Sushil Kumar Singh Age About 59 Years Son ... vs Uco Bank Through Its Chairman Office At
2024 Latest Caselaw 5817 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sushil Kumar Singh Age About 59 Years Son ... vs Uco Bank Through Its Chairman Office At on 18 June, 2024

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                 W.P.(S) No. 3465 of 2023

            Sushil Kumar Singh age about 59 years son of Indra Deo Singh,
            resident of Qr. No. 47 Rathore Villa, P.O. and P.S.- Pathardih,
            Nunudih, District- Dhanbad.                  ...      ...    Petitioner
                                      Versus
            1. UCO Bank through its Chairman Office at 10, B.T.M. Sarani, P.O.
               & P.S.- B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata 700001, West Bengal.
            2. General Manager (Personnel Services), UCO Bank, Office at 10,
               B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata 700001, West Bengal.
            3. Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, Sainik Bazar, Ranchi, P.O. - G.P.O.,
               P.S. - Kotwali, District-Ranchi.
            4. Regional Manager, UCO Bank, Sainik Bazar, Ranchi, P.O.-G.P.O.,
               P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi.
            5. Deputy General Manager, UCO Bank, Sainik Bazar, Ranchi, P.O.-
               G.P.O., P.S. - Kotwali, District-Ranchi.
            6. Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Jharia Branch, P.O. and P.S. -Jharia,
               District-Dhanbad.                   ...        ...      Respondents
                                      ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

            For the Petitioner        : Mrs. M.M. Pal, Sr. Advocate
                                        Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate
            For the Respondents       : Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, Advocate
                                        Mr. Shushavan Bhowmik, Advocate
                                        Mr. Krishna Prajapati, Advocate
                                      ---

12/18.06.2024         Learned counsel for the parties are present.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

"For issuance of appropriate Writ or Writs, direction or directions, order or orders commanding the Concern Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits in view of Judgment of acquittal dated 18-01-2018 passed in G.R. Case No. 1433/2004 (Jharia P.S. Case No. 157/2004) in favour of petitioner by setting aside the Appellate Order dated 17-06-2023 (Annexure-8), passed by the General Manager (Personnel Services) i.e. Respondent No.2;

AND Petitioner further prays for issuance of appropriate Writ or Writs, direction or directions, order or orders to set aside the Final order dated 22-06-2005 (Annexure-2), passed by Deputy General Manager, UCO Bank i.e. Respondent NO.5 whereby and whereunder Respondent NO. 5 has imposed punishment of Removal from Service with Superannuation Benefits i.e. Pension and/or Provident fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing and without disqualification from future employment."

Arguments of the Petitioner

3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that arising out of the same incident and the same set of charges both the proceedings i.e. departmental proceeding as well as criminal case, were instituted against the petitioner and the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case after full-fledged trial. The learned Senior counsel submits that in the departmental proceeding, altogether four witnesses were examined, two were from the side of the management and two from the side of the defence but in the criminal case altogether 7 witnesses were examined and 4 of them were bank officials. She has fairly submitted that none of the witnesses who were examined in the departmental proceeding were the witnesses in the criminal case.

4. She has also submitted that the informant/victim/complainant namely Meena Singh neither appeared as a witness in the disciplinary proceedings nor was examined as a witness in the criminal case and therefore, the petitioner was deprived of cross-examining Smt. Meena Singh which could have enabled the petitioner to bring the truth on board. The learned Senior counsel has submitted that the cheques were not sent for examination by handwriting expert and since Smt. Meena Singh did not appear, therefore, her signature could not be compared with the signature on the cheques.

5. The learned Senior counsel has also submitted that the document was required to be proved and mere filing was not sufficient. She has relied upon paragraphs 14 and 23 the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 (Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others).

6. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the points raised in the memo of appeal (Annexure-3) have also not been considered by the appellate authority.

7. The learned Senior counsel has further submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid submission, it may also be considered that the punishment of removal is shockingly disproportionate. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 17.01.2024.

8. The learned Senior counsel has thereafter submitted that prior to acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner had accepted the terminal benefit but the same will not preclude the petitioner from challenging the orders passed in the departmental proceedings particularly in the light of acquittal in the criminal case.

9. The learned Senior counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175 (Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and others).

Arguments of the Respondents

10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the prayer, has submitted that the petitioner cannot take benefit of acquittal in the criminal case, inasmuch as, the allegations in the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were not one and the same. He has submitted that without any requisition, the cheque book was issued by the petitioner and at the time of disbursement of the amount against cheques from such cheque-book, it was the petitioner who was responsible for the disbursement.

11. The learned counsel has submitted that this is not only apparent from the enquiry report, but also apparent from the reply to the charge-sheet submitted by the petitioner. He has referred to the reply filed by the petitioner to charge no. 1 and 2.

12. The learned counsel further submits that the disciplinary proceedings were held in accordance with law and the relevant documents were exhibited by the witness from the side of the management. He submits that non examination of the complainant has no bearing in the case.

13. The learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority and therefore, the impugned orders do not call for any interference.

14. With regard to the criminal case, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that admittedly none of the witnesses examined in the departmental proceeding, were examined in the criminal case. There were totally different set of witnesses. The

learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner was dismissed as back as on 22.06.2005 and his appeal was also dismissed on 27.02.2006. He submits that the petitioner did not take any step to challenge the order passed in the disciplinary proceeding as well as the order of the appellate authority and after having acquitted in the criminal case on 18.01.2018, the petitioner preferred a representation and thereafter, filed a writ petition challenging the appellate order. The appellate order was set-aside and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority for fresh consideration. However, in the meantime, the petitioner had also taken the terminal benefits. He submits that the delinquent cannot wait for an indefinite period of time after passing of the order by the authority in the departmental proceeding and challenge the same after long gap when acquitted in the criminal case, which is about 14 years in the present case.

15. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) 7 SCC 797 (Shashi Bhushan Prasad Vs. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force and others) and has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken into consideration the effect of acquittal in a criminal case. The learned counsel submits that the departmental proceedings are decided on the principles of pre-ponderance of probabilities and the impugned orders passed in the present case are well-reasoned orders which do not call for any interference.

16. So far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the charge having been proved, the petitioner has only been removed from service. Rather the respondents have taken a lenient view and have not passed an order of dismissal.

Rejoinder Argument of the Petitioner

17. In reply, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aspect regarding requisition and issuance of the cheque was also subject matter of consideration in the criminal case which has come in the cross-examination of the manager of the

concerned Branch and also in the evidence of the PW 5 i.e. the investigating officer.

18. The learned Senior counsel submits that the petitioner was working only as Acting Assistant Head Cashier at ISL Extension, Counter, Jharia. She submits that the requisition slip was entered in the ledger folio by the petitioner as a part of his duty and as per office order and this aspect of the matter was mentioned by the petitioner in the reply to the charge-sheet but has not been properly considered. Findings of this Court

19. Before proceeding, it would be important to keep in mind the scope of interference in the matter of disciplinary enquiry in writ proceedings. The scope of interference in the matter of disciplinary proceedings has been summarized in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2020) 9 SCC 471 (Pravin Kumar vs. Union of India) para-25 to 28, which is quoted as under: -

"I. Scope of judicial review in service matters

25. The learned counsel for the appellant spent considerable time taking us through the various evidence on record with the intention of highlighting lacunae and contradictions. We feel that such an exercise was in vain, as the threshold of interference in the present proceedings is quite high. The power of judicial review discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or 32, or when sitting in appeal under Article 136, is distinct from the appellate power exercised by a departmental appellate authority. It would be gainsaid that judicial review is an evaluation of the decision-making process, and not the merits of the decision itself. Judicial review seeks to ensure fairness in treatment and not fairness of conclusion. It ought to be used to correct manifest errors of law or procedure, which might result in significant injustice; or in case of bias or gross unreasonableness of outcome.

26. These principles are succinctly elucidated by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of Indiain the following extract: (SCC pp. 759-60, paras 12-13) "12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal concerned is to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of the Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion

receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.

13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel this Court held at SCR pp. 728-29 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."

27. These parameters have been consistently reiterated by this Court in a catena of decisions, including:

(i) State of T.N. v. S. Subramaniam.

(ii) Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank.

(iii) H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya.

28. It is thus well settled that the constitutional courts while exercising their powers of judicial review would not assume the role of an appellate authority. Their jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Put differently, judicial review is not analogous to venturing into the merits of a case like an appellate authority."

20. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Deputy General Manager Vs. Ajai Kr. Srivastava"

reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 4.

21. The petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was working and was posted in UCO Bank at ISL Extension Counter under Jharia Branch, Jharia, and on 29.04.2003, he was working as "Acting Assistant Head Cashier". The Petitioner was served with Charge Sheet dated 20.05.2004. Prior to issuance of Charge Sheet, one First Information Report was instituted on 08.05.2004 against the petitioner on the basis of a written report of the informant who was the Senior Branch Manager of UCO Bank, Jharia Branch, alleging that on

06.05.2004, one account holder, Smt. Meena Singh, along with her husband Ram Naresh Singh, visited the bank for transaction in her account and withdrew an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- by cheque no. 898239 and submitted their old requisition slip for issuance of a cheque book. After the transaction of Rs. 2.5 lakhs, they got their passbook updated. To their utter surprise, the passbook was showing withdrawal of Rs. 20 lakhs through three cheques dated 03.05.2003, 24.05.2003 and 29.05.2003, for an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs, 7 lakhs and 10 lakhs respectively. Smt. Meena Singh had immediately refused to have withdrawn the said amount and brought this fact to the knowledge of in-charge of the extension branch as well as the informant in the criminal case. The informant immediately went to the extension counter branch and after going through the relevant documents and withdrawal, it appeared that the signature of Smt. Meena Singh did not tally fully with the records and signatures on all the cheques were verified by the petitioner on the basis of which the passing officer passed the cheques for payment.

22. Thus, arising out of the same allegation departmental proceedings as well as criminal case was instituted against the petitioner and the root of the allegation was that there was no requisition slip or written request for issuance of cheque from the account holder in connection with cheque book bearing cheque nos. 443921 to 443930 and 3 cheques out of the cheque book containing aforesaid series of cheques were illegally utilized on 03.05.2003, 24.05.2003 and 29.05.2003 and total of Rs.20 Lakhs were withdrawn which came to light only when the account holder, Smt. Meena Singh came to the bank on 06.05.2004 and also submitted requisition for issuance of cheque book.

23. Pursuant to the charge sheet, the petitioner duly responded to each of the charges as follows.

Charges in the Charge Sheet        Reply of the petitioner
Charge No.1 -                       I deny that I have delivered

That on 29-04-03, while you a cheque of 10 leaves bearing no. were working as Acting Asst. 443921 to 443930 in the SB a/c Head Cashier at ISL Extension no. 1169/7 of Smt Mina Singh. I

Counter, Jharia issued a cheque have only entered the cheque book book of 10 leaves having no. as mentioned above in the cheque 443921 to 443930 in the S/B A/C book issue register which was my No 1169/7 of Smt. Meena Singh regular job as per office order. and recorded the same in the The security item is solely ledger folio of the said account handled by the officer and can be under your signature. Incidentally delivered by an officer to the no requisition slip or written account holder and that principle request to that effect was was followed in this case also. obtained from the said account The requisition slip was holder. The account holder has entered in the Sb ledger folio by also denied that the cheque book the undersigned as a part of his bearing no. 443921 to 443930 duty, as per office order.

was ever received by her.                   The      undersigned      was
                                     officiating as acting Head Cashier
                                     on that day, so he had to release
                                     the requisition slip along with
                                     other instruments, since promotion
                                     policy clearly indicates" "while
                                     officiating a person will have to
                                     perform the job of higher nature in
                                     addition to his regular duty".
Charge No. 2 -                              In the matter of alleged
That three withdrawals were          fraudulent cheques, the signature
allowed from the said S/B A/C        was verified by the undersigned as
No. 1169/7 of Smt. Meena Singh       the undersigned was officiating
on 03/05/03, 24/05/03 and            those days as Acting Head
29/05/03 vide ch. no 443921 dt       Cashier.
03/05/03 for Rs 3,00,000/-                  As per provisions laid down
(Rupees Three Lacs only) ch. no      in the promotion policy, I was
443922 dt 24/05/03 for Rs            bound to verify the signatures of
7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs        cheques presented over the
only) ch, no 443923 dt 29/05/03      counter.
for Rs 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ton              I deny the charge that the
Lacs only) respectively and          signature on these cheques do not
subsequently it is revealed that     tally with the signature recorded
these cheques have been              on the specimen signature card. To
encashed fraudulently.               my firm opinion the bank officials
That you have verified the           have hastily concluded that the
signatures on ch no. 443921,         signatures do not tally without
443922 and 443923 on above           getting     them      verified    by
dates and none of the signatures     handwriting expert. Even the
on the cheques tallied with the      handwriting      expert's    opinion
specimen signature of the            cannot absolve the passing officer
account holder as recorded with      of his duty to verify the signatures
the bank.                            as laid down in manual of
                                     instructions volume IV circular
                                     No.      CHO/PMG/10/98         dated
                                     18/06/98 of the bank.




 Charge No. 3 - That the said             The allegation of the account
account holder has categorically     holder does not pin point in any
denied that those withdrawals in     way my involvement in the subject
her account have been made by        alleged fraudulent withdrawals. As

her. She has also alleged that the such I fail to comprehend as to above withdrawals from her S/B how such allegation of the A/C No. 1169/7 have been made customer has become the basis for fraudulently. framing the charge against me.

Since charge No. 3 can't be framed against me in any way, I categorically refrain myself from making any comments whatsoever in this regard.

24. From the perusal of the reply to charge no. 1, the petitioner denied to have delivered the cheque of 10 leaves bearing Cheque No. 443921 to 443930 in relation to the account of Smt. Meena Singh and stated but admitted that he only entered the cheque book in the cheque book issue register which was his regular job as per office order and stated that the requisition slip was entered in the SB ledger folio by the petitioner as a part of his duty, as he was officiating as acting Head Cashier on that day and had to release the requisition slip along with other instruments. Thus, the explanation of the petitioner with respect to charge no.1 was that the cheque book was issued by him pursuant to requisition for issuance of cheque book.

25. With respect to charge no. 2, the allegations were denied by the petitioner and it was asserted by the petitioner that the signature on the cheques were verified by him as he was Acting Assistant Head Cashier and denied that the signature did not tally with the specimen signature card. The petitioner also asserted that the allegation was being made without getting the signature verified by handwriting experts and also stated that as per the manual of instructions, even the handwriting expert's opinion cannot absolve the passing officer of his duty to verify the signatures.

26. With regard to charge no. 3, the petitioner stated that the allegation of the account holder that she had not withdrawn the amount from the account did not pinpoint in any way about his involvement in the alleged fraudulent withdrawal. He also stated that

charge no. 3 cannot be framed against him in any way and he refrained from making any comments.

27. Thus, the stand of the petitioner was that he had issued the cheque book upon receipt of the requisition for issuance of cheque book; tallied the signatures while passing the three cheques and had nothing to say with regards to fraudulent withdrawal of the amount from the account of Smt. Meena Singh through the three cheques.

28. The petitioner fully participated in the enquiry, and an enquiry report was submitted on 02.04.2005 after numerous sittings.

29. With respect to charge no. 1, it was observed by the enquiry officer that the petitioner was officiating in the place of Head Cashier on 29.04.2003 but the petitioner unauthorizedly issued a cheque book of 10 leaves having no. 443921 to 443930 in the saving bank account of Smt. Meena Singh and recorded the same in the ledger folio of the said account under their signature without taking requisition slip or written request from the account holder. After having recorded as above, it was observed that it was very clear that the petitioner unauthorizedly issued the aforesaid cheques and handed over the same to fictitious person and the cheque amount was not received by the account holder. With the aforesaid observation, the enquiry officer held that the Charge No. 1 stood proved. The findings are quoted as under:-

"E.O. Observation:-

As narrated in charge no. (1) that C.S.E. was working at I.S.L. Ext. Counter Jharia as Asstt. Head Cashier on 29.04.2003. But we can say that C.S.E. was working at I.S.L. Extension Counter Jharia as Head Cashier (O) Category E, not as Asstt. Head Cashier.

As C.S.E. was officiating in the place of Head Cashier (O) Category E on 29.04.2003 they are accountable and responsible for the running of the cash Dept. (See Annex P.O- 12). But C.S.E. unauthorizedly issued a cheque book of 10 leaves having no. 443921 to 443930 in the SB A/C No. 1169/7 of Smt. Meena Singh and recorded the same in the ledger folio of the said a/c holder their signature without taking requisition slip or written request from the said account

- holder. (see Annexure P.O. 1, P.O. -3, P.O. 4).

Thus it is very much clear that C.S.E. unauthorizedly issued the cheque no. 443921 to 443930 in the SB A/C No. 1169/7 of Smt. Meena Singh and handed over the same to fictitious person. (please see Annexure- P.O. 4). It is very much clear from Annexure P.O. 4 that cheque no. 443921 to 443930 was not received by Smt. Meena Singh, owner of SB A/C No. 1169/7.

E.O. Conclusion:-

Thus, we can say that charge No. - (1) levelled against Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh- proved."

30. With respect to Charge No. 2, it was observed that the petitioner had verified the signature on the three cheques dated 03.05.2003, 24.05.2003 and 29.05.2003 in the aforesaid series of cheque book, but signature of the drawer of the cheques did not tally with the signature as recorded with the bank and due to such an act, aforementioned cheques were fraudulently encashed. With this, the enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty with regard to Charge No. 2. The findings are quoted as under: -

"E.O. Observation: -

It is very much clear from the Annexure marked as P.O.- 6, 7 and 8 that:-

(i) cheque No.- 443921 dated 03.05.2003 for Rs. 3,00,000/- (see Annexure- P.O. 6)

(ii) cheque No.- 443922 dated 24.05.2003 for Rs. 7,00,000/- (see Annexure- P.O. 7)

(iii) cheque No.- 443923 dated 29.05.2003 for Rs. 10,00,000/- (see Annexure- P.O. 8) were allowed for payment from S.B. a/c no. 1169/7 of Smt. Meena Singh on 03/05/2003, 24/05/2003 and 29/05/03 respectively.

The C.S.E. have verified signature on cheque no. - 443921, 443922 and 443923 on above date (see Annexure P.O. 6, 7, 8) but signature of the drawer of the above cheques not tallied with the signature of the account of Smt. Meena Singh (owner of S.B. A/C no. 1169/7) as recorded with the bank. (please see Annexure P.O. - 6, 7, 8 and P.O. 5). Thus due to such act of C.S.E. above mentioned cheques have been fraudulently encashed from the SB A/c No. - 1169/7 of Smt. Meena Singh on 03/05/2003, 24/05/2003 and 29.05.2003 respectively. E.O. Conclusion: -

Thus, we can say that charge no. (2) levelled against C.S.E.- proved."

31. So far as Charge No. 3 is concerned, it was stated by the enquiry officer that Smt. Meena Singh had denied withdrawal of the amount from the account and that her claim was genuine as she had earlier received the cheque no. 898231 to 898240 on 26.12.1989, against her SB account and submitted requisition slip on 06.05.2004 for issuance of fresh cheque book. It was also observed that the petitioner had also not submitted any proof that the account holder had submitted written application or requisition slip for issuance of fresh cheque book and thus it was proved that the petitioner issued cheque book no. 443921 to 443930 in SB account of the account holder without taking requisition slip or requisition letter from the account

holder and handed over the same to the fictitious person. With this, the enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of charge no. 3 also and observed that Rs. 3 lakhs, 7 lakhs and 10 lakhs were fraudulently withdrawn from the SB account of Smt. Meena Singh on 03.05.2003, 24.05.2003 and 29.05.2003 respectively. The findings are quoted as under: -

"E.O. Observation:-

Owner of SB A/c No. 1169/7 Smt. Meena Singh denied that withdrawal in her account have been made by her. Her claim is genuine as she was received cheque No.- 898231 to 898240 on 26/12/89 against SB A/c No.- 1169/7 and submitted requisition slip on 06/05/2004 for issue of fresh cheque book (see- Annexure P.O.- 1)...........has also not submitted any proof that a/c holder submitted written request or requisition slip for issue of fresh cheque book. Thus, it is proved that C.S.E. issued cheque book No. 443921 to 443930 in the SB A/C No. 1169/7 without taking requisition slip or request letter from the SB A/C No.- 1169/7 holder and handed over to fictitious person.

It is also narrated against charge no. (2) that Rs. 3,00,000/-, Rs. 7,00,000/ and Rs. 10,00,000/- has been fraudulently withdrawn from SB A/c No. 1169/7 on 03/05/2003, 24/05/2003 and 29/05/2003 respectively.

E.O. Conclusion:-

Thus, charge No. (3) levelled against C.S.E. - proved."

32. This Court finds that the findings in the enquiry report were based on the materials on record which were primarily the banking documents including the finding that the petitioner unauthorizedly issued a cheque book of 10 leaves having no. 443921 to 443930 in the SB A/C No. 1169/7 of Smt. Meena Singh and recorded the same in the ledger folio of the said a/c holder without taking requisition slip or written request from the said account - holder, by referring to the documents of the bank.

33. A copy of the enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority on 08.04.2005 with instructions to submit his comments and the petitioner submitted his comment vide covering letter dated 23.04.2005. From the records of this case, neither the petitioner nor the respondents have placed on record the reply of the petitioner dated 23.04.2005 to the enquiry report.

34. However, the order dated 22.06.2005 passed by the disciplinary authority reveals that the reply of the petitioner was duly considered. The disciplinary authority recorded that the authority examined all the relevant papers including charge sheet, proceeding of enquiry and

management exhibits. The authority further recorded that all papers submitted by defence representative along with evidence of witnesses were placed before him and found that sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner to defend his case and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice at any stage. The disciplinary authority recorded the following findings:-

"6. Regarding the first charge it is found in the enquiry that this charge is established for several reasons. As the CSE was officiating in place of Head Cashier Category -E on 29.04.03 he is accountable and responsible for the running of cash department (Annexure PO-

12). But CSE unauthorizedly issued the said cheque book to some fictitious person and recorded it on the ledger folio in the account No. 1169/7 of Smt. Meena Singh under his signature without taking any requisition slip or written requirement from the account holder (see annexure PO-1, PO-3 and PO - 4). I agree with the findings of the EO that the first charge stands Proved.

7. Regarding the second charge it is found in the enquiry that this charge is established for several reasons. The above-mentioned three cheques bearing Nos. 443921, 443922 and 443923 were allowed for payment from the SB account No. 1169/7 of Smt. Meena Singh fraudulently (annexure PO-6, 7 and 8). The CSE has verified the signature on all the above mentioned three cheques, but the signature doen't tally with the specimen signature of Smt. Meena Singh, the said account holder, recorded with the Bank. So the above mentioned cheques were encashed fraudulently from the above noted saving account. And agree with the findings of the EO that the second charge stands Proved.

8. Regarding the third charge also it is found in the enquiry that this charge is established for several reasons. The account holder Smt. Meena Singh denied that the withdrawal in her account has not been made by her, nor any requisition slip or written request has been given by her for the captioned cheque book No. 443921- 443930. Her claim is genuine as it is proved that the CSE issued the said cheque book to some fictitious person, who fraudulently withdrew an amount of Rs. 20 Lacs, in total from the account No. 1169/7 of Sml Meena Singh vide Ch. No. 443921, 443922 and 443923 on different dates. I agree with the findings of the EO that the third charge stands Proved."

35. The disciplinary authority was of the view that the charges against the petitioner which stood proved were of very serious nature and for each of the charges proved, the disciplinary authority passed order of removal but with superannuation benefits i.e. pension and/or provident fund, gratuity as would be due otherwise under the rules and regulations prevailing and without disqualification from future employment with immediate effect. The suspension period was directed not to be treated on duty. The order of the disciplinary

authority was passed after giving personal hearing to the petitioner on 22.06.2005.

36. The petitioner filed appeal against the order passed by the disciplinary authority by memo of appeal dated 10.09.2005 and asserted that no officer or employee was produced in the enquiry to assert that obtaining requisition slip from the account holder was the duty of the petitioner, nor anybody saw the petitioner receiving the same, nor the account holder was produced in the enquiry to depose that she had not actually received the cheque book in question. It was also asserted that the account holder was also not produced in the enquiry to depose that the signature affixed on the cheque was not her signature. Besides, no witness was produced in the enquiry to state that the signatures of the questioned cheques were different from the specimen signature. With regard to charge no. 3, the petitioner asserted that the account holder had categorically denied the withdrawal of money, but was not produced in the enquiry to depose and thereby he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine her and accordingly, her letter of complaint could not be relied as she was not produced at the enquiry to state that the complaint was filed by her and that the content of the complaint was proved. It was also asserted that the reasons adduced in support of charges were baseless without any iota of evidence. The charge-sheet is only a list of allegations. These allegations could not be proved as the management did not produce even one witness in support thereof. Whatever bank's presenting officer personally stated during the course of enquiry in support of the allegations, cannot take the place of evidence since the presenting officer was not a witness and his assertions during enquiry and in his written brief at best could be said to be pleading, but without being supported by any legal evidence.

37. The appellate authority initially dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation vide order dated 27.02.2006 by stating that the appeal is required to be filed within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appeal was filed beyond the stipulated period.

38. The appellate order dated 27.02.2006 was challenged in W.P.(S) No. 5508 of 2018 after 12 years and the same was set-aside on the ground that there was nothing on record to suggest as to when the order of punishment dated 22.06.2005 was communicated to the petitioner. The learned writ Court observed that the appeal was admittedly not disposed of on merits. The appellate order was set- aside with a direction to pass reasoned order on the appeal of the petitioner taking into consideration the judgment of acquittal dated 18.01.2018 passed in corresponding criminal case being G.R. Case No. 1433 of 2004. This Court finds that in the meantime the petitioner had already accepted the terminal benefits.

39. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5508 of 2018, the impugned order dated 17.06.2023 has been passed by the appellate authority. The petitioner was granted opportunity of hearing by the appellate authority and the petitioner had requested the appellate authority to take into consideration 19 years of his unblemished service. The appellate authority recorded the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and ultimately, dismissed the appeal.

40. This Court finds that it was never in dispute that the said amount of Rs. 3 lakhs, 7 lakhs and 10 lakhs were withdrawn on 03.05.2003, 24.05.2003 and 29.05.2003 respectively vide cheque nos. 443921, 443922 and 443923. It has come on record that Smt. Meena Singh had filed her requisition slip for issuance of fresh cheque on 06.05.2004 and prior to that date, the fresh cheque book was already issued with respect to her account and was utilized. It was never the case of the petitioner that the cheque book was issued on the basis of any written request by the account holder rather in response to the charge-sheet the petitioner had asserted that the requisition slip was entered into S.B. ledger folio by him as a part of his duty and that he had to release the requisition slip along with other documents. There is no explanation on the part of the petitioner as to the fact that if the cheque book for the aforesaid series of cheques bearing nos. 443921 to 443930 was issued on 29.04.2003 on the basis of requisition slip submitted by the account holder then under what circumstances, the

account holder would again produce the requisition slip for issuance of cheque book on 06.05.2004. The enquiry officer has considered the fact that the account holder had produced the requisition slip only on 06.05.2004 for issuance of fresh cheque book and admittedly, the cheque book for the aforesaid series of cheques from 443921 to 443930 was issued in the name of the account holder much prior to 06.05.2004 meaning thereby that it was issued without any requisition or written request. In aforesaid circumstances, the enquiry officer had found that the charge against the petitioner was proved.

41. Before passing the order of removal, the disciplinary authority had forwarded a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner vide letter dated 08.04.2005 and the petitioner had submitted his comments on 23.04.2005. The disciplinary authority specifically recorded that there was no requisition slip or written request from the side of the account holder in connection with issuance of cheque book bearing leaves nos. 443921 to 443930 on 29.04.2003.

42. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of argument has submitted that altogether four witnesses were examined in the departmental proceedings; two witnesses from the side of the management and two from the side of the defence and in the criminal case, altogether seven witnesses were examined; four of them were bank officials and had also submitted that none of the witnesses who were examined in the departmental proceedings were the witnesses in the criminal case, however, from the records of this case, it is not clear as to how many witnesses were examined in the departmental proceedings. Moreover, it is very clear from the records of this case that the findings of the departmental proceedings were based on the banking documents as fully explained above.

43. This Court also finds that the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority have referred to the various documents of the bank while recording the findings and the factum of issuance of cheque book on 29.04.2003 and encashment of 3 cheques from the cheque book on 03.05.2003, 24.05.2003 and 29.05.2003 is not in dispute. Further, it is also not in dispute that the account holder had

produced the requisition slip for issuance of fresh cheque book on 06.05.2004. It remained completely unexplained from the side of the petitioner as to how and under what circumstances the petitioner had issued the cheque book on 29.04.2003 in the name of the account holder which as per the petitioner was issued on the basis of requisition slip.

44. This Court finds that the fresh order passed by the appellate authority which is impugned in the present proceedings, is a well- reasoned order and has been passed after recording that the cheque book was issued by the petitioner on 29.04.2003 without any requisition and without any written request from the account holder and out of the cheque book three cheques were used for withdrawal of Rs.20 lakhs.

45. So far as the argument of the petitioner that non-examination of the account holder Smt. Meena Singh was fatal to the case of the department in the disciplinary proceeding is concerned, this Court rejects the said argument as under.

The petitioner having taken a specific stand in the disciplinary proceedings that the cheque book consisting of cheque leaf nos. 443921 to 443930 was issued on 29.04.2003 on the basis of the requisition slip but neither requisition slip was found on record nor any written request from the account holder was found. This is coupled with the undisputed fact that the account holder had produced the requisition slip subsequently on 06.05.2004 for issuance of cheque book and at that point of time it was found that three cheque leaves were utilised from cheque book issued on 29.04.2003. Certainly, the requisition slip could not have been produced subsequently on 06.05.2004 once the requisition slip was already utilized by the account holder while issuance of cheque book on 29.04.2003 as claimed by the petitioner. The enquiry officer has recorded a clear finding on the basis of materials on record that the requisition slip was submitted by the account holder only on 06.05.2004 and there was neither any requisition slip on record at the time of issuance of cheque book on 29.04.2003 nor there was any written application of the

account holder for issuance of cheque book. In view of the finding of fact that cheque book was issued on 29.04.2003 without requisition and without written request, non-examination of Smt. Meena Singh as a witness in the departmental proceedings has no bearing in the matter. The charge against the petitioner stood fully proved on the basis of documents produced during enquiry and there was no need to examine Smt. Meena Singh as witness to prove the charges against the petitioner. Otherwise also, it is not the case of the petitioner that he ever made any request to summon Smt. Meena Singh during the enquiry.

46. So far as the judgment relied upon by the petitioner reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 (Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others) is concerned, the same was in peculiar facts of the case where the solitary evidence against the delinquent was his confessional statement in the criminal proceedings .In that background, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that the Enquiry Officer performs the quasi-judicial function and the charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the evidence collected during investigation of the case against the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceedings and no witness was examined to prove the said documents and the management witnesses merely tendered the document and did not prove the content thereof. Consequently, it was held that reliance by the Enquiry Officer on the F.I.R. which could not have been treated as evidence was bad in law. The said judgment is not an authority on the point as to whether a disciplinary enquiry can rest only on documents tendered through memo of evidence without being formally exhibited by leading oral evidence. This Court is also of the considered view that in a case where the case of the department is based on documentary evidence, there is no bar in filing memo of evidence through the presenting officer and the fact that the presenting officer had presented the memo of evidence does not vitiate the proceeding in any manner. In the instant case, the enquiry proceeding was essentially based on banking

documents tendered and relied upon in the enquiry proceeding and therefore the aforesaid judgment in the case of Roop Singh Negi (Supra) does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. Consideration of acquittal in the criminal Case

47. The petitioner was charged in the criminal case arising out of the same incident for offence under sections 408, 409, 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code and he pleaded not guilty and was accordingly tried under the said sections. It has been observed in the order of acquittal dated 18.01.2018 that the investigation remained pending against other accused. At the stage trial, although the account holder Smt. Meena Singh was not examined but her husband Ram Naresh Singh was examined as P.W. 6. The police officer who subsequently started the investigation was examined as P.W. 5; the other witnesses were the officers of the bank. The prosecution produced only two documentary evidences i.e. the written report exhibited as Exhibit 1 and the seizure list as Exhibit 2. The defence did not lead any evidence either oral or documentary.

48. Paragraph no.12 to 14 of the trial Court's judgment dealt with the findings with regard to charge under sections 408 and 409 of Indian Penal Code; Paragraph no.15 and 16 dealt with charge under sections 420 and 120B of IPC and in paragraph no.16 itself the finding with regard to each of the sections have been mentioned in 3 different sub-paragraphs. Paragraph no.14 and 16 are quoted as under:

"14. Thus these witness who are the informant/Branch Manager of Main UCO Bank (PW-3), the then Branch Manager (PW-1) of Extension Branch of UCO Bank, and others bank officers (PW-2, 4 and 7) respectively and the co-employees of the accused has only proved that the accused Sushil Singh was an employee of the UCO Bank at the time of alleged occurrence and posted at Extension Branch, Jhariya as a head cashier. On the point of fraudulently withdrawn of Rs. 20 lakhs from the account of one Meena Singh vide A/C nо. 1169/07 through three different cheques the prosecution has produced and marked the xerox copies of three cheques i.e cheque no. AS/91 443921 dt. 03/05/2003 of Rs. 03 lakhs, cheque no. AS/91 443922 dt: 24/05/2003 of Rs. 07 lakhs and cheque no. AS/91-443923 dt. 29/05/2003 of Rs. 10 lakhs which has been marked as X, X1, and X2 respectively for identification. The PW-3/informant has already admitted in his evidence that signature of alleged cheques or the signature of suspected bank staffs has not been sent before the expert for tallying the same with the specimen signature of other documents of the Meena Singh. From perusal of entire record and evidence the cheques issued register has, also not been exhibited by the

prosecution for the alleged series of cheques which has alleged to be used for withdrawing the alleged amount. The accused above has already admitted that as a bank staff he was discharging his duty as assigned to him in good faith and if any cheques book in disputes had issued on 29/04/2003 then the same is the normal course of bank's business and has not transgressed his jurisdiction. So, it could be said that the alleged cheques has been fraudulently issued and later on the three series of cheques issued on 29/04/2003 has been presented and passed for payment on the alleged date for withdrawing the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The main victim/account holder Smt Meena Singh has not turn up before the court. The PW-3/informant and already admitted in para-32 and 33 of his evidence that on the application of Smt. Meena Singh and after making payment of the F.D.R. her S. B. account has been closed at Extension Branch prior to filing the charge sheet in the present case. Not a single chit of original documents has been produced or exhibited by the prosecution to established its case except the Ext- 1(written report) and Ext-2(seizure list). The PW-5 the subsequent I.O. who had presented the Ext-2 has also admitted in his evidence that the alleged occurrence took place before the extension counter but from perusal of the seizure list(Ext-2) the alleged documents has been seized from the Main Branch of UCO Bank Jharia. It is further appears that the main conducting I.O. has also not been examined by the prosecution. The prosecution further failed to explained about the original documents with regards to the alleged account.

16. Thus, from the evidence the PW-6 the husband of the account holder Smt. Meena Singh who alleged to has been cheated by the accused as a banker by issuing the alleged cheques series fraudulently which was actually not been issued to his wife and by using the three alleged cheques fraudulently withdrawn money of Rs. 20,00,00/-. But the prosecution has failed to established that the alleged cheques in disputes were actually issued to Meena Singh or not since she never turn up before the court to deposing his evidence. As stated that the signature of the Meena Singh or any suspected bank staff has not been sent for comparing if before any hand writing expert. The PW-6 has admitted that he himself operates and maintained the account of his wife (Meena Singh). He is also paying income tax regularly and also obtained the accounts details prior to filing the income tax. It is also surprising enough even than the PW-6 has no idea of any fraudulent withdrawn of Rs. 20,00,000/- prior to alleged occurrence i.e. 06/04/2004. The PW-3/informant in para- 13 of his evidence admitted that the xerox copy of application dated 06/05/2004 (marked X-3) does not appears the name of accused Sushil Singh.

It may be borne in mind that the offence like the one in trial is committed in secrecy and at back and no direct evidence on commission of forgery is possible. The prosecution has to proved all the chain of circumstances which clinching circumstances against the accused persons that there was some conspiracy hatched between the accused persons to commit such office but in the instant case the prosecution has failed to connect all the chain of circumstances against the accused.

i. It is admitted that the above named accused is a head chasier on the date of alleged occurrence as banker being entrusted with property in the way of his business as a banker but the prosecution failed to connect the clinching circumstances that the above named accused commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property (Rs. 20,00,000/-) to him and received the same knowing that the same was obtained dishonestly and fraudulently and which he dishonestly misappropriated and converted it to his own use or business and as

such the charge u/s.408 and 409 IPC does not stands proved beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts.

ii. The prosecution has further failed to connect the chain of clinching circumstances that the above named accused with convenience of other co-accused and in furtherance of their common intention by cheating and deceiving the bank or account holder Meena Singh fraudulently and dishonestly induced it to deliver money/amount to them and received the same and as such the charge u/s. 420 IPC also does not stands proved beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts; and iii. The prosecution further failed to established that there was a conspiracy hatched between the accused with other co-accused persons and all the accused persons in pursuance to their common intention agreed with each other and withdrawn the public money in pursuance of the agreement and as such the charge /s 120 "B" IPC also does not stand proved beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts.

Consequently, the charges for the offence u/s - 408, 409, 420,120B of IPC has failed against the above named accused."

49. So far as the acquittal in the criminal case is concerned, the perusal of paragraph 14 of the judgment of acquittal reveals that only xerox copies of the 3 cheques by which the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs, 7 lakhs and 10 lakhs were withdrawn on 03.05.2003, 24.05.2003 and 29.05.2003 were produced and marked as Exhibit - X, X1 and X2 for identification and the cheque issue register was also not exhibited by the prosecution. The petitioner had admitted in the criminal case that as bank staff he was discharging his duty and if any cheque book in dispute was issued on 29.04.2003, then the same was in normal course of bank's business. It was also observed that not a single chit of original documents was produced or exhibited by the prosecution to establish its case except Exhibit- 1 i.e. the written report and Exhibit- 2 - the seizure list and the main conducting investigating officer was also not examined by the prosecution although the subsequent investigating officer who had presented the Exhibit- 2 was examined and had admitted in his evidence that the alleged occurrence took place in the extension counter, but from the perusal of seizure list (Exhibit- 2), the documents were seized from the main branch of UCO Bank.

50. This Court finds that one of the main reasons for acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case was that the relevant documents were not produced by the prosecution at the stage of trial and only the xerox copy of the cheques were produced and the cheque issue register was not at all exhibited. This Court finds that the learned trial

Court considering the materials had found that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.

51. This Court further finds that in the disciplinary proceedings, the banking documents were taken into consideration which were in the records of the bank and produced before the enquiry officer and were referred and relied upon not only by the enquiry officer while recording a finding, but also by the disciplinary authority. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case has no bearing in the matter and the materials produced before the enquiry officer and those produced in the criminal case were not one and the same and admittedly the witnesses were also not the same. The documents which were required to be exhibited before the criminal Court for the purposes of conviction were withheld by the bank for the reasons best known to them. However, the documents were certainly before the enquiry officer who had recorded his findings on the basis of materials on record.

52. In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has inter alia considered the legal position with regard to the effect of acquittal in the criminal proceedings. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the very same witnesses who were examined in the departmental proceedings were examined in the criminal trial and apart from that, 8 other witnesses were also examined in the criminal case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the expressions "benefit of doubt" and "honourably acquitted" and has observed in paragraph 28 that a court of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such terminology. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the conclusion that the acquittal in the criminal case was after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge can only be arrived at after a reading of the judgment in its entirety. The Court in judicial view is obliged to examine the substance of the judgment and not go by the form of expression used. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

also observed that the charges in the said case in the disciplinary proceedings were not just similar, but identical and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all the same. It was a case where in exercise of discretion the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, if allowed to stand, would be unjust, unfair and oppressive. The case was of a similar situation as that which arose in "G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat" reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446. The Hon'ble Supreme Court ultimately reinstated the appellant with all consequential benefits but with 50% of the back wages.

53. After having gone through the aforesaid judgment in the case of Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra), this Court finds that the said judgment does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. This Court has gone through the judgment of acquittal of the petitioner in entirety and finds that the essential documents to establish the charge were not produced by the prosecution at the stage of trial. Not only the cheque issue register was not produced, but even the cheques in original were not produced and the findings of the court in the criminal case which have been quoted above reveal that the prosecution could not prove the case for want of production of the documents from the bank. Consequently, the learned trial Court acquitted the petitioner by giving him the benefit of doubt. Admittedly, the witnesses who were there before the trial Court were not the witnesses in the disciplinary proceedings. Further, the enquiry report as well as the impugned order of dismissal clearly reflect that the documents which were not produced in the criminal trial, were certainly produced at the stage of enquiry and those documents are essentially undisputed documents particularly the cheque issue register, the cheques utilized to withdraw money and subsequent filing of requisition slip by the account holder in the year 2004. These facts have been taken into consideration by the enquiry officer and by the disciplinary authority while holding the petitioner guilty of the charges after granting an opportunity to the petitioner with respect to the findings of the enquiry officer. The appellate authority has also taken

into consideration this aspect of the matter while upholding the punishment of removal.

54. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra) has no bearing in the present case.

55. So far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that considering the nature of allegation proved against the petitioner the punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges much less shockingly disproportionate. This Court is of the considered view that the order of removal is commensurate with the charges proved against the petitioner and calls for no interference in writ jurisdiction.

56. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

57. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.

58. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj/AFR