Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kanchan Dubey vs Central Bank Of India on 17 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46378
1 WP-116-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 17th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 116 of 2018
KANCHAN DUBEY
Versus
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Narmada Prasad Choudhary- Advocate for the petitioner through VC.
Shri Arvind Pandey - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
(Reserved on : 28/08/2025)
(Pronounced on : 17/09/2025)
The present petition has been filed challenging the order Annexure P/1
dated 09.03.2017 whereby the petitioner has been visited with penalty of
dismissal. The said order is further confirmed by the appellate authority vide
order dated 08.08.2017.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the aforesaid orders
has contended that the dismissal of the petitioner from service is bad in law.
It is contended that the petitioner was working in the respondent-Bank on the
post of Manager and the charge-sheet issued against the petitioner in itself
was faulty. By referring to the charge-sheet Annexed at page 19 of the reply
of the respondents it is contended that the charge-sheet though mentions
specified charges against the petitioner which are as many as 14 in number,
but charge-sheet does not mention that which of the charges is misconduct
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46378
2 WP-116-2018
under which of the clauses of the regulations of the respondent-Bank,
therefore, the charges have to held as non specific and ambiguous. It is
argued that in fact the charges are not charges at all because the charges do
not allege that which act of the petitioner is what misconduct under what
regulation and therefore, the charges in fact do not allege any misconduct at
all and no penalty could have imposed on the petitioner on the strength of
such charges.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the brief of the
presenting officer was not given to the petitioner after conclusion of enquiry
though brief of the presenting officer was mandatorily to be given to the
petitioner and in absence of supplying of brief of the presenting officer to the
petitioner, the petitioner was deprived of fair opportunity to defend himself
to the enquiry and the entire enquiry proceedings have been vitiated by non-
supply of presenting officer's brief to the petitioner.
4. It is further argued that the charge sheet is vitiated by not supplying the
list of documents and list of witnesses to the petitioner which was
mandatorily to be supplied to the petitioner by the respondents along with
charge-sheet and therefore, the charge-sheet is also faulty.
5. It is further argued that the enquiry proceedings suffered from various
defects on account of which proper opportunity was not granted to the
petitioner during course of the enquiry.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has submitted that
proper opportunity was duly given to the petitioner during course of enquiry
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46378
3 WP-116-2018
and that the enquiry does not suffer from any legal or technical defects apart
from bald assertions being made before this Court by the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
7. It is contended that the charges against the petitioner were very serious
and four of the charges were of such a nature on account of which penalty of
dismissal could be imposed on the petitioner which has been so found by the
disciplinary authority by passing the penalty order. It is contended that as per
the conduct Regulations of the Bank and Discipline and Appeal Regulations
of the Bank, the charges are duly specific and duly point to misconduct of
the employee.
8. The counsel for the respondent-Bank further stated that only by the
reason of non-supply of list of witnesses and list of documents to the
petitioner it cannot be inferred that the petitioner did not get any fair
opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. Such inference could have
been drawn only if petitioner had not been given opportunity to cross
examine the witnesses and not to have copies of the documents relied by the
respondents during course of enquiry. Once the petitioner duly got
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and got copies of all the
documents then, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by not
supplying the list of witnesses and list of documents along with charge-
sheet.
9. Heard.
10. In the present case the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46378
4 WP-116-2018
containing as many as 14 charges and the disciplinary authority has come to
the conclusion that charge No. 4, 7, 8 and 14 are such on account of each of
which penalty of dismissal can be imposed on the petitioner apart from other
charges which are also found proved. The charges against the petitioner can
be summarized as under:-
Charge No. 1 related to violating the guidelines in the matter of inspection of
borrower not being carried out.
Charge No. 2 related to sanctioning of loan without proper assessment and
documentation.
Charge No. 3 related to loan documents being irregular, incomplete and
unstamped.
Charge No. 4 related to misappropriation of funds by transfer of subsidy
amount to personal account of the petitioner through accounts of associates.
Charge No. 5 related to violation of procedure in the matter of crediting of loan
amount.
Charge No. 6 related to not creating assets equal to the loan amount and
allowing the borrower to divert and mis-utilized the bank funds.
Charge No. 7 related to opening his separate savings accounts using different
CIF number in order to conceal the identity of account in which various
objectionable and dubious transactions were conducted for big amounts.
Charge No. 8 related to various suspicious transactions amounting to
embezzlement of big amounts of money in the accounts of closed relative and
family members of the petitioner.
Charge No. 9 related to loan amounts sanctioned being not properly transferred
to the borrowers' accounts and crediting disproportionate excess subsidy
amount in 79 accounts amounting to Rs. 48.96 lacs and total misappropriation
of subsidy to the tune of Rs. 75.19 lacs.
Charge No. 10 related to misappropriation of loan amount by crediting the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46378
5 WP-116-2018
account with less amount then what was sanctioned, in the loan account of the
borrowers.
Charge No. 11 related to disbursement of loan in cash violating the Bank's
Loan Policy.
Charge No. 12 related to violating lending guidelines of the Bank.
Charge No. 13 related to petitioner not following the guidelines in the matter of
sanctioning housing loan in his own favour.
Charge No. 14 related to opening bogus accounts in the name of one Smt. Rani
Dubey and sanctioning a limit on this account without the Branch having any
file of the loan account. This amount was later transferred to the accounts of
close relatives of the petitioner and all the transactions were authorized by the
petitioner himself and thereafter the accounts were closed.
11. The authority found that except charge No. 10, all the charges stand
proved and the allegation in charges No. 4, 7, 8 and 14 itself are sufficient to
pass order of dismissal in every independent charge. The authority further
found that major penalty can be awarded in each of the charges in charge
No. 5, 6, 9, 11 and 12.
12. As already noted above, the charges against the petitioner were serious
in nature and as evident from the enquiry report which is available on record
with reply of the respondents Annexure R/3, it has duly been found proved
that the petitioner has committed a lot of misappropriations of money and
defalcations favouring various other customers and even his own family
members. It has been found out by the inquiry officer that the petitioner has
misappropriated and diverted funds to the tune of huge proportion and funds
have been transferred to his own accounts, accounts of his relatives and
accounts of third parties and in this manner huge amounts of funds of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46378
6 WP-116-2018
Bank have been misappropriated. The details are contained in the Inquiry
report in much detail. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of
argument did not seriously dispute on merits, any of the findings of the
Inquiry Officer, therefore, looking to the findings arrived at against the
petitioner by the Inquiry Officer against which the scope of judicial review is
very limited, it is clear that the petitioner has committed defalcation of the
funds of the huge proportion and conducted various other procedural
irregularities.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner by pointing out the allegations
against the petitioner in various charges, has argued that the charges only
relate to procedural irregularity. However, looking to the charges at charge
No. 4, 7, 8, 9 & 14, it is clear that the petitioner has been guilty of
misappropriation of funds of huge proportions and the findings of the
Inquiry Officer in relation to charge No. 4,7,8, 9 and 14 are as under:-
In the charge no. 4 it has been proved that an amount of Rs. 9.00 lacs was
credited to the account of Smt. Nutan Dubey, mother of the petitioner through
one intermediary Shri R.K. Sharma. An amount of Rs. 1.60 Lacs was credited
to the account of Shri Mratunjay Dubey, brother of petitioner through Lal
Mani Rathore and an amount of Rs. 1.80 lacs was credited to the account of
petitioner himself through intermediary Lal Mani Rathore.
In charge No. 7 , it was found proved that the petitioner had been opened the
different accounts at Branch Beohari using different CIF Number in order to
conceal the identity of the account despite having another savings account in
his own name in the same branch which was only to concealed real identity
and in this account dubious transactions to the tune of Rs. 15.00 lacs were
made.
In charge No. 8 it has been found proved that various entries and
embezzlements of these amounts has been made in the accounts of mother and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46378
7 WP-116-2018
brother of the petitioner which are mentioned in detailed in the charge
appended to findings against charge No. 8 arrived at by the Inquiry Officer
which contains entries of huge transaction which are dubious in nature and
authorized by the petitioner in the name of his mother and his own brother.
In relation to charge No. 14 it has been found proved that a bogus account in
the name of Smt. Rani Dubey was opened and CC limit of Rs. 3.00 lacs was
sanctioned and the Branch did not have any file of this loan account.
Transactions were made from this account to the account of mother of
petitioner and in this manner there was pilferage of funds of the Bank in the
account of mother of the petitioner.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that charges are not
specific and do not relate to any misconduct. As already indicated above, the
charges specifically point out misconduct of defalcation of the funds,
pilferage of the funds of the Bank and in some cases, procedural irregularity.
Counsel for the petitioner had argued that the Bank has not mentioned that
what clause of which regulation is violated by each allegation of misconduct.
15. Respondents have framed regulations named as Central Bank of India
Officers Employees Conduct Regulations, 1976 and another regulation
known as Central Bank of India Officers Employees Discipline and Appeal
Regulations, 1976. These two regulations will be referred to as "Conduct
Regulations" and "D & A Regulations" respectively for the sake of brevity.
16. As per the conduct Regulations, the general concept of conduct has
been laid down in Clause 3 in mentioning that each officer/employee shall
take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and
discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honestly, devotion and diligence.
As per Rule 4 he is bound to observe secrecy and as per Clause 24, a breach
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46378
8 WP-116-2018
of any provision of the regulation shall be deemed to constitute misconduct
punishable under D & A Regulations. The relevant Clause 3 & 24 of
Conduct Regulations are as under:-
"3. (1) Every officer employee shall at all times take all possible steps
to ensure and protect the interests of the bank and discharge his duties
with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing
which is unbecoming of an officer employee.
(2)Every officer employee shall maintain good conduct and discipline
and show courtesy and attention to all persons in all transactions and
negotiations.
(3) No officer employee shall, in the performance of his official duties
or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his
best judgment except when he is acting under the direction of his official
superior.
Provided wherever such directions are oral in nature the same shall be
confirmed in writing by his superior official.
(4) Every officer employee shall take all possible steps to ensure the
integrity and devotion to duty of all persons for the time being under his
control
24. A breach of any of the provisions of these regulations shall be
deemed to constitute a misconduct punishable under the Central Bank of
India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976."
17. As per the Conduct Regulations, procedure for imposing major penalty
is laid down in Regulation 6 and as per Regulation 6 (3), the disciplinary
authority is required to frame definite and distinct charges on the basis of
allegations against the officer employee. In the present case, the charges
against the petitioner are distinct and definite and relate to defalcation of
funds, pilferage of funds, illegal transfers in favour of the accounts of his
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46378
9 WP-116-2018
mother and relatives, etc. From a perusal of the charges leveling all such
allegations, it cannot be inferred that the charges do not constitute or allege
any misconduct at all. The general concept of misconduct is laid down under
Clause 3 of Conduct Regulations and all the charges relate to misconduct in
terms of Clause 3 of Conduct Regulations.
18. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that it was
not specified that which of the charges were minor or which were major and
which amount to major misconduct is concerned, it is undisputed that all
cases of pilferage of funds and defalcation of funds by an officer holding
post of confidence and entrusted with funds of the bank would obviously
amount to major misconduct and the officer shall be liable to major penalty,
which cannot at all be disputed. Therefore, this Court discards the arguments
of learned counsel for the petitioner that the charges did not constitute any
misconduct.
19. So far as the second ground taken in the matter of non supply of list of
documents and list of witnesses is concerned, in the said regard, Regulation 6
(3) of the D & A Regulations duly provides as under:-
"(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 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 defence.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46378
10 WP-116-2018
"Provided that wherever it is not possible to furnish the copies of
documents, Disciplinary Authority shall allow the officer employee
inspection of such documents within a time specified in this behalf."
20. It is evident from perusal of proviso to the aforesaid provision that in
case copies of the documents are not provided along with the charge sheet,
then the authority shall allow the officer employee inspection of such
documents. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not allowed
inspection of the said documents.
21. So far as the non-supply of list of witnesses and statements of
witnesses is concerned, no such statements of witnesses were available at the
time of supply of charge sheet and therefore, the question of supplying the
evidence or statements of witnesses did not arise at the stage of issuance of
the charge sheet.
22. Most importantly, the petitioner has replied to the charge sheet vide
Annexure P-3 and in the said reply, the petitioner has not referred to he
being denied copies of statements or he being denied list of witnesses or list
of documents. He has happily submitted his statement of defence to the
charge sheet and has not referred that he has not been supplied list of
witnesses and documents. Therefore, in absence of the petitioner objecting to
non supplying of list of witnesses and documents while submitting reply to
the charge sheet, it is clear that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner
by non supply of such list of witnesses and documents and therefore, this
ground is also discarded. More so, when during the course of enquiry the
counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out that any opportunity was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46378
11 WP-116-2018
not properly given to the petitioner for cross examining the witnesses or for
having copies or for inspecting the documents. Therefore, in the considered
opinion of this Court, there has been no fundamental breach of principles of
natural justice and denial of fair opportunity to the petitioner and therefore,
grounds raised by the petitioner in the matter of non supply of list of
witnesses and documents have not caused any prejudice to the petitioner.
23. It is settled in law that the employee is required to show prejudice on
account of non-compliance of any procedure as contemplated during course
of enquiry and in absence of demonstrating any prejudice, no indulgence can
be caused by the Court only on the ground of non-compliance of prescribed
provision.
24. The Apex Court considered the issue about non-supply of documents
to delinquent, in the case of Union of India Vs. Alok Kumar reported in
(2010) 5 SCC 349 wherein the Apex Court held as under:
"83. Earlier, in some of the cases, this Court had taken the view that
breach of principles of natural justice was in itself a prejudice and no
other "de facto" prejudice needs to be proved. In regard to statutory
rules, the prominent view was that the violation of mandatory statutory
rules would tantamount to prejudice but where the rule is merely
directory the element of de facto prejudice needs to be pleaded and
shown. With the development of law, rigidity in these rules is somewhat
relaxed. The instance of de facto prejudice has been accepted as an
essential feature where there is violation of the non-mandatory rules or
violation of natural justice as it is understood in its common parlance.
Taking an instance, in a departmental enquiry where the department
relies upon a large number of documents majority of which are furnished
and an opportunity is granted to the delinquent officer to defend himself
except that some copies of formal documents had not been furnished to
the delinquent. In that event the onus is upon the employee to show that
non-furnishing of these formal documents have resulted in de-facto
prejudice and he has been put to a disadvantage as a result thereof."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46378
12 WP-116-2018
From the aforesaid legal position, it comes out that in order to vitiate
the enquiry, the petitioner was required to establish the de-facto prejudice
that has been caused to him because of non-supply of such documents.
However, no averment has been made in writ petition demonstrating the
prejudice caused to him because of such non-supply. Further, he has also
failed to take this objection in his reply to charge-sheet and the Regulations
itself provide that in such cases, inspection of the documents shall be
permitted. No ground has been taken that the inspection of these documents
was not permitted.
25. So far as the sheet anchor of submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner regarding denial of brief of presenting officer to the petitioner is
concerned, the relevant provisions regarding supply of brief of presenting
officer are contained in Clause 6 (18) of the D & A Regulations, which is as
under:-
"(18) The Inquiring Authority may, after the completing of the
production of evidence, hear the Presenting Officer, if any appointed and
the Officer Employee, or permit them to file written briefs of their
respective case within 15 days of the date of completion of the production
of evidence if they so desire."
26. The aforesaid provision is only a enabling provision and relates to the
presenting officer and the charge-sheeted officer to file written brief of their
respective cases within 15 days of date of completion of production of
evidence, if they so desire.
27. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46378
13 WP-116-2018
provision is not mandatory in nature and filing of briefs is only directory and
optional upon both the sides. The briefs are submitted only with a view to
facilitate the enquiry officer to summarize the cases of the respective parties
and for no other purpose. The brief would not constitute any independent
evidence or material against the officer employee so as to infer that non
supply of brief of one party to the other party would prejudice the other
party.
28. It has been duly brought on record with the reply that both the parties
had submitted respective briefs. The parties had not exchanged their briefs,
because there was no provision for exchanging the briefs in the D & A
Regulations. Even otherwise, non exchange of such written briefs by
respective parties, which is only a summary of their respective cases to be
submitted to the enquiry officer does not prejudice any of the parties in any
manner.
29. Even in the D & A Regulations, there is no provision for the respective
parties to exchange their respective briefs. Therefore, it is not a mandatory
provision in absence of compliance of which it may be inferred that there has
been a fatal defect in the enquiry proceedings. It is also settled in law that
exchange of briefs by the respective parties is not mandatory and mere non
supply of brief of presenting officer needs to be delinquent would not vitiate
the entire enquiry.
30. The scope of interference in departmental enquiry is very limited and
this Court would not go into the factual findings recorded by the enquiry
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46378
14 WP-116-2018
officer. The scope is only limited to see as to whether it is a case of no
evidence or the charges do not constitute any misconduct at all or there is
any fatal procedural or technical defect in the enquiry of such a nature, which
has vitiated the entire enquiry or whether the punishment is shockingly
disproportionate. None of the said circumstances are made out in the present
case. The petitioner was guilty of defalcation of public funds and pilferage
and diversion of public funds of the bank. The findings on merits have not
been shown to be based on "no evidence", nor have been shown to be totally
perverse.
31. Consequently, no interference can be caused in the impugned orders
passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities. The petition fails and is
dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
MISHRA
