Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13479 of 2004 Harihar Singh, son of late Ramprit Singh, resident of village Satjoda, P.S. Panapur, District Chapra at present residing at Chandan Bhawan, the retreat lane, Purandaha, P.S. & District Deoghar. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The Managing Director, Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Budha Marg, Patna 2. Deputy Managing Director, Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Budha Marg, Patna 3. Secretary, Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Budha Marg, Patna .... .... Respondents ====================================================== For the Petitioner : Mr. Umeshswar Pd.Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. . Ramesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== P R E S E N T : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN O R D E R 13 24-09-2012 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the punishment awarded to him in the departmental proceeding communicated vide memo no. 4904 dated 16.09.2002 (Annexure 7), issued by the then Administrator of Bihar State Co- operative Land Development Bank, Patna (hereinafter referred to as `the Bank’ for the sake of brevity), dismissing the petitioner from service and directing 30% of the loan amount disbursed during his tenure as District Manager, Jamui to be realized from Patna High Court CWJC No.13479 of 2004 (13) dt.24-09-201 2 him and also ordering that except subsistence allowance, nothing shall be payable to him for the period of his suspension. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he was appointed as Land Valuation Officer in the Bank vide letter dated 28.02.1968 and subsequently he was promoted to the post of Branch Manager vide Bank’s letter dated 31.01.1973, whereafter he was promoted as District Manager vide Bank’s letter dated 15.11.1975. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the period from 16.12.1985 to 16.02.1986 while he was posted as District Manager, Jamui, some irregularities were reported in the newspaper with respect to distribution of loans to some Harijans and Adiwasis in Sono and Chakai Blocks and when the Deputy Managing Director of the Bank, along with Finance Officer made enquiry, they found certain irregularities. On the basis of the aforesaid enquiry report, Chakai P.S. Case No. 45 of 1988 was initiated against the then Branch Managers for offences punishable under [STATUTE] and in that proceeding the name of the petitioner as District Manager of the area having supervisory jurisdiction was added. In that case charge-sheet was submitted against other accused persons, but it did not contain the name of the petitioner and on Patna High Court CWJC No.13479 of 2004 (13) dt.24-09-201 3 that basis cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate only against the charge-sheeted persons on 28.08.1997 (Annexure 2) as no material was found with respect to the involvement of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner averred that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and charge-sheet was submitted on 12.12.1988 (Annexure 1), whereafter the petitioner submitted his explanation with respect to the charges, pleading innocence and denying any involvement. It was also averred that thereafter the enquiry officer conducted enquiry, in which the persons, examined in the preliminary enquiry, were brought for cross-examination and the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 31.07.1992 before the disciplinary authority. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the disciplinary authority sent second show cause notice along with the report to the petitioner on 26.07.2001, to which the petitioner replied on 25.09.2001 (Annexure 6) giving detailed explanation with respect to each of the charges and also enumerating grounds against the findings of the enquiry officer, but the disciplinary authority, without considering the aforesaid explanation and grounds, passed the impugned order against the petitioner on Patna High Court CWJC No.13479 of 2004 (13) dt.24-09-201 4 16.09.2002 (Annexure 7) giving harshest punishment. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that neither any direct allegation of embezzlement was levelled against the petitioner in the charges framed nor any direct act of embezzlement was found against him either in the enquiry report or in the order of punishment nor there was any evidence also to show any direct act of the petitioner with respect to the irregularities, which were alleged to have been committed by other employees of the Bank. 9. He also claimed that the petitioner was only a supervisory authority and he had no direct role to play in the aforesaid embezzlement, but inspite of that a very harsh punishment of removal from service was awarded to the petitioner, which did not commensurate with the nature of delinquency. In this connection he relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court in case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vrs. Mahesh Kumar Mishra & Ors., reported in A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 1151 as well as in case of Subhash vrs. Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 9 S.C.C. 344. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the only allegation against petitioner was that he did not perform his Patna High Court CWJC No.13479 of 2004 (13) dt.24-09-201 5 duties properly and hence the doctrine of proportionality was clearly involved, which is a well recognized concept of judicial review in jurisprudence. In this connection he relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and another vrs. Mukul Kumar, reported in (2009) 6 Supreme 349. In this connection, he also relied upon a circular of the Bank bearing no. 4055 dated 29.04.1970, which provided as follows :- “ Instances have come to the notice

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.