Patna High Court
Sunil Soren vs The Uco Bank And Ors on 12 September, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7348 of 2016
======================================================
Sunil Soren Son of Late Bishwanath Soren, Resident of Village- Domanadih,
P.S.- Baunsi, District- Banka.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The UCO Bank through its General Manager, Personnel Services, UCO
Bank, 3 and 4 DD Block Sector-1, Salt Lake, Kolkata- 7 00064
2. The General Manager, Personnel Services, UCO Bank, 3 and 4 DD Block
Sector-1, Salt Lake, Kolkata- 7 00064
3. The Assistant General Manager, Personnel Service Department, UCO Bank,
3 and 4 DD Block sector-1, Salt Lake, Kolkata- 7 00064
4. The Deputy General Manager, Personnel Service Department, UCO Bank, 3
and 4 DD Block sector-1, Salt Lake, Kolkata- 7 00064
5. The Chief Officer Discipline, Personnel Service Department, UCO Bank, 3
and 4 DD Block sector-1, Salt Lake, Kolkata- 7 00064
6. The General Manager cum Appellate Authority, Circle Office, UCO Bank,
Mauryalok Complex, Patna- 800001
7. The Assistant General Manager cum Disciplinary Authority, Zonal Office,
UCO Bank S.K. Tarafdar Road, Adampur Chowk, Bhagalpur
8. The Branch Manager, UCO Bank branch at Banka.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D. K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Bajarangi Lal, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Sheela Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Shivendra Kumar Roy, Advocate
Ms. Smriti Kumari Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 12-09-2025
Heard Mr. D.K. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner, assisted by Mr. Bajarangi Lal, learned counsel, and
Ms. Sheela Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent-UCO
Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank"), assisted by Mr.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7348 of 2016 dt...12-09-2025
2/16
Shivendra Kumar Roy and Ms. Smriti Kumari Singh, learned
counsel.
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking
quashing of letter no. 37 dated 07.09.2015 issued by the AGM-
cum-Disciplinary Authority, Zonal Office, Bhagalpur, as well as
the appellate order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the General
Manager (Personnel Services)-cum-Appellate Authority, UCO
Bank (Annexure-P/15 to Interlocutory Application No.
01/2025). The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to
grant him full retirement benefits along with arrears of salary for
the entire period during which he remained under suspension.
3. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that
the brief facts are that while the petitioner was serving on a
Class-IV post as Peon-cum-Daftari at Baunsi Branch of Banka,
he was placed under suspension by order dated 07.06.2006
(Annexure-1). Subsequently, the petitioner was served with
articles of charge vide charge-sheet dated 10.02.2007 alleging
gross misconduct during his tenure as Substaff at Baunsi Branch
from 24.05.2002 to 29.11.2004 by engaging in conspiracy and
fraudulent activities for the monetary benefit of his family
members. He was called upon to submit his written statement of
defence within two weeks (Annexure-2). In response, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7348 of 2016 dt...12-09-2025
3/16
petitioner filed a reply on 01.03.2007 (Annexure-3), denying the
allegations of unauthorized withdrawal, use of withdrawal slips
in his handwriting or in that of his daughter, Rina Kumari, and
the charge of fraud.
4. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the so-
called confession of the petitioner was extracted under coercion
by the Hindi Officer at the Regional Office, but the disciplinary
authority ignored this explanation and appointed an enquiry
officer. This report was communicated on 31.10.2007
(Annexure-4), and the petitioner was asked to submit a second
show-cause reply. The petitioner responded, pointing out that
the Bank had failed to prove the charges. However, without
considering the available material, the points raised in the
petitioner's reply, or applying judicial mind, the disciplinary
authority mechanically passed the order dated 31.03.2008
(Annexure-6) under Clause 19.6 of the 1st Bipartite Settlement,
holding the petitioner guilty of three out of five charges,
affirming the enquiry report, and imposing the penalty of
compulsory retirement. It was further directed that the period of
suspension would not be treated as duty, and no financial or
non-financial benefits would accrue other than the subsistence
allowance already paid. The petitioner's appeal against this
Patna High Court CWJC No.7348 of 2016 dt...12-09-2025
4/16
order was dismissed by the appellate authority vide letter no.
2236 dated 31.07.2008 (Annexure-8).
5. The petitioner then filed CWJC No. 18568 of 2008
before this Court challenging the punishment and appellate
orders. The writ was allowed on 03.02.2014 (Annexure-9) with
a direction to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and to pass a
fresh order after considering his defence. Pursuant to this, the
petitioner was reinstated w.e.f. 03.02.2014 by letter dated
31.03.2014
(Annexure-10) but was again placed under
suspension by letter no. 359 dated 31.03.2014 (Annexure-11).
Though given a personal hearing, his defence was again
disregarded, and he was once more held guilty and awarded the
penalty of compulsory retirement with immediate effect. His
appeal dated 05.10.2015 remained pending, prompting him to
file the present writ petition (CWJC No. 7348 of 2016). During
its pendency, the petitioner superannuated on 31.01.2023.
6. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner further
submits that this Court, vide order dated 18.02.2025, directed
the respondent - Bank to dispose of the petitioner's appeal
within 30 days. In compliance, the respondent - Bank passed the
order dated 17.03.2025 affirming the punishment on the ground
that the petitioner failed to produce substantial evidence to
Patna High Court CWJC No.7348 of 2016 dt...12-09-2025
overturn the findings of the enquiry officer or the disciplinary
authority. The petitioner has challenged this appellate order
through Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2025.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the enquiry report, the orders passed by the
disciplinary authority and the appellate authority reflect a
complete non-application of mind, as none of them considered
the petitioner's defence in the departmental proceeding at any
stage. Referring to the enquiry report, it is submitted that it
contains no reasoning for holding the charges proved. It is
further submitted that the petitioner's detailed comments on the
report, his explanation as to why the charges were
unsustainable, were completely ignored. The order passed by
the disciplinary authority is only a rephrased version of the
earlier punishment order, without addressing the petitioner's
points of defense.
8. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the finding of fraudulent transactions is baseless,
being founded solely on a letter of one Hira Das, an outsourced
employee of Baunsi Branch who himself committed fraud and
was removed from service. Despite repeated requests, he was
neither produced as a witness nor his statement was recorded in
Patna High Court CWJC No.7348 of 2016 dt...12-09-2025
the disciplinary proceedings. In the absence of the alleged
writer's testimony, the entire proceeding stands vitiated. It is
further submitted that no expert opinion was obtained to
substantiate the allegation of impersonation. The appellate
authority also failed to appreciate that the disciplinary authority
had given no reasons for not treating the suspension period as
duty, particularly when no specific charge was framed on this
aspect. According to him no opportunity to defend was given to
the petitioner. Consequently, this part of the punishment is
wholly unwarranted and fit to be set aside.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent-Bank submits that the punishment was imposed
upon the petitioner vide order dated 31.03.2008 passed by the
Assistant General Manager (Disciplinary Authority), UCO
Bank, Bhagalpur, directing his compulsory retirement by way of
punishment. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the
General Manager, Personnel Services (Appellate Authority),
which was rejected vide order dated 28.07.2008, thereby
affirming the order of compulsory retirement. Thereafter, the
petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No. 18568
of 2008, wherein, vide order dated 03.02.2014, this Hon'ble
Court was pleased to quash the order dated 31.03.2008 passed
Patna High Court CWJC No.7348 of 2016 dt...12-09-2025
by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the order dated
28.07.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority, with a direction
to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh order after
considering the petitioner's defence as available on record in the
disciplinary proceedings and also the grounds taken by him in
his comments on the Enquiry Officer's report. Learned counsel
further submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order of this
Hon'ble Court, the Disciplinary Authority passed a fresh order
dated 07.09.2015, and thereafter the Appellate Authority passed
the order dated 17.03.2025. These two orders are under
challenge in the present writ petition. Learned counsel further
submits that both the orders dated 07.09.2015 and 17.03.2025
have been passed strictly in accordance with law. He further
submits that the petitioner's service conditions are governed by
the Settlement of Industrial Disputes dated 19.10.1966, entered
into before the Chief Labour Commissioner (C), New Delhi, in
the industrial dispute between the Managements of the Banks
represented by the Indian Banks' Association, Bombay and the
Bombay Exchange Bank's Association, Bombay, and their
workmen represented by the All India Bank Employees'
Association and All India Bank Employees' Federation,
covering various issues including terms and conditions of
Patna High Court CWJC No.7348 of 2016 dt...12-09-2025
service of bank employees. It is further submitted that Chapter
XIX of the said Settlement specifically deals with disciplinary
action and the procedure thereof.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank further
submits that Clause 19.6 of the 1st Bipertite Settlement clearly
indicates that an employee found guilty of gross misconduct
may be dismissed without notice. Clause 19.6 reads as under :-
"19.6 An employee found guilty of gross
misconduct may:
(a) be dismissed without notice; or
(b) be warned or censured, or have an
adverse remark entered against him; or
(c) be fined; or
(d) have his increment stopped; or
(e) have his misconduct condoned and be
merely discharged."
11. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank further
submits that under Clause 19.12(e)(iii), no enquiry is required if
the employee voluntarily admits his guilt in his reply to the
show cause notice. He submits that in the present case, the
initial orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the
Appellate Authority were set aside by this Hon'ble Court, with a
direction to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and to pass a fresh
order after due consideration. In compliance thereof, the
Disciplinary Authority passed a fresh order dated 07.09.2015,
which was thereafter challenged before the Appellate Authority.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7348 of 2016 dt...12-09-2025
However, the appellate order came to be passed only in the year
2025 pursuant to specific directions of this Hon'ble Court.
Learned counsel further submits that the only question for
consideration in the present writ petition is whether the
directions issued by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated
03.02.2014 in CWJC No. 18568 of 2008 have been duly
complied with or not. He submits that the order dated
07.09.2015 is a well-reasoned order, wherein the Disciplinary
Authority considered each charge individually, assigned
reasons, and recorded findings as to whether the charges were
proved or not. Out of five charges, Charges No. 1, 2, and 5 were
found proved, while Charges No. 3 and 4 were not proved.
Thereafter, in terms of Clause 19.6 of the First Bipertite
Settlement dated 19.10.1966, the punishment of compulsory
retirement with superannuation benefits was imposed upon the
petitioner with immediate effect. He further submits that the
appellate order dated 17.03.2025 is also a well-reasoned and
speaking order, wherein each ground raised in the appeal has
been duly considered, and the punishment imposed by the
Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 07.09.2015 has been
affirmed. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the
respondent-Bank relied upon a judgement rendered in the case
Patna High Court CWJC No.7348 of 2016 dt...12-09-2025
of Airports Authority of India Vs. Pradip Kumar Banerjee
reported in (2025) 4 SCC 111.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank further
submits that a Public Sector Bank is the custodian of public
money, and the honesty and integrity of its officers and staff in
handling such funds are indispensable for maintaining customer
trust and the credibility of the banking system. But the
petitioner, while serving as Substaff in the concerned branch,
committed gross misconduct and, in fact, admitted his guilt in
his communication dated 05.06.2006 addressed to the
disciplinary authority, which has been placed on record as
Annexure-R/3 to the counter affidavit. It is contended that the
Bank followed a fair procedure by examining witnesses in
support of the charges and providing the petitioner sufficient
opportunity for cross-examination. The enquiry officer recorded
his findings on the basis of the evidence available on record, and
the disciplinary authority, before concurring with those findings,
independently examined the materials and arrived at its own
conclusion. Learned counsel further submits that the proven
allegations against the petitioner 'fraudulently withdrawing
funds from the account of a deceased customer and using the
proceeds to create a Fixed Deposit in favour of his daughter'
Patna High Court CWJC No.7348 of 2016 dt...12-09-2025
were grave in nature and warranted a major penalty, namely
compulsory retirement, which was duly imposed by the
Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority in
its order dated 17.03.2025. Hence, there is no legal infirmity in
the orders passed by either the Disciplinary Authority or the
Appellate Authority.
13. After hearing the arguments advanced and upon
perusal of the documents available on record, it transpires to this
Court that the petitioner has been charged with conspiracy and
commission of fraudulent activities for monetary gain for
himself and his family members and in his written statement
dated 05.06.2006, the petitioner admitted his guilt and assured
to deposit the fraudulently misappropriated amount of
₹1,35,000/- within five days. However, despite such admission
and assurance, the said amount was not deposited.
Consequently, the allegation of wilful damage or attempt to
cause damage to the property of the Bank or any of its
customers constituting gross misconduct under Clause 5(J) of
the Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966, as amended on
10.04.2002 was levelled against the petitioner.
14. It further transpires that the earlier disciplinary
order dated 31.03.2008 was passed by the Assistant General
Patna High Court CWJC No.7348 of 2016 dt...12-09-2025
Manager (Disciplinary Authority), UCO Bank, Bhagalpur,
whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired by way of
punishment. The said order was challenged before the Appellate
Authority, and the General Manager, Personnel Services
(Appellate Authority), vide order dated 28.07.2008, rejected the
appeal and affirmed the order of compulsory retirement. The
petitioner thereafter challenged both orders dated 31.03.2008
and 28.07.2008 before this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No. 18568
of 2008, wherein vide order dated 03.02.2014, both orders were
set aside with specific directions to the Disciplinary Authority to
pass a fresh order. The relevant paragraphs 14 to 17 of the said
judgment reads as under:
14. I am of the view that such lapse on
the part of the disciplinary authority not
discussing the defence of the delinquent while
passing the order amounts to violation of
principles of natural justice.
15. The order of the disciplinary
authority impugned in the writ application does
not reflect application of mind on the comments of
the delinquent i.e. petitioner on the report of the
enquiry officer. The impugned order of the
disciplinary authority dated 31.03.2008
(Annexure-6) therefore cannot be sustained and is
accordingly quashed. It is also well settled that if
the order of the disciplinary authority is
unsustainable on the ground of lack of reasons,
the order of the appellate authority cannot fill up
the lacunae.
16. I accordingly quash the impugned
Patna High Court CWJC No.7348 of 2016 dt...12-09-2025
order dated 31.03.2008 passed by the disciplinary
authority dated 28.07.2008 with a direction to the
disciplinary authority to pass an order afresh in
this regard after taking into account the defence
of the petitioner as available on record of the
disciplinary proceeding as well as the grounds
taken by him in his comments upon the report of
the enquiry officer.
17. The respondents are directed to
reinstate the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner's
claim for back wages will be dependent upon the
final order to be passed by the disciplinary
authority pursuant to the order of this Court.
15. After allowing the earlier writ petition, the
petitioner's services were reinstated with effect from 03.02.2014
vide Letter No. 358 dated 31.03.2014. On the same day, vide
Letter No. 359 dated 31.03.2014, the petitioner was placed
under suspension with immediate effect. Thereafter, a personal
hearing was provided to the petitioner on 14.06.2014 and again
on 24.02.2015. Upon conclusion of the proceedings, the
petitioner was once again held guilty of the charges, and the
punishment of compulsory retirement with immediate effect,
along with superannuation benefits such as pension, provident
fund and gratuity as admissible, but without disqualification
from future employment, was imposed. The said order was
passed on 07.09.2015. Against the same, the petitioner preferred
an appeal before the Appellate Authority; however, no order was
Patna High Court CWJC No.7348 of 2016 dt...12-09-2025
passed thereon. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached
this Hon'ble Court.
16. In the present writ petition, which remained
pending before this Court since 2016, this Court, vide order
dated 18.02.2025, directed the Appellate Authority to dispose of
the petitioner's appeal within 30 days. In compliance with the
said order, the Appellate Authority passed an order dated
17.03.2025 affirming the punishment imposed by the
Disciplinary Authority on 07.09.2015. The petitioner thereafter
challenged the said appellate order by filing Interlocutory
Application No. 01 of 2025, which was allowed vide order
dated 08.04.2025.
17. It further transpires to this Court that the
disciplinary proceedings are governed by the Bipartite
Settlement, and Clause 5(J) thereof, as amended on 10.04.2002,
specifically provides that willful damage or attempt to cause
damage to the property of the Bank or any of its customers
constitutes gross misconduct. In the present case, five charges
were levelled against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority
held that Charges No. 1, 2 and 5 were proved, while Charges
No. 3 and 4 were not proved. On the basis of the proved
charges, the petitioner was held guilty and the punishment of
Patna High Court CWJC No.7348 of 2016 dt...12-09-2025
compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits was
imposed.
18. This Court also notes that in the earlier round of
litigation, the orders of the Disciplinary Authority dated
31.03.2008 and of the Appellate Authority dated 28.07.2008 had
been set aside with specific directions to the Disciplinary
Authority to pass a fresh order after considering the defence of
the petitioner as available on record, as well as the grounds
raised in his comments upon the report of the Enquiry Officer.
19. Upon perusal of the order dated 07.09.2015 passed
by the Disciplinary Authority, it is evident that all points raised
by the petitioner in his defence and in his comments to the
Enquiry Report were duly considered, and a reasoned
conclusion was recorded. Similarly, the Appellate Authority, in
its order dated 17.03.2025, also considered those points. Further,
Clause 19.12(e)(iii) of Chapter XIX of the Bipartite Settlement
provides that no enquiry is necessary if the employee makes a
voluntary admission of guilt in his reply to the show-cause
notice. In the present case, the petitioner, in his written
statement, made a confession, which cannot be ignored.
20. In light of the aforesaid, and taking note of the
principles laid down in Airports Authority of India v. Pradip
Patna High Court CWJC No.7348 of 2016 dt...12-09-2025
Kumar Banerjee (supra), this Court finds that the order dated
07.09.2015 passed by the Assistant General Manager-cum-
Disciplinary Authority, Zonal Office, Bhagalpur, as well as the
appellate order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the General
Manager (Personnel Services)-cum-Appellate Authority, UCO
Bank (Annexure-P/15 to Interlocutory Application No.
01/2025), are well reasoned and in accordance with law.
21. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground
for interference. The present writ petition stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 05.08.2025
Uploading Date 15/09/2025
Transmission Date NA
