioner that in

December, 2022, the Branch Head of Branch Unit, Aminabad

2026:JKLHC-JMU:328

instructed the petitioner and his team to make tele-calling to

the customers whose accounts are inactive and share the list

of the same as the bank had launched a drive for activation of

inactive accounts. It has been submitted that pursuant to

these instructions, the petitioner called one Sh. Sanjay Arora

on phone for activation of his inactive account but the said

customer informed the petitioner that he is out of station and

instructed him to activate his account on the basis of KYC

documents already lying with the bank. Accordingly, the

petitioner activated his account.

05. It has been submitted that on 15.03.2023, said

Sh. Sanjay Arora again contacted the petitioner and told him

that he is in need of funds so he intends to withdraw the entire

amount lying in his account. It has been further submitted

that the said customer informed the petitioner that he would

be reaching late during the working hours and he would get

the cash from the petitioner and would also sign the voucher.

According to the petitioner, he, with the consent of other

officials, withdrew the amount from the account of the said

customer under a dummy voucher and waited for the

customer till 6.30 p.m but he did not turn up, so the petitioner

had to place the cash in the vault. Next day, the petitioner is

stated to have credited the amount in the account of

afore-named customer.

06. It has been submitted that vide order dated

24.05.2023, the petitioner was placed under suspension and

2026:JKLHC-JMU:328

vide order dated 03.01.2024, he was served the chargesheet.

In response to the chargesheet, the petitioner submitted his

reply and the enquiry against him in respect of the charges

proceeded ahead. The Enquiry Officer-respondent No. 4 is

stated to have submitted his impugned enquiry report dated

05.09.2024 to the disciplinary authority whereafter show

cause notice dated 19.11.2024 was served upon the petitioner

asking him as to why punishment of removal from service

should not be imposed upon him. The petitioner is stated to

have submitted his reply to the said show cause notice vide his

communication dated 19.12.2024 and he was also personally

heard by the disciplinary authority. However, vide impugned

communication dated 24.01.2025 issued by respondent No. 3,

the petitioner was imposed the punishment of removal from

service.

07. It has been submitted that petitioner filed an appeal

against the impugned order dated 24.01.2025 issued by

respondent No. 3 before the appellate authority-respondent

No. 2. However, vide impugned order dated 20.03.2025, his

appeal was dismissed and the order of punishment imposed

upon him by respondent No. 3 was confirmed.

08. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders

and the enquiry report on the grounds that respondent Nos. 2

and 3 have not considered the contentions raised by him in his

reply to show cause notice as also the grounds urged by him in

the appeal. It has also been contended that respondent No. 4

2026:JKLHC-JMU:328

while rendering the impugned enquiry report has not applied

his mind in just and fair manner but he has approached the

issue with a preconceived mind. It has further been contended

that the other officials, who were chargesheeted along with the

petitioner, have escaped with the lesser punishment though

their role was at par with the role of the petitioner. It has also

been contended that no loss has been caused to the

respondent-Bank by the alleged acts of the petitioner because

even as per the case of the respondents, all the entries were

reversed and no amount was actually withdrawn from the

accounts maintained with the Bank. It has been further

contended that there was no complaint made by any person

with regard to withdrawal of money from the bank accounts

which were operated by the petitioner. It has been contended

that punishment imposed upon the petitioner is grossly

disproportionate to the acts alleged to have been committed by

him. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the rules

and instructions with regard to timelines for holding the

departmental enquiries have been violated in the present case

and the findings of the Enquiry Officer regarding the impugned

enquiry report are perverse.

09. The respondents have contested the writ petition by

filing their reply to the same. It has been contended that the

petitioner was chargesheeted after it came to the fore that he

had activated the inoperative account of the customer

Sh. Sanjay Arora and thereafter posted an unauthorized debit

2026:JKLHC-JMU:328

entry of Rs. 38,000/- in the said account against which he

placed a debit voucher dated 15.03.2023 under dummy

account to camouflage the facts. It has been further

submitted that the second charge against the petitioner was

that he had made two cash entries of Rs. 49,000/- each in

Savings Bank Account of Mr. Paras Singh Sambyal and

thereafter transferred the entire amount via UPI. It was also

found that the amount was transferred back via mPay and

both the cash transactions were reversed in CRT mode by the

petitioner without any voucher or any record on cash scroll of

the branch. The petitioner was also charged to have debited

an amount of Rs. 7.74 lacs from the account of his father and

credited the same to his personal account with forged

signatures.

10. According to the respondents, the aforesaid acts of

the petitioner amount to misconduct in terms of Rule 12.27 of

Officers Service Manual, 2022 and these charges were found

established after regular departmental enquiry wherein the

petitioner was afforded all the opportunity to defend himself.

It has been submitted that the disciplinary authority

considered the reply of the petitioner and afforded him

personal hearing before passing the impugned order of his

removal from service. The respondents have submitted that

punishment awarded is commensurate with the quantum of

guilt established against the petitioner because by indulging in

the acts which have been narrated hereinbefore, the petitioner

2026:JKLHC-JMU:328

has lost confidence of the bank, therefore, his continuance in

the service is not in the interests of the bank, which is

custodian of public money.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused record of the case.

12. So far as the factual aspects of this case relating to

the manner in which the respondents have proceeded to pass

the impugned order of removal of petitioner from service are

concerned, the same are not in dispute. It is an admitted case

of the parties that the petitioner was chargesheeted by the

respondents vide memo of charges issued in terms of

communication dated 03.01.2024. The articles of charge

leveled against the petitioner are reproduced as under:

"Statement of articles of charges levelled against Mr. Gagandeep Singh Sambyal (33563) Assistant Manager, Under Suspension.

Annexure-I

Article-I

That you, Mr. Gagandeep Singh Sambyal(33563) Assistant Manager, Under Suspension while performing your duties at Aminabad, Lucknow branch have perpetrated fraud on the account of a customer and misused your official position and powers insofar as after activating the inoperative account No.047904010-213 of the customer on 07.01.2023 without intervention of the customer, you have posted an unauthorised debit entry in said account No.047904010-213 of Mr. Sanjay Arora for an amount of Rs.38,000/- against which a debit voucher dated 15.03.2023 under Dummy Account No.0027-S/B- 213 was placed on record by you to camouflage the facts.

Your fraudulent act is also corroborated from the fact that DC150213 mentioned by you on the Savings Bank withdrawal form of Dummy Account No.002704010-213 does not pertains to the entry unauthorisedly executed by you under Transaction ID: DC328583.

2026:JKLHC-JMU:328

The fraudulent act on your part can also be witnessed from the fact that signature on the withdrawal form dated 15.03.2023 drawn on Dummy Account No. 00270-SB-213 is also not that of customer/account holder.

Manifestly, while activating the inoperative account of customer you have performed your duties in violation of circular No.134 issued by Strategy and Business Development Division under reference No. JKB/S&BD/2018-62 dated June 07, 2018 and thereafter embezzled an amount of Rs.38000/- from the account of the customer of the bank while forging his signatures and when your fraudulent act got surfaced you managed to deposit the fraudulently withdrawn amount to the account of customer in cash through posting mode on 16.03.2023 to save your own skin.

You are, therefore, charge sheeted for the following acts of omission and commission:

i. Breach of rules/instructions of the Bank. ii. Attempt to cause damage to the property of the Bank's customer; iii. Doing any act prejudicial to the interests of the Bank; iv. Embezzlement/misuse of official position and powers; v. Manipulating of entries in records of Bank to conceal actual position or to cover of any irregularity with dishonest motive;

Amounting to misconduct in terms of Rule 12.27 (f, k, o, r, & z ) of Officers Service Manual 2022.

Article-II

A) That you, Mr. Gagandeep Singh Sambyal (33563) Assistant Manager, Under Suspension while performing your duties at Aminabad, Lucknow branch have made two cash entries of Rs.49000/- each vide DC 140793 and DC258136 in Savings Bank Account No.002704100-2542 of Mr. Paras Singh Sambyal on 08.09.2022 and thereafter transferred the entire amount via UPI. Later on the same day same amount was transferred back via mPay and both the cash transactions were reversed in CRT mode.

Both transactions were executed by you without any voucher or any record on cash scroll of the branch.

B) That on 27.01.2023 you have debited account No.002704010-2867 of your father Mr. Kamer Singh Sambyal with Rs.7.74 lakhs under DC314655 and afforded credit thereof to your personal account No. 043304010-20798 by putting your own signature on debit voucher thereby forging the signatures of a customer of the Bank.

2026:JKLHC-JMU:328

You are, therefore, charge sheeted for the following acts of omission and commission:

i. Doing any act prejudicial to the interests of the Bank; ii. Embezzlement/misuse of official position and powers;

Amounting to misconduct in terms of Rule 12.27 (o & r) of Officers Service Manual 2022."

13. It is also the admitted case of the parties that a

regular departmental enquiry was held and the petitioner

participated in the enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer

(respondent No. 4) after considering the contentions of the

parties and after analyzing the material on record concluded

that Article-I of the charge is proved whereas regarding

Article-II, the Enquiry Officer concluded that the allegation

relating to doing of any act prejudicial to the interests of the

bank is not proved whereas allegation of

embezzlement/misuse of official position and powers is

partially proved.

14. It is not in dispute that after the Enquiry Officer

submitted his impugned report of enquiry to the disciplinary

authority, the petitioner was served with show cause notice

and afforded an opportunity to represent against the proposed

punishment. He filed his reply to the show cause notice and

also availed personal hearing whereafter the impugned order of

removal from service was issued by the disciplinary authority

which was later on confirmed by the appellate authority.

2026:JKLHC-JMU:328

15. The first ground of challenge, which has been urged

by the petitioner, is that findings of the Enquiry Officer are

perverse and illogical, as such, on the basis of the impugned

enquiry report, no punishment could have been imposed upon

the petitioner.

16. Before dealing with the aforesaid contention of the

petitioner, it would be necessary to understand the legal

position with regard to scope of interference by this Court in

the findings of the Enquiry Officer recorded in the disciplinary

proceedings.

17. It is a settled proposition of law that the writ court

while considering challenge to the findings of an Enquiry

Officer recorded in the disciplinary proceedings cannot sit as a

court of appeal and the writ court has very limited scope of

interfering into the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Reference

in this regard can be made to the statement of law laid down

by the Supreme Court in the cases of State of A.P. and Ors

Vs. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723, Union of India

and Ors Vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 and B.C.

Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Ors (1995) 6 SCC 749.

In all these cases, it has been the consistent view of the

Supreme Court that High Court while exercising its power

under Sections 226 and 227 of the Constitution cannot sit in

appeal over the report of Enquiry Officer and re-appreciate the

evidence on record. The High Court can only go into the

question as to whether the enquiry is held by a competent

2026:JKLHC-JMU:328

authority, whether the procedure prescribed has been followed

while holding the enquiry and whether principles of natural

justice have been adhered to while conducting the

proceedings. The Court can also go into the question whether

the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based upon any

material or whether any relevant material has been ignored by

the Enquiry Officer while recording a finding and also whether

irrelevant or extraneous material/considerations have

influenced the decision of the Enquiry Officer.

18. With the aforesaid legal position in view, let us now

deal with the facts of the present case.

19. A perusal of the report of the enquiry reveals that

the petitioner has participated in the enquiry proceedings and

he has been given adequate opportunity to defend himself.

The enquiry report further reveals that the petitioner has been

given opportunity of leading evidence in support of his defence

but he has not led any evidence in support of his defence. On

the basis of the documents on record and on the basis of the

arguments advanced by the petitioner and the presenting

officer, the Enquiry Officer has recorded his findings as noted

hereinbefore. While recording his findings, the Enquiry Officer

has given detailed reasons in his enquiry report for arriving at

such findings.

20. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the

petitioner is that findings of the Enquiry Officer are illogical

2026:JKLHC-JMU:328

inasmuch as that from the circumstances of the case, it can

safely be inferred that the petitioner had no dishonest

intention. It has been contended that the petitioner had

activated the account of customer, namely, Sh. Sanjay Arora

about two months prior to debit entry of Rs. 38,000/- stated to

have been made by the petitioner in the said account. It is

being argued that if the petitioner had any dishonest intention,

he would have made the debit entry immediately after

activating the said account.

21. The aforesaid contention put-forth by the petitioner

is not sustainable in law because the charge against the

petitioner is that he has unauthorizedly activated the

inoperative account and thereafter made an unauthorized

debit entry of Rs. 38,000/- in the said account. Whether the

said debit entry was made by the petitioner immediately after

making the account operative or after a lapse of couple of

months is immaterial. The fact of the matter remains that an

inoperative account has been made operative by the petitioner

and thereafter he has made unauthorized debit entry in the

said account. These facts are undisputed and even in the writ

petition, the petitioner has not disputed these facts. His only

defence is that he did it with the consensus of other officials of

the bank and under the instructions of the customer. No

witness has been produced by the petitioner to prove these

assertions. The burden of proof was upon him once he had

admitted that the said debit entry was made by him and the

2026:JKLHC-JMU:328

inoperative account of Sh. Sanjay Arora was made operative by

him. If what the petitioner contends is correct, it was

necessary for him to produce the customer Sh. Sanjay Arora

as a witness in defence to prove his defence. Having failed to

do so, he cannot be heard to say that the findings of the

Enquiry Officer on Article of Charge-I are either perverse or

illogical.

22. Similarly, so far as the findings on Article of

Charge-II are concerned, the same are also based upon

material on record. In fact the allegations which have led to

recording of these findings have not been disputed by the

petitioner in the writ petition or in the reply to the show cause

notice. He has admitted that his cousin was in need of money

and, therefore, he made two cash entries in the Savings Bank

Account of his cousin and both these cash transactions were

reversed later on. He has also admitted that he debited the

account of his father and credited an amount of Rs. 7.74 lacs

in his personal account. Thus admittedly the petitioner did use

money lying in the bank for the benefit of his relative though

he may have reversed these entries later on. Whatever

compulsions may have been for the petitioner to help his

relative, he could not have used the money lying in deposit

with the bank for his personal needs or for the needs of his

nears and dears. The findings of the Enquiry Officer on Article-

II of the charges is, therefore, based upon material on record.

2026:JKLHC-JMU:328

The same cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be termed as

perverse.

23. Next it has been contended that timelines for

holding the enquiry have not been adhered to by the

respondents in the present case, therefore, the enquiry report

is vitiated. In this regard, reliance is being placed on Rule

13.51 of Officers Service Manual, 2022 which provides

timelines for completion of regular enquiry. As per this rule,

enquiry has to be concluded within three months from the

date of appointment of Enquiry Officer which can be extended

upto six months.

24. In the present case, the Enquiry Officer was

appointed on 21.02.2024 and the report of enquiry was

rendered on 05.09.2024. Thus there has been a delay of few

weeks on the part of the Enquiry Officer to submit the enquiry

report but that would not vitiate the enquiry report. The

timelines given in Rule 13.51 of the Rules are meant to

expedite the holding of enquiry and these rules do not lay

down that in case enquiry is not completed within set timeline,

the enquiry report would get vitiated. The rules do not provide

for the consequences of non-adherence to these timelines,

therefore, the Rule 13.51 is not mandatory in nature. Merely

because the Enquiry Officer has not adhered to the timelines

laid down in Rule 13.51 would not be a good enough reason to

vitiate the enquiry report, particularly when no prejudice is

2026:JKLHC-JMU:328

shown to have been caused to the petitioner due to delay in

conclusion of the enquiry.

25. It has been contended by the petitioner that there

has been no loss to the bank on account of the alleged acts of

the petitioner, as such, the charges against him are not

proved.

26. In the above context, it is to be noted that the

charge against the petitioner is not that he has caused loss to

the bank but the charge against him is that he has acted

prejudicial to the interests of the Bank and he has misused his

official position. The petitioner is also alleged to have

manipulated the entries in the records of the bank to conceal

actual position and cause damage to the property of banks'

customers.

27. All the aforesaid charges stand proved during the

enquiry. At no stage, the respondent-Bank had made any

allegation that acts of the petitioner had resulted in monetary

loss to the bank. The main allegation against the petitioner

was that he has acted prejudicial to the interests of the bank,

misused his official position and manipulated entries in the

record. So the issue whether or not any monetary loss was

caused to the respondent-Bank by the acts of the petitioner, is

not material to the controversy at hand.

2026:JKLHC-JMU:328

28. It has been next contended by the petitioner that

the other chargesheeted employees have been let-off with

lesser punishments whereas the petitioner has been given the

punishment of removal from service, though role of the

petitioner and the other chargesheeted employees was similar.

29. In the above context, it is to be noted that the

contention of the petitioner is wholly misconceived. This is so

because the acts which led to the activation of account of Sh.

Sanjay Arora and subsequent debit entry of Rs. 38,000/- were

initiated by the petitioner. The other chargesheeted employees

may have also played their part but they were not the main

offenders. Similarly, the transfer of funds in the account of

cousin of the petitioner and transfer of funds from the account

of father of the petitioner to the personal account of the

petitioner are acts which are solely attributable to the

petitioner as both these acts pertain to individuals who are

closely related to him. Thus the petitioner cannot claim parity

with the other chargesheeted employees.

30. Lastly, it has been argued that because no

monetary loss has been caused to the bank on account of acts

of the petitioner and the money has been reverted to the bank

on the same day/on the next day, therefore, imposing harsh

penalty of removal of service is grossly disproportionate.

31. In the above context, the legal position is clear

inasmuch as the scope of jurisdiction of High Court in

2026:JKLHC-JMU:328

interfering with the proportionality and order of departmental

authority is very limited. Reference may be made to the

following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of

State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya,

AIR 2011 SC 1931:

7. When a court is considering whether punishment of `termination from service' imposed upon a bank employee is shockingly excessive or disproportionate to the gravity of the proved misconduct, the loss of confidence in the employee will be an important and relevant factor. When an unknown person comes to the bank and claims to be the account-holder of a long inoperative account, and a bank employee, who does not know such person, instructs his colleague to transfer the account from "dormant" to "operative"

category (contrary to instructions regulating dormant accounts) without any kind of verification, and accepts the money withdrawal form from such person, gets a token and collects the amount on behalf of such person for the purpose of handing it over to such person, he in effect enables such unknown person to withdraw the amount contrary to the banking procedures; and ultimately, if it transpires that the person who claimed to be account holder was an imposter, the bank can not be found fault with if it says that it has lost confidence in the employee concerned. A Bank is justified in contending that not only employees who are dishonest, but those who are guilty of gross negligence, are not fit to continue in its service.

32. Again the Supreme Court in the case of Damoh

Pann Sagar Rural Regional Bank & another vs. Munn Lal

Jain, (2005) 10 SCC 84, has, while dealing with a case of a

Bank Officer, observed as under:

2026:JKLHC-JMU:328

"17. A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik [(1996) 9 SCC 69 :

1996 SCC (L&S) 1194] , there is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulting in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organisation more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court."

33. From the foregoing analysis of legal position, it is

clear that once it is found that all the procedural requirements

have been complied with, the courts would not ordinarily

interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a

delinquent employee. It is only in a case where decision of an

employer is grossly disproportionate to the charge proved

against a delinquent employee that doctrine of proportionality

can be invoked.

34. In the present case, as already stated, the petitioner

happened to be an officer of the respondent-bank. In that

capacity, he was expected to exercise higher standard of

2026:JKLHC-JMU:328