Mukesh Kumar Jha vs Union Bank Of India & Others

By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking quashment of order of dismissal passed by the

Disciplinary Authority on 06.12.2013 as also the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 01.09.2014.

For resolving the controversy involved in the instant case, the facts adumbrated in a nutshell are that respondent No.1 is a Nationalized Bank

incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (in short the 'Act, 1970'). The service conditions of

the officers of respondent No.1/Bank are governed under the Regulations framed under Section 9 of the Act, 1970 and the said Regulations are

known as Union Bank of India Officers, Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (in short the 'Regulations, 1976'). The petitioner was

posted as a Branch Manager from 11.04.2008 to 09.10.2010 in the Gangeo Branch, District Rewa of the respondents/Bank. Thereafter, a

memorandum was issued to the petitioner on 26.07.2012 (Annexure-P/1) in which it was stated that the reply to the show-cause notice dated

26.07.2011 submitted by him was not found convincing and satisfactory. It was further stated that the subsidy of Rs.64,04,750/- received from the

Government Agencies were debited to Sundry Deposit Account of 105 beneficiaries without sanction of loan to them. It was further stated that in the

account of one Mr. Deepesh Singh, the amount of subsidy was credited twice though the same could be allowed once only. The other allegation which

levelled against the petitioner in the said memorandum was that he received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the amount Rs.2,00,000/- which he

transferred to the account of one Mr. Santosh K. Kacher. Another allegation levelled against the petitioner was to the effect that he allowed purchase

of cheques to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- by Mr. Rajaram Meena, the Assistant Manager of the Branch which were subsequently returned unpaid.

The memorandum contained another allegation stating therein that the petitioner did not have proper control over the affairs of the Branch. It was

further stated that the petitioner had misused the first floor of the Branch premises which adversely affected the image of the Bank. The allegation

was also made against the petitioner that he had not withdrawn salary from his account and he was found in possession of the assets disproportionate

to his known sources of income. It was further contended that the petitioner had admitted top-ups/bribes to the extent of 10% subsidy credited.

On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, it was mentioned that the aforesaid allegations constitute the following misconducts:-

(i) Failure do discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence.

(ii) Failure to discharge his duties with utmost honesty and integrity.

(iii) Failure to take all possible steps ensuring to protect the interest of the Bank.

(iv) Acting otherwise than in his best judgment in performance of his official duties.

Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to submit written statement of defence within seven days showing as to why, the disciplinary action should not

be initiated against him. Thereafter, reply to the charge-sheet was submitted by the petitioner on 16.08.2012 (Annexure-P/2) refuting the allegations

made against him and given a detailed explanation and alongwith the said reply, the petitioner had also annexed his earlier reply dated 16.08.2011. It is

contended by the petitioner that as per Regulation 6(4) of the Regulations, 1976, the Disciplinary Authority on receipt of the statement of the

officer/employee in response to the charge-sheet, is required to consider the reply and if finds it necessary to hold the enquiry, may order for institution

of departmental enquiry but in this case, the Disciplinary Authority failed to record any reason for not accepting the reply to the charge-sheet

submitted by the petitioner, therefore, the decision to hold the enquiry was illegal and contrary to the law.

As per the petitioner, the article of the charges issued to him on 26.07.2012 was based on the preliminary enquiry. However, after issuance of the

charge-sheet and instituting a regular departmental enquiry, the said preliminary enquiry lost its significance, therefore, reference to the statements

made in the preliminary enquiry either by the witnesses of the department; by the petitioner himself or by his witnesses were irrelevant in the

subsequent regular enquiry. As per the petitioner, a perusal of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer would reveal that the same is based

upon presumption and assumption inasmuch as no oral or documentary evidence was led to the effect that the petitioner had committed any kind of

misconduct. As per the petitioner, it is apparent from the enquiry report that the Enquiring Authority held the petitioner guilty of the allegations on the

ground that the petitioner had failed to prove his stand otherwise. This type of finding was contrary to the settled principles of law inasmuch as the

responsibility to prove the charges lies on the prosecution/management and the employee cannot be asked to disprove the charges. As per learned

counsel for the petitioner, it has been held by the Apex Court in catena of decisions that even in the cases where the delinquent has admitted his guilt,

it is the responsibility of the department to prove the charges by leading convincing and reliable evidence.

The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report on 25.06.2013 holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner stand proved. Thereafter, the

Disciplinary Authority after examining the enquiry report and finding recorded therein, issued a show-cause on 01.07.2012 to the petitioner. Reply to

the said show-cause was submitted by the petitioner on 16.07.2013. The Disciplinary Authority considering the report of Enquiry Officer and the reply

to the show-cause submitted by the petitioner and further taking note of entire material placed during the course of enquiry, passed an order on

06.12.2013 imposing major penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner informing him that he would not be entitled for any pay and

allowances. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the said appeal was also dismissed vide order dated

01.09.2014 confirming the penalty of dismissal as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.

The challenge is founded mainly on the ground that the Disciplinary Authority has not recorded any reason for not accepting the reply to the

charge-sheet submitted by the petitioner and accordingly, the decision for holding the regular departmental enquiry was said to be illegal and contrary

to the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited & others Vs. Ananta Saha & others

reported in (2011) 5 SCC 142. It is also submitted by the petitioner that the charge-sheet issued on 26.07.2012 was based upon the facts of preliminary

enquiry and as per learned counsel for the petitioner, after issuing the charge-sheet and instituting a regular departmental enquiry taking help of the

report of preliminary enquiry was not proper as after institution of regular department enquiry, the preliminary enquiry lost its significance and as such,

the finding relating to the facts of material produced during the course of preliminary enquiry is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. It is also

submitted by the petitioner that the finding given by the Enquiry Officer is based upon the presumption and assumption. As per the petitioner, no oral

and documentary evidence was led to the effect that the petitioner had committed any kind of misconduct. It is also contended by the petitioner that

the Enquiry Officer has submitted its report and found the petitioner guilty saying that he had failed to prove otherwise whereas it was the duty of the

prosecution to prove the charges and as such, the burden lies upon them but not on the petitioner to prove himself innocent. As per learned counsel for

the petitioner, the foundation of order of punishment is an admission on the part of the petitioner wherein he has admitted his guilt but as per the

petitioner, it was for the prosecution to prove the charges by adducing convincing and reliable evidence. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the

case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 57.0 It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

that the Disciplinary Authority was required to record its reason on each article of charge and only after getting himself satisfied, he should have

proceeded to decide the quantum of punishment but this was not done and the Authority proceeded on the basis of presumption and according to the

petitioner, it is contrary to the law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is highly

disproportionate to the alleged misconduct because the charges levelled against the petitioner were related to the procedural lapses and as per the

petitioner, the respondents/Bank have not suffered any monetary loss, therefore, he has claimed that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority

and also by the Appellate Authority are not sustainable and deserve to be set aside. In support of his stand, learned counsel for the petitioner has also

placed reliance upon a case of State of Uttar Pradesh & others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772.

Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/Bank submits that the scope of interference by the Court in the matter

of disciplinary proceeding and the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is very limited. He further submits that the petition filed by the

petitioner deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the charges levelled against the petitioner and the misconduct which has been alleged to have

been committed by him, has been admitted by the petitioner and in this regard, documents have been filed by respondents alongwith their reply. He

further submits that the petitioner was holding the post of Branch Manager in the respondent/Bank which is a financial institution and as such, it is

expected that he would follow the banking norms and would work to maintain high degree of integrity but on the basis of admission made by the

petitioner himself as he did not follow the norms of the bank and failed to discharge his duties in a proper manner, itself is a misconduct. He further

submits that the Supreme Court in several occasions in the matter of disciplinary proceeding against the officer of financial institution has very

categorically observed that it is expected from the officer of the financial institution to follow the prescribed norms and discipline of the institution

otherwise, it would be difficult to run the institution and if any indiscipline shown by the officer, the same cannot be condoned only on the ground that

the same was not done with any ulterior motive and extraneous consideration and further it does not cause any financial loss to the institution. He

submits that the findings given by the Enquiry Officer and also by the Disciplinary Authority are based upon the oral and documentary evidence

produced by the prosecution during the course of enquiry. He further submits that even otherwise, the petitioner himself had admitted his guilt and it is

enough to prove him guilty of committing the alleged misconduct. He submits that considering the limited scope of interference by the Court in the

matter of disciplinary proceeding, the petition has no substance and the same deserves to be dismissed. In support of his stand, he has placed upon

various cases of Supreme Court viz Syndicate Bank & others Vs. Venkatesh Gururao Kurvati reported in (2006 AIR SCW 680,) Union Bank of India

Vs. Vishwa Mohan reported in (1998) 4 SCC 310, Chairman-cum-Managing Director United Commercial Bank Vs. P.C. Kakkar reported in (2003) 4

SCC 364, Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager Vs. Nikunj Bihari Patnaik reported in (1996) 9 SCC 69 S,tate Bank of India Vs. Ramesh

Dinkar Kunde reported in (2006 AIR SCW 5457),G eneral Manager, Punjab and Sindh Bank Vs. Dayaram reported in (2010 AIR SCW 5447,)

Dharmarthmakara Rajbahadur Vs. Education Appellate Tribunal reported in (1999) 7 SCC 332 as well as of this High Court in the case of R.K.

Solanki Vs. Central Bank of India reported in (2018) 4 MPLJ 345 and State Bank of India Vs. Satyendra Arya passed in Writ Appeal No.1870/2018.

I have heard the factual and rival legal contention urged by learned counsel for both the parties and answered the same as discussed below:-

As per the main allegation levelled against the petitioner that while he was posted as a Branch Manager between 28.05.2009 and 09.10.2010, he

committed various acts of omission and commission and violated the settled norms and procedure of the respondents/Bank for claiming subsidy by the

self help groups. The subsidy of Rs.64,04,750/-received from the Government Agencies were credited to Sundry Deposit Account (SDA) and

thereafter the same was debited by the petitioner on different dates by crediting the amount to various saving bank accounts held by 105 beneficiaries

though no loan was sanctioned in their favour and the amount of subsidy credited in their account was permitted to be withdrawn in cash through

loose-cheque leaves. All relevant documents relating to deposit of subsidy amount were signed singly by the petitioner himself. He has also shared his

ID/password with the other staff members and also with the daily-wages working with the Bank to carry out the day to day transaction and as such,

he misappropriated the amount of Rs.64.05 lacs and also flouted the norms and procedure of the Bank for disbursement of subsidy of Government

Schemes depositing the same to the saving bank account without disbursing the loan and even without opening the loan accounts in the system. When

the matter was reported to the respondents-authorities in regard to the lapses committed by the petitioner, one officer namely Mr. S.K. Chanda

(respondent No.4) who was the then Chief Manager, Zonal Vigilance Cell, Bhopal was directed by the Vigilance Department of the Central Office of

the respondents/Bank to investigate the matter for ascertaining the correct picture. During the course of investigation, he has recorded the statement

of the petitioner in presence of Mr. Rajendra Shinde who was the then Manager of the respective Branch. The respondents have filed the statement

of the petitioner as Annexure-R/1 and also the reports of the investigation as Annexure-R/2.

As per the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, he has observed against the petitioner as under:-

“Shri Jha has admitted that he along with other staff members and outsiders Shri Santosh Kumar Kacher, Shri Udit Narayan etc. Utilized the first floor of the branch

premises for holding drinking sessions and at times led to quarrels amongst the participants, which has adversely affected the image of the Bank.

The SB A/c No.417202070009963 of Shri Mukesh Jha shows that even reasonable amount required for subsistence was not withdrawn. Salary credited to his account

was also not withdrawn by him. Further, there are other credits of big amounts in his account. The Assets & Liabilities Statement of Shri Jha as of 31.03.2010 shows

accumulation of funds which are not commensurate with his known source of income. Against his Net Salary of Rs.2.87 lacs, the total investment made by him in the

relevant Financial Year was Rs.3.39 lacs. Shri Jha has admitted acceptance of top-ups/bribes to the extent of 10% subsidy credited.

Shri Jha has admitted that the loan proposals received were neither processed nor sanctioned but he sent the P4 to the Jila Panchayat to claim subsidy. Only three

P4s were available at the Branch. However, subsequently the P4s submitted to various Departments, without processing/sanctioning loan, were obtained from the

said Departments. Further he admitted that he has flouted the norms of the Bank in crediting the subsidy and used to get 10% commission, used to hold parties in the

branch premises at night involving outsiders and staff members, advised the applicants not to avail loan and in lieu avail only subsidy as the same was not to be

repaid, the wrong practice of issuance of Cheque Book by Daftary was followed, he had shared his ID/Password with Staff members/daily-wages workers engaged by

him.

The above act on the part of Shri Jha has facilitated misutilisation and misappropriation of Government subsidy to the tune of 64.05 lacs. He has flouted the systems

and procedures by allowing credit of subsidy of Government Schemes to the applicants’ Savings A/cs without disbursing the loans and without opening the loan

Accounts in the system. He has admitted receipt of bribe to the extent of 10% of subsidy credited to the S.B. A/cs of the beneficiaries. Shri Jha had information of IDs

and Passwords of all Branch staff. He had engaged daily wagers without any authority who also had access to use IDs of other staff members for entering, posting

and even verification of the transactions. He had accommodated Shri Santosh K. Kacher and favoured by transferring an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs to his S.B. A/c. For

which he had received as Rs.1.00 lac from Shri Kacher. He had allowed subsidy twice in the A/c of Shri Deepesh Singh, though the same could be allowed only once.

He had also allowed purchase of cheques to the extent of Rs.1.00 lac by Shri Rajaram Meena, Asstt. Manager of the branch, which was subsequently returned

unpaid. The purchase of the Cheques was not only beyond the delegated authority of Shri Jha, but, he also did not seek any permission/ratification of his action by

R.O. As Branch Head he had no proper control over the affairs of the Branch including maintenance of records, etc. By holding late night parties, inviting staff

members and outsiders, engaging in drinking sessions leading to quarrels amongst the persons present damaged the image and reputation of the Bank. The expenses

for such parties were borne by Shri Jha. Hardly any withdrawal from Salary is observed in his salary A/c. and there are entries in his S.B. A/c. and also mis-match in

its Statement of Assets and Liabilities for the year 2009-2010 indicating income disproportionate to his known sources of income.

Shri Mukesh Kumar Jha is hereby required to submit his explanation within 7 days of receipt hereof by him showing cause as to why appropriate disciplinary action

should not be initiated against him for the aforesaid lapses on his part. If Shri Jha fails to submit his explanation within the stipulated time, it will be presumed that he

has no explanation to offer and the matter will be further proceeded with on that basis. Shri Jha has the permission of the undersigned to visit Gangeo Branch for one

day for inspection of relevant records so as to enable him to submit his reply/explanation.â€​

The respondents have also filed the statement of the petitioner which had been given by him during the course of the vigilance investigation and as per

the said statement, it is clear that the petitioner has admitted lapse on his part and also admitted the allegations made against him about misutilizing the

subsidy amount and also about not following the norms and the procedure which was required to be followed in case of disbursement of the subsidy

amount received from the Government for providing the benefit of Government Schemes to the beneficiaries. As per the enquiry report (Annexure-

R/12) submitted by the Enquiry Officer Mr. Deepak Tiwari, Senior Manager was the Presenting Officer and Mr. Prabhat Saxena, Senior Manager

appeared in the enquiry as the Assisting Officer of the charge-sheeted officer. The prosecution adduced two witnesses and 171 documents and in

defence, the petitioner produced seven documents and three witnesses. The Enquiry Officer in respect of charge No.1 after considering the

documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has given the following observation :-

“Evaluation: While going through the cross examination/Deposition of MW/Brief of Presenting Officer-1, it is clear that the subsidy of Rs.64,04,750 was

misutilised by crediting the same directly to SB A/cs of 105 beneficiaries without sanction of loans to them and in contravention of the guidelines of the relevant

schemes and withdrawals allowed in cash through loose cheque leaves. After going through MEX-1/3, 11, 13, 169 & 171, it is observed that the subsidy received was

credited to Sundry Deposit A/c-Subsidy A/c No.417202830002000 and thereafter the subsidy was debited to this account by the CSO on the different dates by

crediting the same directly to various SB A/cs. MW-2 after perusing Finacle has also deposed that no loan accounts exists at Gangeo Branch in the names mentioned

in MEX -169 & sub numbers. Moreover the CSO had not followed the laid down norms and procedures of the relevant schemes of the subsidy and hence the

allegation as regards to the credit of subsidy in different SB A/cs of 105 beneficiaries without sanction of loans to them stands proved.

Likewise, the Enquiry Officer in respect of all the allegations levelled against the petitioner elaborately considered the oral and documentary evidence

and then given his finding evaluating the same. From a perusal of the enquiry report and the observations made by the Enquiry Officer, it is apparent

that the findings given by him are based upon material produced by the parties during the course of the enquiry and, therefore, the contention made by

learned counsel for the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer has given his findings on the basis of assumption and presumption is not correct.

I am also not convinced with the contention made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the admission made during the course of preliminary

enquiry cannot be used against the delinquent and on the basis of that admission, punishment cannot be inflicted. As per learned counsel for the

petitioner the prosecution was under an obligation to prove the charge of misconduct independently in the departmental enquiry and to emphasize his

stand, he has placed reliance upon paragraphs 14 and 15 of the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) in which the Supreme Court has held as under:-

“14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the

delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on

record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be

evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did

not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence.

15.We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the enquiry officer was the purported confession made by the

appellant before the police. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was tortured in the police station. The appellant being an

employee of the Bank, the said confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing

the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the enquiry officer had

made up his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was

left.â€​

However, the said observation made by the Supreme Court is not applicable in the present case as the facts and situation of the aforesaid case is

altogether different with the present case.

Indisputably, the petitioner has admitted his guilt during the course of preliminary investigation but in the said regular departmental enquiry, the

prosecution has also adduced witnesses and documents and then proved the misconduct. The Enquiry Officer took note of those material and after

evaluating the same, gave his finding. In the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra), the prosecution proceeded only on the basis of material collected during

the course of investigation made by the Police Officer and did not produce any evidence during the course of enquiry. But here in this case, the facts

are totally different. The preliminary investigation was conducted by the Bank Officer and thereafter, in the regular departmental enquiry witnesses

have been produced, documents have also been produced and those were considered by the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, the said case is not

applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

The petitioner has also emphasised upon paragraph 30 of the case of Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) in which the Supreme Court has held as under:-

“30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be

conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is

done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may

culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service.â€​

However, here it is also not a case in which the Enquiry Officer proceeded in the enquiry with closed mind and fully relied upon the admission made

by the delinquent officer during the course of preliminary investigation. Therefore, the said case is also not applicable in the present case.

Apart from the above, from a bare perusal of the enquiry report and the proceeding conducted by the Enquiry Officer, I do not find that it is a case

in which any violation of principle of natural justice has been done. The petitioner was given full opportunity to prove his defence and his case was

pleaded by an officer holding the rank of Chief Manager who had appeared as an Assisting Officer of the petitioner. The petitioner has produced

several witnesses and documents in his defence. As per the settled principle of law, the scope of interference in a matter of disciplinary proceeding is

very limited. The Court has no authority either to interfere with the conclusion or to reappreciate the findings which are based upon the evidence and

the material produced during the course of enquiry. Here, in this case, the Enquiry Officer has properly evaluated the evidence of the witnesses and

the documents produced during the course of enquiry.

Further, the Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & others reported in (1995) 6 SCC 74 9in paragraph 12 has

discussed the scope of interference by the Court during the course of judicial review which reads as under:-

“ 12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the

individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is

conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or

whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold

inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of

Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives

support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review

does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere

where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules

prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such

as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it

appropriate to the facts of each case.â€​

Further in the case of Bank of India & another Vs. Degala Suryanarayana reported in (1999) 5 SCC 76 2the Supreme Court in paragraph 11 has held

as under:-

“11. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. The only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent

officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the

gravamen of the charge against the delinquent officer. Mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in departmental enquiry proceedings. The

court exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings excepting in a case

of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could

have arrived at that finding. The court cannot embark upon reappreciating the evidence or weighing the same like an appellate authority. So long as there is some

evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [AIR 1964 SC 364 : (1964) 4

SCR 718] the Constitution Bench has held:

“The High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if the whole of the evidence led

in the enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the respondent? This approach will avoid

weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence legally the impugned conclusion follows or not.â€​â€​

Considering the aforesaid enunciation of law in regard to the scope of interference in the matter of punishment inflicted by the Disciplinary

Authority, I find no reason which warrants interference in the matter. It is also not a case in which the punishment inflicted can be said to be

disproportionate with the charges levelled. The petitioner being an officer of a financial institution is under obligation to discharge his duties with high

degree of integrity. However, from the basic allegation made against the petitioner and his admission that the subsidy amount deposited in the several

accounts though there was no sanction of loan, the same itself indicates that there was a grave misconduct committed by the petitioner on his part.

Looking at the manner in which the petitioner violated the norms and regulation of the Bank especially in a matter of disbursement of the subsidy

amount to the beneficiaries of the Government Scheme, I have no hesitation to say that the petitioner intentionally violated the rules and procedure of

the Bank which comes within the definition of misconduct, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the punishment is not commensurate with the

charges, has no substance and is hereby rejected. As has been laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.K. Solanki (supra) that

the findings of the Enquiry Officer are not liable to be interfered with unless they are perverse or without any evidence. It is also observed by the

Division Bench in the aforesaid case that the adequacy of evidence is not subject matter of judicial review. Accordingly, here in this case, looking to

the enquiry report, I am of the opinion that the findings given by the Enquiry Officer are based upon the evidence adduced by the parties during the

course of enquiry, therefore, the same do not call for any interference.

As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority suffers from competence but it was duly answered by

the respondents and satisfied this Court that as per the Circular dated 01.07.2010 submitted alongwith the additional submission as Annexure-R/19, the

Chief Manager is the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner. All the authorities are above the petitioner as they are Nodal Regional Officer, Bhopal

for the State of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh for Scale I and II officers. Accordingly, the order passed by the Authority having the rank of Chief

Manager cannot be said to be an incompetent Authority. It is further pointed out by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/Bank that in

view of the provisions of Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 read with Clause-3 of Schedule-A of the Bank Gratuity Rules, the

gratuity amount of the petitioner is forfeited. In the additional submission, the respondents/Bank have quoted the provisions of forfeiture of service as

per Regulation 22 of the Pension Regulation known as Union Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995. It is stated in the reply that

vide letter dated 09.07.2015 (Annexure-R/21) an order has been passed by the respondents/Bank for forfeiture of gratuity amount of Rs.4,83,774/-.

Regulation 22 reads thus:-

“Regulation 22-Forfeiture of Service-“Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the services of the bank shall entail

forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits.â€​

In view of the above, the claim of the petitioner for refund of payment of gratuity has rightly been declined by the respondents as the charges of

misconduct have been proved against the petitioner and as a result, he has been dismissed from service.

In view of the aforesaid, I do not find that the petitioner could make out his case for seeking interference by this Court in the orders impugned.

Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioner being sans merit, is hereby dismissed.