IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14658 of 2006 Manzurul Hassan, son of late Hafiz Nakshed, resident of Village Mahedeva, P.O.and P.S. Raxaul, District-East Champaran Motihari …… ------ Petitioner. Versus 1. The Allhabad Bank, through the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Patna. 2. The Deputy General Manager, Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, Patna. 3. The Assistant General Manager, Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, Muzaffarpur -------- Respondents. -------------- 4. 15.10.2008 Heard Mr. Sri Kant Pandey for the petitioner, and Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha for the respondents. It relates to disciplinary proceedings conducted against the petitioner and the punishment inflicted on him after following the prescribed procedure. The petitioner was, at the relevant point of time, posted as Manager at Bathnaha Branch, District- Muzaffarpur, of Allahabad Bank. Charge sheet dated 9.3.2004 (Annexure-1) was served on him, whereby the following allegations were levelled against him. (i)In the ledger folio of Raj Karan Rai PB 5/205 (Prop. Janta Brick Industries) white fluid was used to cover the date of posting and amount. (ii) In long book dated 29.3.2000- Rs.3700/= only is credited in name of Kapur Chand Rai- PB 5/30. (iii) In the long book dated 02.06.2000 Rs.5000/= is mentioned as deposit by Sri Kapur Chand Rai, which appears to be inserted later on. (iv) The voucher of Rs.5000/= dated 29.03.2000 does not bear the signature of receiving Cashier. (v) On 29.03.2000 two separate vouchers were prepared for deposit of Rs.8700/= (i.e. Rs.3700/= & Rs.5000/=) in A/C Kapur Chand Rai, which 2 normally does not happen. (vi) Signature of the passing officer Sri Binay Khalko on deposit voucher for Rs.5000/=dated 02.06.2000 in name of Raj Kiran Rai PB 5/205 does not appear to be genuine as the same does not tally with his signature on Bank’s other records (Sri Binay Khalko was officiating as Branch Manager on that date). vii) The compromise certificate of loan account of Sri Kapur Chand Rai (PB 5/30) devoid of the amount of compromise bears the date of 24.03.2000 whereas the compromise amount was deposited by him on 29.03.2000 in the said account. 2. There had been no practice at the Branch during the tenure of said Sri M. Hasan, Manager of sending intimation to the borrower on receipt of the sanction of their compromise proposals from the competent authority and thus leaving ample scope of realization of excess amount over the sanctioned compromise and particularly in case of small/illiterate borrowers. 3. During his tenure as Bench Manager, Charges Expenses were incurred by him in most arbitrary manner overstepping his authority and without obtaining proper sanction from competent authority. Few examples of which are: Date Purpose Amount Paid to Passed by 24.01.2000 Cricket Tourna- Rs.2168/= Through M. Hassan ment Banker’s Cheque 24.04.2000 For working Rs.500/= Ram Ekbal -do- beyond working Choudhary, CIC hours 08.05.2000 Photo Copy Rs.932/= -Do- -d0- 09.05.2000 Deposit mobile Rs.450/= -Do- -do- sation 26.02.2001 For working Rs.625/= Ajit Kumar -do- beyond working Spl. Asstt. hours 03.04.2001 Deposit Rs.700/= Ram Ekbal -do- mobilization Choudhary CIC 21.05.2001 Deposit Rs.4000/= Not mentioned in -do- mobilization voucher. No. signature of the receipt of the on the back. Action was taken in terms of regulation 6 of the Allahabad Bank Officers Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) 3 Regulations 1976(hereinafter referred to as the Regulation). The petitioner had shown cause and contested the charges. He participated in the enquiry proceeding. Learned Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 10.3.2005 (Annexure-11), wherein he found that charge numbers 1 and 2 were fully proved, and charge number 3 was partly proved. This was followed by the order of the learned disciplinary authority dated 14.5.2005 (Annexure-13), whereby he was awarded punishment of “Lowering down of his basic pay by four stages in the present scale for three years with cumulative effect”. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred departmental appeal which was dismissed by the order dated 5.10.2005(Annexure-15), and the order of the learned disciplinary authority was up-held. Hence this writ petition at the instance of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to assail the validity of the enquiry proceedings on any ground at all. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank has supported the impugned action. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The appellate order was passed on 5.10.2005, and the present writ petition was lodged in this Court on 29.11.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to explain the delay in spite of repeated queries. The writ petition suffers from un-explained delay, laches, negligence and acquiescence. 4 The scope of interference with a departmental proceeding in exercise of writ jurisdiction is very limited. This is not a court of appeal. This Court is required to satisfy itself that charges were served on the delinquent employee, he was afforded reasonable opportunity to present his case during the course of enquiry. Principles of natural justice were followed, the prescribed procedure was followed, and the punishment meted out to the employee is not proportionate to the gravity of the proven charges. On perusal a of the materials, it appears to us that clear-cut charges were served on the petitioner, he was allowed inspection of the documents, and he fully participated in the enquiry proceeding. He also submitted his show-cause before the learned Enquiry Officer, as well as before the disciplinary authority, when the enquiry report was under his consideration. It appears to us that the principle of natural justice was observed and the prescribed procedure was followed. It further appears to us that, in view of the findings recorded by the learned Enquiry Officer, the punishment meted out to the petitioner is just and reasonable. In fact, this Court has left with the feeling that the punishment is on the liberal side, and Bank took a very lenient view of the matter. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar , J.)