Chitta Ranjan Das vs Punjab National Bank And 3 Ors

,,,

The petitioner, herein, has sought to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order dated",,,

25.01.2014, passed by the disciplinary authority, imposing the petitioner, a major penalty of removal from service and rejection order of the appellate",,,

authority vide order dated 30.04.2014 as well as the order of the reviewing authority dated 24.09.2014.,,,

Brief case of the petitioner that can be recapitulated from the pleadings that the petitioner was serving in the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter, in",,,

short, ‘PNB’) for 34 years and he was promoted to the post of Branch/Deputy Manager in Nagaon Branch of the Bank. While he was posted",,,

as Branch Head of the Singia Branch of the Bank during the period from 26.07.2010 to 09.01.2013, large numbers of customers complained of non-",,,

receipt of loans sanctioned against Kisan Credit Card (KCC), which was given to persons other than the actual applicants.",,,

Based on such complaints, the Zonal Audit Office conducted an investigation and the internal auditor submitted a Special Report on 13.05.2013. In the",,,

report, auditor pointed out certain irregularities committed at Branch Officer at Singia during the incumbency of the petitioner in the said branch. In",,,

order to ensure a proper enquiry, the petitioner was placed under suspension under the provisions of Punjab National Bank Officers’ (Discipline",,,

and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 ( the 1977 Regulations) and the petitioner was served with the audit report, pointing the irregularities committed by him,",,,

vide letter dated 17.05.2013. Being not satisfied with the reply, charge sheet under Provision 6 of the 1977 Regulations was filed with article of",,,

charges, statement of imputations of charges in support of article of charges. Statement of article of charges is as follows:-",,,

“Article-I:,,,

Shri Das, as Branch incumbent of BO, Singia, Assam, did not adhere to the prescribed guidelines of the Bank. He sanctioned several KCC",,,

loans but did not ensure proper pre-sanction appraisal. He sanctioned and disbursed the loans without recommendation of 2nd man. Shri,,,

Das used third persons as middleman in the process of sanction and disbursement of KCC loans and committed various irregularities.,,,

Article-II:,,,

Shri Das did not ensure KYC compliance in due loans sanctioned by him proper identification of the borrowers/guarantors was not done.,,,

Article-III:,,,

Shri Das disbursed KCC loans but did not ensure that the loan amounts have gone to the actual beneficiaries. There are cases of,,,

impersonation where KCC have been sanctioned to persons other than the actual applicant or owner of the land. He did not verify the end-,,,

use of funds.,,,

Article-IV:,,,

There are several cash and transfer transactions in his personal account which are not related to his salary or any other known source of,,,

his income.,,,

Thus, Shri Chitta Ranjan Das failed to take all possible steps to exercise and protect the interest of the Bank and did not discharge his",,,

duties with utmost honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence and has committed misconduct in terms of regulation 3 (i), read with regulation",,,

24 of the PNB Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1977.â€​",,,

Statement of imputation of misconduct in support of article of charges against the petitioner read as follows:-,,,

Sri Chitta Ranjan Das, Deputy Manager, BO, Nagaon, while working as an incumbent, in-charge of BO, Singia, from 26.07.2010 to",,,

09.01.2013, is alleged to have committed certain irregularities, jeopardizing bank’s interest. He did not adhere to the prescribed",,,

guidelines of the bank and has committed the following irregularities:-,,,

Charge-1 (1) Shri Das had engaged one Shri Nawaj Sharif as an agent for sanctioning the loans. Shri Das did not visit to the place of the,,,

borrowers and sent them to Mr Nawaj Sharif for processing the said loans. He used to route all fresh KCC borrowers through that agent.,,,

Blank forms and documents were allowed to be kept under the custody of Shri Nawaj Sharif. Shri Sharif used to execute all the loan,,,

documents either at his residence or at the residence of the borrowers and submitted them to the Bank.,,,

After Shri Das sanctioned the loans to the borrowers, the disbursements of the loans were handed over to Shri Nawaj Sharif for distribution",,,

to the borrowers and in several cases paid lesser amount to them. In a large number of cases loan proceeds were released to the persons,,,

other than the actual applicants. There are 62 such cases. To quote a few:-,,,

(Sl. Nos. 1 to 10) (For brevity, detail list, not mentioned).",,,

Charge 1 (2) 264 cases of KCC loans sanctioned by Shri Das at the branch, the same were sanctioned by him without the recommendation",,,

of the 2nd man/2nd person of the Branch. To quote a few (Rs. In lacs):-,,,

(Sl. Nos. 1 to 20) (For brevity, detail list, not mentioned).",,,

Charge 2 In 141 KCC loans sanctioned by Shri Das, proper ID proof and address proof have not been held but loans have been",,,

sanctioned and disbursed by him. Thus, he did not ensure KYC compliance in the loans sanctioned and disbursed by him. To quote a few",,,

(Rs. In lacs):-,,,

(Sl. Nos. 1 to 18) (For brevity, detail list, not mentioned).",,,

Charge 3 (1) In the following 39 KCC loans sanctioned and disbursed by Shri Das during his incumbency at BO Singia, the borrowers have",,,

neither signed the loan documents or withdrawal forms of KCC, nor both and have not received the loan amounts, although in the books of",,,

the Bank loan amounts are outstanding in their names. (Amt. in lacs),,,

(Sl. Nos. 1 to 39) (For brevity, detail list, not mentioned).",,,

Charge 3 (2) There are impersonation in several KCC loans sanctioned by Shri CR Das during his incumbency at BO: Singia. Photographs,,,

S.N.,A/C,DATE,DEPOSIT

1.,373000200023242,03-10-2011,18000

2.,373000200023242,13-10-2011,40000

3.,373000200023242,20-10-2011,100000

4.,373000200023242,14-12-2011,20000

5.,373000200023242,21-12-2011,10000

6.,373000200023242,22-12-2011,5000

7.,373000200023242,24-12-2011,40000

8.,373000200023242,13-03-2012,20000

9.,373000200023242,18-07-2012,30000

10.,373000200023242,16-08-2012,10000

11.,373000200023242,21-09-2012,20000

12.,373000200023242,10-12-2012,10000

13.,206000100064942,05-03-2012,50000

14.,206000100064942,02-06-2012,40000

15.,206000100064942,04-06-2012,20000

16.,206000100064942,05-06-2012,13000

17.,206000100064942,08-06-2012,20000

18.,206000100064942,11-06-2012,50000

19.,206000100064942,12-06-2012,53000

20.,206000100064942,07-07-2012,30000

21.,206000100064942,09-07-2012,25000

22.,206000100064942,31-08-2012,10000

23.,206000100064942,12-09-2012,10000

,GRAND TOTAL,------,644000

the disciplinary authority and all the subsequent order(s) of the appellate authority as well as the reviewing authority are void and liable to be quashed,,,

and set aside. It is alleged that the findings of the Enquiry Officer itself is based on no evidence, but despite the petitioner was hurriedly held guilty by",,,

all the respondent authorities, accepting the report of the Enquiry Committee. It contends that the respondent authority has totally discarded the",,,

evidence adduced by the petitioner that 5 (five) defence witnesses (which were out of the 62 complainants of the case) have given the evidence in,,,

favour of the petitioner. Those defence witnesses (who were alleged complainants in the said case) have specifically stated that the loans have been,,,

disbursed to them by cash payment by the insurer of the Bank, which is also reflected from the copy of withdrawal slip of the Bank. Strangely, the",,,

cashier of the bank concerned was also not (examined)/produced before the Enquiry Officer, so as to show his signature on the withdrawal",,,

documents, while arriving at the findings-“that large cash of loan amount was released to the persons other than the applicants,†without",,,

supporting evidence.,,,

Further, it contends that findings of departmental authority is not based on materials on record, hence, perverse. The disciplinary authority as well as",,,

the appellate authority and the reviewing authority have failed to apply their minds judiciously and imposed a very harsh punishment, without taking into",,,

consideration, the materials on record and discarded the evidence adduced by the petitioner’s side in a haste manner. The respondent authorities",,,

did not consider the prayer of the petitioner to verify the signature on the documents by a Government Examiner for the Questioned Documents,,,

(GEQD). It is submitted that despite there being no any conclusive proof of the allegations in Charges Nos. 1 (1), 3 (3), 4, they came to an",,,

unreasonable conclusion that the charges have been proved, based on conjecture and surmises. The Presenting Officer (PO) could not produce all the",,,

relevant records and documents, as required, to arrive at a conclusive finding to prove the charges, whereas the petitioner has been able to raise all",,,

legal defence to refute the charges. It contends that the departmental enquiry and disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority and the,,,

reviewing authority decided the matter, not according to the prescribed Rules and law and violated the basic principles of natural justice, by not",,,

following such settled principles of law and whereas, the punishment imposed is also not proportionate to the charges leveled. Accordingly, it is",,,

submitted that it is a fit case for judicial review and the petitioner is liable to be exonerated from the charges and to provide him all the service,,,

benefits, including the pensionary benefit.",,,

The respondent Nos. 1 to 4, in their joint affidavit have submitted that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands, but has",,,

suppressed the material facts. It is stated that the petitioner, while posted at Singia Branch, during the period from 26.07.2010 to 09.01.2013, a large",,,

number of complaints were received, related to bank transactions and based upon such complaints, Zonal Audit Office, Kolkata conducted an",,,

investigation and the Internal Senior Auditor submitted a special report on 13.05.2013. As per the report, very serious irregularities were committed by",,,

at the Branch Office, Singia during the service tenure of the petitioner at the said Branch. Accordingly, in order to ensure a proper enquiry, the",,,

petitioner was placed under suspension as per the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977 and he was",,,

asked to reply upon the charges, which was issued by the Circle Head/Disciplinary Authority and forwarded to him by the letter dated 17.05.2013.",,,

Accordingly, the reply submitted by petitioner was duly considered and rejected, as the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the said reply.",,,

As per the statement of Imputation of Misconduct in support of the Article of Charge against the petitioner, the allegations were framed into four",,,

separate charges in relation to the various acts of commission and omission on the part of the petitioner during his service as the Branch Manager of,,,

Singia Branch. The petitioner was directed to file his reply thereto within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the same. The 4 articles of,,,

charges have been divided as follows:-,,,

Article-I: Charge 1 (1) and 1 (2),,,

Article-II: Charge 2,,,

Article-III: Charge 3 (1) to Charge 3 (3),,,

Article-IV: Charge 4,,,

The Enquiry Officer initiated the enquiry proceedings and a preliminary hearing was conducted on 27.11.2013, at the Circle office, Guwahati and,",,,

thereafter, the regular hearings were held on 04.12.2013, 09.12.2013, 14.12.2013 and 17.12.2013. The enquiry concluded on 17.12.2013. The",,,

Presenting Officer produced a large number of documents in support of the charges, which were brought on record in the Proceeding Register and",,,

were marked as Management Exhibits, ME-1 to ME-126. The petitioner as charged officer, produced 5 witnesses in his defence and they were cross-",,,

examined by the Presenting Officer. On completion of the enquiry, written brief was submitted by the Presenting Officer on 30.12.2013 and by the",,,

petitioner on 07.01.2014. On completion of the Enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry Officer on 10.01.2014, submitted his Enquiry Report to the",,,

Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority endorsed the view with some own findings.,,,

Consequently, Article-I is proved, Article-II is not proved, Article III is partly proved and Article IV is proved. Denying all the allegations that there is",,,

violation of natural justice and non-adherence to the procedure, that denial of opportunity of presenting the defence statement properly, that there is",,,

violation of Rules in every stage of proceeding, it has been contended that all the proceeding has been conducted having regard to the Rules and",,,

procedure and on natural justice. The allegation about non-examination of the author of document is totally immaterial and inconsequential as the,,,

documents were introduced and exhibited during the enquiry proceedings without any objection. Finally, it contends that the petition lacks merit and",,,

liable to be dismissed.,,,

Countering the affidavit filed by the respondents, the petitioner, herein, has also filed affidavit-in-reply, contending that the five witnesses who",,,

were the borrowers, as well as alleged complainants in the said proceeding have admitted that they have received the amount sanctioned against the",,,

KCC. So far as regards the engagement of Nawaj Sharif, it is stated that he was engaged by the respondent Bank under the scheme of i-Mitra and",,,

Nawaj along with other 7 persons were selected by the bank, to carry out the financial inclusion activities and Nawaj not only helped the concerned",,,

branch manager to recover the loan amount, but also he conveyed any information either oral or written regarding loan to the borrower sanctioned by",,,

the bank. In addition to doing said works sometimes, the Field Business correspondent helped the borrower to fill up the loan application as well as",,,

other clerical works. Therefore, the branch manager of the particular branch has no role to play regarding their selection and appointment. So, the",,,

question of Nawaj Sharif who was appointed as a Field Business Correspondent under the scheme of i-25 was working as an agent of the present,,,

deponent does not arise and all the borrowers who applied for KCC loan has received the loan amount by signing the PNB Krishi Card withdrawals,,,

voucher available in the documents submitted by the Presenting Officer which were marked as ME33, MEJ, ME2, ME39 to ME70. The Presenting",,,

Officer had also confirmed that the signature of various loan documents have tallied with the specimen signature in the respective account opening,,,

form, which were opened with same customer ID of borrowers. The Presenting Officer has failed to substantiate the charges with proper documents.",,,

Further, it submits that no fresh record is required to be produced before the appellate authority as contended. The disciplinary authority rejected the",,,

prayer of the petitioner to verify and examine the signatures/handwriting of borrowers through Government examiner for question documents. The,,,

authority has not taken note of 34 years’ of unblemished career of the petitioner and without appreciating the relevant documents as well as the,,,

defence witnesses produced by the petitioner and whereas, those witnesses/borrowers have categorically stated that they have received the loan",,,

amount and on the pressure of the senior Investigating Officer, they have signed the complaint letters. Thus, it contends that the punishment imposed",,,

is quite illegal and against the settled principles of law and natural justice. The disciplinary authority has failed to verify the withdrawal slips through,,,

concerned bank as the borrowers have savings account at the time of granting the loan with all details, but no such due verification of documents of",,,

borrowers, bank accounts etc. was done to prove the charge.",,,

Initiating the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr S K Talukdar, has vehemently, submitted that it is a case of no evidence to",,,

prove the charge to hold the petitioner guilty of the allegation that has been made. Despite the petitioner adduced evidence to rebut the allegations, the",,,

same was not at all considered at any levels. Finding of Enquiry Officer is totally out of logic as he came to a conclusion of proof of charge against the,,,

petitioner, whereas, the Presenting Officer did not examine any witness. They chose to reject the evidence of the petitioner’s side without any",,,

justifiable/cogent reasons with pre-occupied mind.,,,

Referring to the report of the Presiding Officer as well as the Enquiry Officer, it has been submitted that there is no application of mind by the",,,

Enquiry Officer and he failed to exercise a quasi-judicial function. While the Presenting Officer himself failed to examine any witnesses in support of,,,

the allegations, the findings of the Enquiry Officer of its own interpretation, while arriving at the conclusion is prima facie illegal. The findings of the",,,

Presenting Officer and the Enquiry Officer has been read out before this Court to submit that while the Presenting Officer himself is confused about,,,

the proof of the charge, the Enquiry Officer imposed opinion of his own without any basis. Similarly, finding of the disciplinary authority is again",,,

perverse as there is no appreciation of Enquiry Report, rather wrong appreciation. Same is the fate of appellate authority as well as reviewing",,,

authority, who has simply echoed the report of the Enquiry Officer, without any sort of appreciation of their own as to whether the foundation of",,,

charge has been substantiated by requisite evidence.,,,

The learned counsel for the petitioner has led this Court towards the relevant Punjab National Bank Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal),,,

Regulations, 1977 and has submitted that there is blatant violation of the rules and procedure at every stage by the Department. However, the",,,

departmental proceeding was concluded with an unprecedented haste, as enquiry was initiated on 27.11.2013 and concluded on 22.12.2013 and",,,

furnished on 25.12.2013, prior to his retirement, on 31.12.2013. Further, it has been vehemently contended that decision relied by the respondents’",,,

side are factually different and not applicable in the present case, as it is a case of no evidence, whereas the proposition of law laid down in the",,,

aforesaid decisions is on different context that in absence of direct evidence circumstantial evidence can be relied. But it has not set forth a,,,

proposition that a charge can be proved without evidence, whereas, the present case is of no direct or circumstantial evidence. Without even",,,

producing the original document/concerned complainant/bank officials etc. charges are held to be proved on disputed/unsubstantiated document.,,,

Further, it has been submitted that the contention raised by the respondents’ side, that the petitioner has not denied the authenticity of the",,,

complaint and document is totally without basis and beyond record. The reply of the petitioner to the Enquiry Officer has been referred, wherein he",,,

has denied the complaint and some admission on undisputed documents would not amount to admission of the allegation as has been projected by the,,,

respondents’ side. The decision relied upon by the respondents speaks about a situation when witness is not necessary to examine, while the",,,

genuineness of the document is not objected, whereas, same is not the case of the petitioner.",,,

Mr Talukdar further contends that there is blatant violation of 6 (3) (5) (11) (12) (13) (16) (21), 7 (4), 17 (4) and 18 of the PNB Regulations, in all",,,

stages of proceeding by the respondent authority, while imposing such major penalty and thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner, resulting in",,,

miscarriage of justice. Livelihood of the petitioner has been taken away by imposing extreme penalty without prescribed legal procedure. It has been,,,

vehemently contended that without examining any of the complainants and witnesses, petitioner has been condemned to extreme penalty at the whims",,,

and caprice of the respondent authority. The respondent authority cannot held the complaints to be proved, unless the content is supported by the",,,

author of the document and mere exhibiting the documents is not enough, in the parlance of law.",,,

Refuting other contention of the respondents’ side that there is no scope of judicial review by the High Court under writ jurisdiction against the,,,

departmental proceeding (that has been duly conducted by the bank authority), learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Talukdar has relied upon the",,,

following decisions, wherein, nature of departmental proceeding and the scope of judicial review has been discussed:-",,,

1) In Sawai Singh â€"Vs- State of Rajasthan (1986) 3 SCC 454, it has been held that where the charges are vague and the evidence is not sufficient",,,

to connect the charged officer with the alleged misconduct, departmental enquiry is vitiated for non-compliance of principles of natural justice and the",,,

consequent order of removal from service held to be invalid.,,,

2) In Kuldip Singh â€"Vs- Commissioner of Police; 1999 2 SCC 10, it has been held that scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 32 of the",,,

Constitution of India is not totally barred. Relevant paragraphs- 6, 7, 8 and 9 are reproduced below:-",,,

“6. It is no doubt true that the High Court under Article 226 or this Court under Article 32 would not interfere with the findings recorded,,,

at the departmental enquiry by the disciplinary authority or the enquiry officer as a matter of course. The Court cannot sit in appeal over,,,

those findings and assume the role of the appellate authority. But this does not mean that in no circumstance can the Court interfere. The,,,

power of judicial review available to the High Court as also to this Court under the Constitution takes in its stride the domestic enquiry as,,,

well and it can interfere with the conclusions reached therein if there was no evidence to support the findings or the findings recorded were,,,

such as could not have been reached by an ordinary prudent man or the findings were perverse or made at the dictates of the superior,,,

authority.,,,

In Nand Kishore Prasad â€"Vs- State of Bihar, (1978) 3 SCC 366, it was held that the disciplinary proceedings before a domestic",,,

tribunal are of quasi judicial character and, therefore, it is necessary that the Tribunal should arrive at its conclusions on the basis of some",,,

evidence, that is to say, such evidence which and that too, with some degree of definiteness, points to the guilt of the delinquent and does",,,

not leave the matter in a suspicious state as mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries. If, therefore, there is",,,

no evidence to sustain the charges framed against the delinquent, he cannot be held to be guilty as in that event, the findings recorded by",,,

the enquiry officer would be perverse.,,,

The findings recorded in a domestic enquiry can be characterized as perverse, if it is shown that such findings are not supported by any",,,

evidence on record or are not based on the evidence adduced by the parties or no reasonable person could have come to those findings on,,,

the basis of that evidence. This principle was laid down by this Court in State of A.P. â€"Vs- Rama Rao; AIR 1963 SC 1723; in which the,,,

question was whether the High Court under Article 226 could interfere with the findings recorded at the departmental enquiry. This decision,,,

was followed in Central Bank of India Ltd. â€"Vs- Prakash Chand Jain; (1969) 2 LLJ 377 and Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai,,,

Patel; AIR 1976 SC 98. In Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn; (1984) 4 SCC 635, it was laid down that where the findings of misconduct",,,

are based on no legal evidence and the conclusion is one to which no reasonable man could come, the findings can be rejected as perverse.",,,

It was also laid down that where a quasi judicial tribunal records findings based on no legal evidence and the findings are its mere ipse,,,

dixit or based on conjectures and surmises, the enquiry suffers from the additional infirmity of non-application of mind and stands vitiated.",,,

3) Narendra Mohan Arya â€"Vs- United Insurance Company Limited; (2006) 4 SCC 713, speaks about the role of appellate authority, that order of",,,

the appellate authority should be a speaking one and it must contain reasons, so as to enable the writ Court to ascertain whether there was application",,,

of minds to the points required by the relevant rules and the appellate authority cannot ignore the said exercise of power. Further, it has also been held",,,

that nature of enquiry is quasi judicial and the Enquiry Officer is entitled to draw his own inference supported by the materials on record. Despite,,,

limited jurisdiction of civil Court, it was entitled to interfere in a case, where the report of the Enquiry Officer is based on no evidence. Suspicion or",,,

presumption cannot take the place of proof, even in a domestic enquiry and the writ Court is entitled to interfere with the findings of fact of any",,,

authority in certain circumstances. In a domestic enquiry, fairness in the procedure is a part of principles of natural justice.",,,

4) In Roopsing Negi â€"Vs- Punjab National Bank & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 570, it has been held that nature of departmental enquiry is quasi judicial",,,

proceeding and function of enquiry officer is also quasi judicial in nature. Mere production of document is not enough and the content of documentary,,,

evidence has to be proved by examining witnesses. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved and the,,,

Enquiry Officer is duty bound to arrive at a finding, taking into consideration all the materials brought on record.",,,

5) Similar view [as taken in Narendra (supra)] is endorsed in (2013) 4 SCC 301; Nirmala Ghala â€"Vs- State of Gujarat and Ors. (as regards the,,,

scope of judicial review) that judicial review is not akin to the adjudication on merits by re-appreciating the evidence as an appellate authority. The,,,

only consideration of the Court in a judicial review is to consider whether the conclusion is based on evidence or no evidence.,,,

6) Similarly, in Mani Shankar â€"Vs- Union of India; (2008) 3 SCC 484 it has been held that while exercising the power of judicial review it can",,,

determine whether relevant evidence is taken into consideration, irrelevant evidence is excluded and requisite standard of proof made in the given case",,,

and the purpose of departmental enquiry is to afford an opportunity to the charged employee to explain circumstances appearing against him. It has,,,

been held that in any event, where there was no material brought on record by the Department, for drawing such conclusion, without there being any",,,

factual foundation, interference by judicial review is permissible.",,,

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr Ganguly has submitted that, it is settled law that once an institution such as, the Bank in",,,

the present case loses confidence in any of its officers/employees, it is not possible to retain such person in service. In particular, a senior ranking",,,

officer of the Bank is required to observe and exercise high standards of honesty and integrity. Such officers deal with the money of the depositors,,,

and the customers, which is public money. Hence, such officer/employee is expected to perform his duties with the utmost devotion, integrity, honesty",,,

and diligence, and should do nothing, which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are the cornerstone of the functioning of",,,

every officer/employee of the Bank. The discipline of an organization such as the bank depends on the officers/employees performing their duties,,,

within the norms and guidelines of the Bank, and nothing beyond the allotted sphere. Whenever an officer/employee acts beyond the sphere of",,,

authority, that ipso facto constitutes an act of indiscipline and amounts to misconduct. There is no requirement that an officer/employee can be",,,

punished only when there is pecuniary loss to the bank, and equally there is no law that in the absence of such loss, the officer/employee cannot be",,,

punished. The disciplinary action is the prerogative of the Bank and it is up to the Bank to maintain the standards of conduct of its officers/employees,,,

in terms of the Service Rules and Regulations framed by it.,,,

Further, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner is not a case of no evidence, or a case where the evidence on record does not justify the",,,

punishment served upon the petitioner. The petitioner has not alleged that there is any element of malafide or bias on the part of the Enquiry Officer,",,,

or on the part of the Disciplinary Authority and the appellate authority. The charges against the petitioner were not casual or frivolous, and hence the",,,

punishment is not shockingly disproportionate to the guilt of the petitioner. The punishment is not such which would shock the conscience of this,,,

Hon’ble Court. In the absence of all these elements, it is submitted that this Hon’le Court should not exercise its extraordinary discretionary",,,

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to sit as an appellate body to review and re-appreciate the evidence on record, which has",,,

already been gone into and examined in detail by the Bank at different levels, and the petitioner deserves no indulgence from this Hon’ble Court.",,,

It contends that all the issues raised by the petitioner in the appeal have already been considered and the decision rendered by the disciplinary,,,

authority was upheld as no new facts were found to have been raised by him in the appeal. Similarly, the reviewing authority also duly considered all",,,

relevant aspects while rejecting the prayer.,,,

It is submitted that during the Enquiry proceeding, the Presenting Officer had submitted 35 nos. of documents being [ME1(1) to ME 70 (7)], which",,,

are the complaint letters of the borrowers, who denied having received the loan amounts sanctioned by the petitioner. Reading the letters together, it",,,

becomes clear that the petitioner engaged one agent Sri Nawaj Sharif who was handed over the loan amounts and the said agent did not hand over the,,,

entire loan amounts to the applicants. The petitioner did not visit the applicants or the concerned village and there is no entry in the village visit register,,,

regarding when the petitioner went on any visit. During their deposition before the Enquiry Officer, the five DWs brought by the petitioner denied the",,,

allegation that they did not receive the loans as complained, but they admitted having signed the complaint letters. Some of them alleged that the Senior",,,

Investigating Officer pressurized them to sign the complaints which they did by affixing their thumb impressions. However, no reason was cited by the",,,

petitioner or the witnesses as to why the said officer would biased against the petitioner to pressurize the complainants and manufacture complaints,,,

against the petitioner. The witnesses admitted their signatures and thumb impressions and also denied that they did not receive the loan amounts. The,,,

Enquiry Officer did not find their depositions reliable in the said facts and circumstances and hence the charge 1 (1) was found to be proved. In the,,,

Enquiry Report, the Enquiry Officer did not simply go by the version as submitted by the Presenting Officer, but he analysed the evidences minutely,",,,

and came to his own independent conclusions.,,,

It is further submitted that a domestic enquiry such as one involving the petitioner, not required to be based upon the Rules and/or spirit of the",,,

Evidence Act, 1872, but on natural justice alone, which has been clearly followed in this case. It is specifically denied that the petitioner has suffered",,,

any prejudice on account of non-examination of any witness who was the author of the documents against him, or any witness who was conversant",,,

with those documents. It is submitted that in a domestic enquiry of like nature, when a document has been introduced, marked as an exhibit, and",,,

proved during the Enquiry proceedings, and no objection is taken to the same, the non-examination of the author of the document is totally immaterial,",,,

and inconsequential.,,,

In his arguments, learned counsel for the respondents, Mr Ganguly submits that the reasons given by the Enquiry Officer in the Enquiry Report are",,,

not required to be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of law. The Enquiry Officer is not a Judge and is not expected to record reasons as are,,,

recorded in a judgment. The requirement of recording reasons is to ensure fairness and compliance with natural justice. Reliance has been placed in,,,

the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education â€"Vs- K S Gandhi & Ors.; (1991) 2 SCC 716, wherein the",,,

Hon’ble Supreme Court followed the earlier decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of S N Mukherjee â€"Vs- Union of India; JT 1990 (3),,,

SC 630 and observed that- “…….it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of law. The extent and,,,

nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. It has been further held that in cases of forgery, fraud etc. direct evidence",,,

is rarely available and only circumstantial evidence will furnish the proof. The Court held that it is permissible to make inferences from the evidence,,,

and facts on record and such inferences can be made from circumstantial evidence, if direct evidence of a fact is not available. The standard of proof",,,

in a domestic enquiry is the same as that of civil cases, i.e., preponderance of probabilities. The High Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the",,,

Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate the evidence and cannot go into the question of burden of proof and onus of proof. The writ jurisdiction is a,,,

supervisory one and not an appellate one. The findings of the enquiry authority cannot e altered merely because the High Court upon re-appreciation,,,

of the evidence is of the view that the conclusions of the enquiry authority should have been different.,,,

Reliance has also been placed upon Sub-Divisional Officer Konch â€"Vs- Maharaj Singh; (2003) 9 SCC 191, wherein, it is held that each and every",,,

violation for non-compliance of a provision of the disciplinary regulations in a domestic enquiry does not imply that there has been violation of,,,

principles of natural justice. Observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of Patiala & Others â€"Vs- S K Sharma; (1996) 3 SCC,,,

364, has been referred, wherein, it is held that the principles of natural justice and the approach of the writ Court to any violation is the same.",,,

Justifying the findings of the disciplinary authority that there is no irregularity in the findings, inasmuch, as the documents produced before the",,,

authority are not challenged, rather exhibited without objection, it is submitted that the contention raised by the petitioner is not sustainable as the",,,

petitioner has not denied the authenticity of the various documents including the complaint petition (as averred in Annexure-7) and so, cannot deny that",,,

he is deprived of verification of documents. Further, as the petitioner has not challenged the authenticity of documents before the Enquiry Officer, so",,,

no witness was examined and as such, there is no violation of rules. Moreover, Enquiry Officer is not biased as he has not mechanically proved all the",,,

charges and only three charges have been stated to be proved against all the charges.,,,

Decisions of Kailash Sharma â€"Vs- PNB; 2014 (5) GLT 284 and Aboni Saikia â€"Vs-Hindustan Paper Corporation and Others; 2001 (1) GLT 124,",,,

have been referred to submit that the Bank Officer is required to exercise higher standard of honesty and integrity and there is no requirement that,,,

absence of loss to the Bank is to be considered, while imposing punishment and there is no requirement that the author of document must be examined",,,

if the document is produced and exhibited before the enquiry. In Aboni Saikia (supra), it has been held that if the documents were produced and the",,,

copies were submitted to the delinquent officer, the basic principles of natural justice are complied with, and it is not necessary to produce any witness",,,

if the genuineness of the documents is not objected to and admitted into evidence without objection.,,,

As regards the role of the appellate authority, decision of three-Judge-Bench in CA No. 4394/2010, Boloram Bordoloi â€"Vs- Lakhimi Gaolia",,,

Bank, has been raisedwherein, it has been held that if the disciplinary authority accepts the findings of the Enquiry Officer and passes an order, no",,,

detailed reasons are required to be recorded in order imposing punishment. As the punishment is based on the findings recorded in the enquiry report,",,,

no further elaborate reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary authority.,,,

Further, reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Sharma â€"Vs- Punjab National Bank & Anr.; (2007) 9",,,

SCC 15, has been made, wherein, it is held that in cases involving serious allegations it is permissible for the bank to continue with the disciplinary",,,

proceedings even after the retirement of the charged officer. The punishment of dismissal from service is also permissible because such an officer,,,

does not deserve to be continued in service in all.,,,

Thus, it is submitted that, in case if the writ Court is of the view that the procedure adopted in the enquiry proceeding is vitiated and the penalty is",,,

required to be set aside, the employer must be given the liberty to continue the departmental proceeding afresh from the stage of conducting the",,,

enquiry onwards. The charged officer can be placed under suspension for the duration of the fresh enquiry. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the",,,

case of Himadri Shekhar Bhattacharjee â€"Vs- Punjab National Bank; 2018 (1) NEJ 490.,,,

Due consideration is given to the rival contentions of learned counsel for both the parties. For proper appreciation of the matter, the relevant",,,

regulations 6 (3) (5) (11) (12) (13) (16) (21), 7 (4), 17 (4) and 18 of the PNB Regulations is quoted as below:",,,

“6. Procedure for imposing major penalties:,,,

(3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority shall, frame definite and distinct charges on the basis of the",,,

allegations against the officer employee and the articles of charge, together with a statement of the allegations, list of documents relied on",,,

along with copy of such documents and list of witnesses along with copy of statement of witnesses, if any, on which they are based, shall be",,,

communicated in writing to the officer employee, who shall be required to submit, within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary",,,

Authority (not exceeding 15 days), or within such extended time as may be granted by the said Authority, a written statement of his defense;",,,

(5) The Disciplinary Authority shall, where it is not the inquiring authority, forward to the inquiring authority:",,,

i) a copy of the articles of charges and statements of imputations of misconduct or misbehavior;,,,

ii) a copy of the written statement of defense, if any, submitted by the officer employee;",,,

iii) a list of documents by which and list of witnesses by whom the articles of charge are proposed to be substantiated;,,,

iv) a copy of statements of the witnesses, if any;",,,

v) evidence proving the delivery of the articles of charge under Sub-Regulation (3);,,,

vi) a copy of the order appointing the ‘presenting officer’ in terms of sub-regulation (6);,,,

(11) The Inquiring Authority shall, on receipt of the notice for the discovery or production of the documents, forward the same or copies",,,

thereof to the authority in whose custody or possession the documents are kept with a requisition for the production of the documents, on",,,

such date as may be specified.,,,

(12) On receipt of the requisition under Sub-Regulation (11), the authority having the custody or possession of the requisitioned documents,",,,

shall arrange to produce the same before the Inquiring Authority on the date, place and time specified in the requisition.",,,

Provided that the authority having the custody or possession of requisitioned documents may claim privilege if the production of such,,,

documents will be against the public interest or the interest of the bank. In that event, it shall inform the Inquiring Authority accordingly.",,,

(13) On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral and documentary evidence by which the articles of charge are proposed to be proved shall",,,

be produced by or on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. The witnesses produced by the Presenting Officer shall be examined by the,,,

Presenting Officer and may be cross-examined by or on behalf of the officer employee. The Presenting Officer shall be entitled to re-,,,

examine his witnesses on any points on which they have been cross-examined, but not on a new matter, without the leave of the Inquiring",,,

Authority. The Inquiring Authority may also put such questions to the witnesses as it thinks fit.,,,

(16) The evidence on behalf of the officer employee shall then be produced. The officer employee may examine himself in his own behalf, if",,,

he so prefers. The witnesses produced by the officer employee shall then be examined by the officer employee and may be cross-examined,,,

by the Presenting Officer. The officer employee shall be entitled to re-examine any of his witnesses on any points on which they have been,,,

cross-examined, but not on any new matter without the leave of the Inquiring Authority.",,,

(21) (i) On the conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiring Authority shall prepare a report which shall contain the following:",,,

(a) a gist of the articles of charge and the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehavior;,,,

(b) a gist of the defence of the officer employee in respect of each article of charge.,,,

(c) an assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge.,,,

(d) the findings on each article of charge and the reasons thereof.,,,

Action on the Inquiry Report:,,,

(4) If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that no penalty is",,,

called for, it may pass an order exonerating the officer employee concerned.",,,

Appeals:,,,

(4) The Appellate Authority shall on receipt of the comments and records of the case from the authority whose order is appealed against,",,,

consider whether the order of suspension/findings are justified or whether the penalty is excessive or inadequate and pass appropriate,,,

orders. The Appellate Authority may pass an order confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty/suspension or remitting the",,,

case to the authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such directions as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the,,,

case.,,,

Review:,,,

Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations, the Reviewing Authority may at any time within six months from the date of the",,,

final order, either on his own motion or otherwise review the said order, when any new material or evidence which could not be produced",,,

or was not available at the time of passing the order under review and which has the effect of changing the nature of the case, has come or",,,

has been brought to his notice and pass such orders thereon as it may deem fit.,,,

Provided that-,,,

(i) ………(ii)…………..N/A,,,

It is the stand of the respondent side that as the petitioner (as a charge officer) has not challenged the document/complaint, filed against him. So, it",,,

was not necessary to produce the original documents and to examine those complainants. Now, let us verify the aforesaid matter from the proceeding",,,

pertaining to the enquiry. On the very first day of the enquiry, on 27.11.2013, the petitioner denied the charges levelled against him; on the very next",,,

day of hearing, on 04.12.2013, he acknowledged the receipt of documents, and stated that authenticity of the documents cannot be confirmed, unless",,,

the original is verified. So, it is apparent that there is no admission about the content of complaints.",,,

On the next, the Charge -1 (1) itself is vague, in which it is stated that after sanctioning the loan, petitioner handed over the same to Nawaz Sharif,",,,

an agent of the Bank, for distribution and Sharif did not pay the amount to the borrowers. No irregularities or illegalities alleged, while sanctioning the",,,

loan and the loan was duly handed over to Nawaz and the allegation is attributed to Nawaz only, but said Nawaz was not brought within the purview",,,

of enquiry. The Presenting Officer, although has recorded his opinion that the petitioner did not visit the places of borrowers as per the Village visit",,,

register, but such register was never produced and nobody was examined in support of such contention and the Enquiry Officer although was aware",,,

of the fact that no such document was produced and no witnesses were examined in support of the charge, accepted the version of the Presenting",,,

Officer. On the other hand, the evidence adduced by the petitioner’s side, i.e., DW-1 to DW-5 (alleged complainants) have confirmed the receipt",,,

of the loan amounts and denied filing of such complaint, but despite their evidence was totally discarded only, on the fact that complaints bear their",,,

signatures. It is to be noted that those complainants specifically stated in their evidence that being illiterate, they were not at all aware about the",,,

content written in the complaints and at the behest of some superior officers of the Bank, they signed those complaints. Obviously, the content of the",,,

complaints is not supported by the complainants themselves (5 complainants), nor the original complaints were produced before the Enquiry Officer.",,,

Admittedly, none of the complaint was examined by the Enquiry Officer. Enquiry Officer has also noted that Presenting Officer has produced some",,,

documents, but did not produce any witness. Such a lackadaisical approach by the Presenting Officer as well as Enquiry Officer, is violative of",,,

Section 5 (13) of the PNB Regulations and against the principles of law and natural justice. By no stretch of imagination, one can accept that only on",,,

the photocopy of documents/complaints, which was never admitted by the delinquent officers, the guilt of an officer can be proved in the way that has",,,

been done in the present case.,,,

In view of above, finding that the Charge 1 (1) is proved, is not at all sustainable.",,,

So far as regards the Charge 3 (3), it is to be noted that the Presenting Officer himself is confused to consider the charge as proved and after",,,

examination of all documents he opined that various borrowers have submitted that they have withdrawn the loan amount and some of the borrowers,,,

have put their thumb impressions in the loan documents and withdrawal, so it is difficult for him to tally the thumb impressions of the borrowers. So, he",,,

held that charge cannot be considered to be proved, but the Enquiry Officer considered the charge as partly proved, observing that Presenting Officer",,,

has failed to present the case convincingly and has found it difficult to recommend for considering the charge as proved. Without appreciating all,,,

details of the matter and the reasons for rejecting such finding of the Presenting Officer, the Enquiry Officer has abruptly held that the charge is partly",,,

proved, which is bereft of reasons.",,,

Similarly, while holding the charge proved, as regards the Charge No. 4, that the accused has disproportionate transaction to his own source of",,,

income, the requisite data, such as, his monthly income, allowances, deductions, arrears etc. etc. (known source of income), has not at all been shown",,,

in the chart so prepared, as has been mentioned above, which again indicates the mechanical approach by the respondent department. Only certain",,,

deposits of amount w.e.f. 03.10.2011 to 12.09.2012, amounting to Rs. 6,44,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs Forty Four Thousand Only) has been shown, which",,,

is totally inconclusive to show the income of the petitioner at the relevant period. Apart from the chart prepared, no other supporting evidence was",,,

adduced. The plea of the petitioner that such an amount was deposited by family members for construction of his house, was not taken into account,",,,

nor he was given adequate opportunity to adduce evidence in this regard. The entire enquiry was concluded within a very short span of less than one,,,

month, flouting the prescribed procedure, ignoring the vital aspect. The respondent department is bound to adhere to their own rules and regulations as",,,

well as the established principles of law to ensure fair play and justice, which is not reflected in the matter in hand.",,,

While considering the matter pertaining to the enquiry, it reveals that in response to the notice served upon the petitioner and as against the Enquiry",,,

Report, the petitioner, herein, in his written submission, raised certain objections that-",,,

• Contents of all complaint letters are same, drafted by someone and then photocopied and signed by different persons. Because of this tailored",,,

complaint, the Bank did not carry out any investigation.",,,

• Nawaz Sharif was not engaged by him, as an agent for sanction of loan, rather he was engaged by the Bank authorities as i-mitra.",,,

• The village visit register is not produced to prove that he did not visit the places of borrowers and send them to Nawaz Sharif for processing the,,,

loan.,,,

• The first investigation made by the B K Pattanayak (CM Vigilance Officer do not contain irregularities but same was not produced. The,,,

authorities now has conducted the investigation with a ulterior motive to victimize him.,,,

• As per the PNB Krishi Card Cash Withdrawal Voucher, payments were received by the genuine borrowers.",,,

• PO did not verify the accounts of the borrowers concerned, by which, loan was disbursed. All accounts are KYC compliance, but same was not",,,

produced before the enquiry.,,,

• The PO has also admitted that in the first 17 accounts, borrowers have signed the documents and withdrawal forms as well as other 22 A/cs, is",,,

not in a position to verify the same, as some borrowers have put thumb impressions.",,,

• PO has confirmed about the signature in their documents/accounts and about the first withdrawal by the loanees, but he was not sure about the",,,

second withdrawal, as the signature did not tally. The petitioner requested the authority to verify the signature by GEQD.",,,

• As regards the deposit in his account he asked the authority to verify the aspect that those amounts were deposited by his family members for the,,,

purpose of construction of their house.,,,

None of the aforesaid aspects was appreciated by the disciplinary authority and the finding of the disciplinary authority is as below:-,,,

“I have observed that PO has submitted some documents, but did not produce any witness. I have also observed that although the DW-1",,,

to DW-5 have confirmed having received the loan amounts, they have accepted that they have signed the complaint letters. They have",,,

further alleged that the Senior Investigating Officer has misguided them and told them to confirm that they have not received the money. As,,,

the complainants have signed/put thumb impressions in the complaint letters, confirming that they have received the loan amounts and",,,

alleging misuse of loan amount, their deposition during enquiry are not found reliable.",,,

In view of above, I consider the Charge 1(1) as proved.",,,

As regards the Charge 3 (3), the findings of the PO have been observed that PO failed to prove the charge, in view of many of the",,,

documents tallies the specimen signature of the complainants in their accounts as well as withdrawal and the Enquiry Officer put his,,,

findings as below:-,,,

I have observed that the PO has failed to present the cases convincingly in respect of Sl. No. 1, 3 to 15 and 17, PO has himself found it",,,

difficult to recommend for considering the charge as proved. However, in respect of irregularities reported, Sl. Nos. 2 and 16, the",,,

documents produced and the arguments placed by PO have been found acceptable. Hence, I consider the Charge 3 (3) as partly proved.",,,

The Charge No. 4, regarding disproportionate income in the salary of the petitioner, both the PO and the Enquiry Officer held that both",,,

cash deposit transaction in the account of the petitioner are suspicious in nature and disproportionate to his salary income. Hence, Charge",,,

No. 4 is proved.,,,

Enquiry Officer held as below:-,,,

I have observed that some of transactions are disproportionate to the known sources of income of Mr Das, although he has mentioned that",,,

five other members of the family pooled their salary income in his account for construction of a building, no documentary proof has been",,,

submitted. Therefore, his statement is not supported by any acceptable authentic documents. I consider the charge as proved.",,,

The disciplinary authority on the other hand, accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer in toto, without any hesitation and no any appreciation was",,,

made on his part. Similarly, the appellate authority and reviewing authority upheld the findings. In the entire process, none of the authority has",,,

addressed/discussed any of the vital issues, raised by the petitioner as mentioned above. The sole and the very basis of the enquiry was the various",,,

complaints filed by the complainants, which was taken up in the enquiry. Peculiarly, none of the original complaints, was brought into the record nor",,,

any author of the complaint was examined to prove such complaints. The entire proceeding crept into nullity for the sole reason. The genuineness of,,,

the document was never admitted by the petitioner. Neither the respondent authority deemed it proper to produce the original documents nor offered,,,

any explanation for non-production of the original complaints and the complainants, which has vitiated the entire proceeding. All norms of the Rules",,,

and Regulations as well as established principles have been thwarted by the respondent authority.,,,

As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in K S Gandhi & Ors. (supra), that unless the Rule expressly or by necessary",,,

implications, excludes the recording of reasons, it is implicit that the principles of natural justice or fairplay thus, require recording of reasons, as a part",,,

of fair proceeding. In an administrative decision, its order/decision itself may not contain reasons. It may not be the requirement of rules, but at least",,,

the record should disclose reasons. It may not like a judgment, but reasons may be precise. Further, it is held that strict rules of Evidence Act and",,,

standard of proof envisaged therein, do not apply to the departmental proceedings or domestic tribunal, but must be proved by pre-ponderance of",,,

probabilities. It must be germane, relevant to the facts and issues and the inference from the evidence and circumstances, must be carefully",,,

distinguished from conjectures or speculations. The inference of facts must be based on evidence, which meet the requirement of legal principles. In",,,

the said decision relied by the petitioner, it has been held that appellate jurisdiction under Article 136/226 of the Constitution of India, cannot re-assess",,,

the evidence and to come to its own different conclusion, where finding of facts recorded in domestic enquiry are based on evidence. In the matter in",,,

hand, we found that except some mere speculations on some disputed/Photostat documents, no any evidence was recorded.",,,

As has been referred above, the bank authority has own prescribed Rules and Regulations regarding conducting enquiry prior to imposition of",,,

penalty. But in the instant matter, prescribed Rules were not followed by the respondent authority. The findings of the PO and the Enquiry Officer is",,,

based on the observation on the documents that was produced but none of the concerned persons like the complainants and the persons from the,,,

Bank authority was examined to prove the factum of non-withdrawal of the loan amount from the KCC. Whatever was written in the photocopies of,,,

complaints and other documents, was taken into account, while arriving at such finding.",,,

As has been held in the aforesaid decisions, nature of departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial one and where the findings of the respondent",,,

authority is based on no legal evidence and the conclusion is one to which no reasonable man would come, the findings can be rejected as perverse",,,

and the enquiry suffers from additional infirmity of non-application of mind and stands vitiated. If such finding of guilt is based on no evidence, it will",,,

be amenable to judicial scrutiny.,,,

As has been held in Nirmala Ghala (supra), it has been pointed out that judicial review is confined to correct errors of law or procedural law, if",,,

any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. In the present case, the original complaints were not placed",,,

on record, nor any other witnesses were examined and the absence of original complaints indicate that there was, in fact, no complaint in existence,",,,

which support the contention raised by the petitioner that loan was duly disbursed to the person concerned and whereas, no bank officials have been",,,

examined about non-withdrawal of amount. The Enquiry Officer failed to hold an impartial domestic enquiry, which is the essential component of",,,

principles of natural justice. The faulty reasoning of the Enquiry Officer attributing guilt to the petitioner, even after non-production of the",,,

complainants, made the enquiry as bias, perverse and against the principles of natural justice. A person has been removed from the service by such",,,

departmental enquiry, which is per se illegal. All the authorities have closed their eyes to the findings of facts that it is not supported by evidence at all,",,,

but on speculations and conjectures.,,,

It follows from the foregoing discussions that the impugned order of removal from service is invalid and legally not sustainable. The impugned,,,

findings of all the respondents, are hereby quashed and set aside. The manner in which the enquiry proceeding was conducted in absence of the",,,

original complainants and whereas, some of the complainants appearing as defence witnesses, have denied such complaints and the PO has already",,,

confirmed that there is no such irregularities in transaction, so far as the 17 complaints are concerned and various other aspects that have been",,,

discussed above as well as the fact that the petitioner has retired from service far back as on 21.12.2013, further departmental proceeding cannot be",,,

directed to continue, as sought for by the respondents.",,,

Consequently, the respondent authority is hereby directed to give all the pensionary benefits to the petitioner within a period of 3 (three) months",,,

from today (including the payment of salary since the day of suspension).,,,