APPELLANT: Respondent MlGHC<aUirT^CMHA1~riSG«RHATBII.ASPUR WritADffealNo.lg&^fIQD? Allahabad Bank Verstls RESPQNDENTS: Petitioner GhandraSekharPandey&oithers ^. < ! !? • >. ••• JUDGMENTFOiRSBQNSlBER&TIEiN HONiBLE^HRIR.N.^H^N0RAKAR,J :^)^'K-^-h-' ^ SdA \- - -< "Dhirendra Mishra^, Judge Sd/- R-N. Chandrakar Judge POSTFORJUD(3MEN:TX3N-S"MAY,2010 •^ sV-' Y'"- sdj.^tfa -^^e(»dta17" ^cel^d^ t .-.<• \- HIGH^OURTQFGHH^TISGiakRHATBIL.ASRUR APPELl-ANT: Respdhdent RESPONaENTS: Petitioiner WritADDealNo.1^6of2007 Allahabad Bahk, through its CHairman & Managirig DireGtor, 2, NetajiSubhasR6ad,K61Kata(W.B.) Versus ;1; 2. 3. 4. Chandra Sekhar Parfdey,^soFi of Shiv BahadHr Pandey, Ex-OffiGer, Allahabad Bank, Eurg, by Mis legal representatives;- Smt.Cliandrakali Pandey, wklowof Late Ghandra Sekhar Randey, aged abQut 62 years, 'PradeepKuiTia!^13ancley,sonoflate (SMaiitlra ;SeRhar Pandey, ag^d about^Syears, I Sandeep KymaF Pandey; son of Late Chandra^ Sekhgr Pahdey, agediabout34years Shi^»an KurnaF^aHiaey, son^^ o 1-ate GharKlra sSekhaF Wandey, aged abput 33 years All reside^nt of C/o Sliri .Vijay Agrawal, Maghai Mandir, Lallu Bhai Ki'Talaiya,Katni(MP) ^ Present: ShriP.S. Koshy, CQyhselfortheappelIant^'^^^ ShriB.P.SharmawitHShriKshitijSharma,counselfortl"ierespondents. .•4. DiVision Behch: Hfliti'lileKSI'in DhifendraMishra& Hon'lileStiri'R.N.Chandrakar.JJ. ^^B3C31;MS^;T-:^.-"'-:':. •':.;:;;. • ',,! , (Delivei-gy?&h,s^Klay,2Q10) The fdllpwihg judgmentof tlie;i@6urtwas deliyered by Dhirendra IVIishra, J. 1. This writ appeal is ^ireGtgd' against the ordei' dated 23rd passed in VVrit Petition No4303/199 wt'iereby leamed SingleJudge has allowted the wnt petifion in paitaffd quashed t^ oixl^r p^ March,2007 s 3SKa^^^^^ sf^ tHediseiplinaryauthorityandGonfirrnedbytheappellateautlTorityandit has been held that legal representativesof the deceased petitioner i.e. tHe delinquent officer are entitled for the arrears of the salary and other monetary benefits frorn the date the delinquent officer was dismissed fromtheservicetillthedateofpayment. ~ 2. Hereinafter the parties shall be referred t6 as per their description before the Writ Court. 3. Briefly stated faets ofthe asanofficerofthe Barik duririg the period 1984andthereby ofthebankartdhas proposed to be articles of charge were did not file ahy reply to 4? The bank chose to hold aS one Shri S.B. ©hakraborty Vaidyawais appointed Shri S.R. Cliakraborfy transferofShnS.B. ease are that the petitioner was functioriing Allahabad Bahk, Durg, Branch(f6rsMort'theBarik'). He was served with a chai^e sheet dated 24' DeGember, 1986 for his acts ofomission and coromissioriwhilefuhctioning as ah offieerofthe betweeh 25th November, 1983 and 1st October, committed aets ofmisconduct unwOrthyofan ofRcer exhibited laek6fintegi1tyanddevotiontoduty. He was alsoservedwith a statementofimputations,detailsofbahkdrafts in thename ofaceount holders in whoseaecountstMeamtiuntofdraft was Gredited; IN of documents by which articles o^ substahtiated and thelistof witnesses by wHorn the proposed to be substantiated. The petitioner thSGhargesheet, lenqujry againstthe peititipner and^appointed as fhe Enquiring Authority and Shri S.G. Presehting Qffieer. However, subsequently, iwas^appQintecl as Enquiring Authority on ©hakrabbrty.•T'heenquiry commericea fFpm22-4- .ss-a^-, ^ .vtKsS:!KSS 1987. The petitioner dehied the charges and thereafter the procedure t0 be followed in the enquiry was decided in the above heanng. Next date of enquiry was fixed 6n 1-8-1987. It continuedon 3-8-1987,4-8- 1987;5-8-1987 and 7-8-1987. Managemehtwitnessesnamely, Shri Amrit Pratap Das (MW-1), Shri Satish CHand Dliirnan (MW-2), Shri R.N. Kaliya (MW-3), Shri Lekhraj Meghani (MW-4), Shri Santosh Kumar Verma (MW-5) and Shri K. Narain Rao Naidu <MW-6) were exaffiined, cross-examined and discharged and the petitioner was askedtoprodueehisdefencedoGuments/witnesseson 7-8-1987; 5: the Enquiry Officer submitteGl his eriquiry report dated 15th September, 1987 to the Disciplinary ^uthOrity and the Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 13 Octdber, 1987 tlismissed the resRond6ht ftom the serviee ofthe bank with Immediate effect under regulation 4(h)^bfthe Allahabad BahkOfficer Employee's (Diseipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (for brevity the Regulatioris, 1976'). 6. The appeal preferred by the respejndent has been further dismissed by the ARpellate Authdrity vjde order dated 26tt August, 1988, Rbwever, by the impugned brder, writ petition preferred by thetespondent has beeh partly allowed, Quashing the order passed by the Djseiplinary Autlionty and confirmed Jby the Appellate Authority, it has be6n held that legal Npr^ehtatives]of'tHedeceasedpetitioneri.e.thedel officer are entitled for tHe arrears of the salary and other monetary benefife fromthe date the deljnqyent officer was dismis^e^^^^^f^ servicetillthedateofpayhrteht/^^^ 7. Shri P.S.Koshy, learned lcourisel aFipearing on behalfof the appellaht would argue that the respbnclent was served witli a chargesheet on accoynt of certgin irregularifigs committed by him. The Delinqyenf Offieer <D.Q.) did not fumish any repl^ to the ehgrge sh^ several opportunilies grahted tb him fbr that ^pur^s^^^^^^^ TO departmental enquiry wajs cOnductgd and the D.0. was gffcjri^d an oppdHuhity to defend tiimself after observing prineiples of^^^^^ justige. The Enquiry Qffieer in his enqujry report fbund the D.0. gyilty ofeommjttirigimisc^Rduc:t fyrther dismissed by allggeEl aggirlsttiini in thechiargesheet.The Disdplinary?AutKbrityryide its^oreleri^ penalty of disrnissal from^seivic&ypoR the^D.G. and his a tlie Appellate Authority after elaborately cohsiderihg the objecfions and submissions raised IH the^m appeal vid&orderdated 14? September, 1988and Lip^ dismissal. The D.Q. filed the afore^id writ petiticin challenging tR^^ orderoftheDiscipliharyftyttlorityandtheAppgllateAuthority.During thependericyofthewritpetiti6ri,theyelinqueht0fficerexpired6ri26-1- 2007ahd the petitionwas prosefiuted by his legal representatives. 8. The charges against the|D.Q. stand established fromtiie evidehceof managemeht witnesses namely, Shri Amrit Pratap Das (MW-1), SI1ri Satish Chand Dhiman (IV|VV-2>andSlln Lekhraj Meghani (^ were beneficiaries df the miscohduet bf fhe detinqyent officer; From theevidenGeofmanagementwitneSSnamely,ShriP.N.Ka|iya(MW-3), who wasanofficerofthelBankahdwhohadcondUctedtheprelirninary investigatjon and had ^Jven a yetailey statem^^^^ ihvestigjation along with thedocuments during the Goursepfenquiry^i ^c li; is established thatthe D.C). hiad conductecl himself ih amanherwhich wastotally unbecomirig of abarikofncer. The cQntentioh aavanced o behalf of the resp6nd6nt tBat pririeiplesYof natural justice were hot obsenred during enquiryiis notsustainableras he participated in^^^ enquiryproGeedingandGross-exarriinedalltheitianagenlentwithesses withouf any objection. During tBe GOurse ofenqpiry, he was a suffieient opportuhityofinsp^ctihg^hedQcunientsas^p&rthe^p^ agrged on tKe first day of departmental enqyiry oh 22-4-1987 any tie had hirnselfsubmittedacertifi(^te<ifinspeGtioriofd(:)euments6|T7-7- 1987 before ttie commencement ofthe eriquiry. 9. The grouhd taKen by the r^pondent that 03py of the encjuiry report was not^forwarded along;withsnow^causerioticeisatSondtayailab|e to the respondent as ithas hot beert shown by tlie i^po^ whatpl^udiGehaSeccasionedbynOn^emceofenquiiyreFio^^ otherwise,therulesg6verningtheserviceconditiohsoftheresp6hdent do nbt envisage provisioni of grant 6f enquiry report. Grantihg of enquiryrepOrtwasmademandato^sifterthejudgrnentoftheSupreiTTe Court in ttle case of Mohd. Ramzah Khan decided ori 20-11-1990. It has been subsequently Iheld in the later judgment of the Supreme Court that providing of entfuiry report would be mandatory only in cases whereenquiry is initiated and Gompleted after the judgme ttie case of Mohd. Ramzan KHah i.e. 20-11-1990. However, i in We :'i-' :.-'-''::" '• •' ::•..":.•.'•• ..'.'- • '. ^ '•• "'"•• .":.•'.:: •-. ' .:: '••." •• • •.'.' •' '.••••• .' instant ease, the punishmeht order and the Appellate Qrder w^ passed much earlier than the judgmerrt in l\4ohd. Ramzan IKhan and, there^re, imiTOSjtion ofpenaltycanncrtbequestipnedonth^g und6^^ non-Supplyofenquiryreport. | ,T 1 !?lll^-Il'^S'S!'S'w ^"?'?'-?BI;s;^.l-sJM-'?''L3"'? ../t "^ 10 By the impugned order, groynd^that the Bank liad who were benefited frbm! ttie writ petjtioh has been allowed ohly on tHe filedttertain eivil suitsagainst4 beneficiaries trte acts of bmission and commissibn on the part of the D.0. and the Bank ofcitain^d si decree against those benefiGiaries and in these circumstances.the Bank oowcanhot raise a claimthatthedeceasedDQcomrhittedmiSGOnduGt.TMeabovefincling in the impugned orderisnotsyStainableascivil suifswerefitedagainst the persons who had wrongly obtained certain benefits which they \ re otherwise riotentiUed for and the Bartk had been put td 1 whereas the D.0. w^ of Qrnission and commissiori while discha^ing his diJrtieS as responsible^^t^ Bankwhich amounts to miscbriCluct^nd alsb ttie aets are unbecoming ofthe bfficial ofth6 Bank. ThuS,'filihg of civilsuit bythe Bankagajrist beheficiaries of the miscbhtluct of the DO would not exonerate the deceased DOwithrespectto hisactofmisconduct. 11. Qn the other hand^ Shri |B.P. Sharma, learned eounsel appearing on behalf6ftherespondeht,iw6uldsubmitthatinthewritpetitionvanous issues were raised on behalf of the deceased D.0. agaihst imposition of penalfy arid subsequsnt confirmation by tMe appellate authority. However, the petjtibn was allowed only on the ground that the Bank had filed civil suit againgt fhe beneficiaries wherein it was stated that due to wrong entries made by the Bank in the name of 4 account holdere, the defendants gccounts holders had withdrawn Vne money. Thus, it is clear that it was not the D.0. who had taken advantage of wrong entries made in ttie accounts of ftiQse 4 account this aspect has not been,takeh nofe of bythe disciplinary authority or holders and SK»iS^S^^^S!^'SS!'fSS"i!!SAMI ff:S"SM % S :S'i°^5!3Si5£SSI!SSE 'ti^ •II: i] 'ftuff ;,<#r i^.".^- the appellate authority befbre Tmposing punishment on the D.0. and tHeorderofthe disciplinary authority has been meGhanically eonfirmed. 12. From tHe above, it is clear that the departmental enquiry was helcl with respect to some trahsaction fbr which civil suitwas filed against 4 account holders. TRat apart, the D.0. was charged of eomrniffirig fbrgery, however, the mahagement Has utterly failed to prove this charge, as charge;of committing foi^esry requiresstrict proof beyond reasonable dbubt. Therg was total noh-complianee of the principles 6f natural justice while conduc^ing diseiplinary prdGeedings, as c^ the necessarydocumentswerenotsuppliedtothe D.0.. Even copies ofstatementSQfwitness$swerenotgiveninvi6tationofthestatutory rulesas provided in Regulatjdn, 1976. TtTfeAppellateAuthority.without going into the question whether the procedure laid down^f^ disciplinary procieedings |has been violated or not, Bas mechahically confirmed theorder of thedisciplinary authority. The D.0. had raised several grounds in his memo 6f appeal inclucling the gFOund that his request for requisitioning relevarit documents was denied ahd the witnesseswho were not cited in the charge sheet were presented without supplyirig copies|of their preVious statements any thereby he was denied right ofeffective cross-examination. The D.0. has beeh terminated on the ground that hehas committed forgery, however, the management has miserably failed to prove the charge of fQfgery as there is no evidence addyced by the management that he had himself withdrawnanyamount.LearnedSingleJudge.GOnsidenngthestand oftheBankintheciyilsqitthatanerroroccurredduetom error and obtained deeree for recovering the mohey against 4 III il '•^fS^s^SBSSSWV.-- . —.,;r;•.:.::. . ...;•-• :, ";'i:'S^t;isi-5:S?^^B 3i •VS ~'V"f "'•^ "^-^•^ - .: <• ^efendants accouilt holders, has rjghtly held that the Bahk cannbt be permitted nowtochargethe D.O.with alleged miscpnductOn thie basis of some transaction. 13. We have heard learned counsel for ttie parties. We have perused the record as also the enquiry report along with enqyiry ^ ^uthorityinipQsingpenaltyandthe^orderofthe punishmeht. orderofthediSGiplinary appellateauthoritycbnTirming 14. The respondent challenged ttie order of punishment on the following grounds:- •TheD.G.wasirioti by the enquiry officgr,; appellateauthbrity.i afforeled (proper Qpportunity of hearing r, Ihe disejplinary auttiority and the • TlieenquJryofficerldjdnotfaithfullyfbllowthepF6cedure Ijrescribied under the Regulaticins 1976 while I'lolding ' ^ 'enquiry.' : ' i; ; : ::''..': • : :. ' ::. • The order of Ih^ appellate authority is not a speaking order.: •: :., I .'., . •:: • : . : • The Bank had filed a civil suit against the acGounts holders ofthebank wHo tiad issued selfr cheques to the D.0. to withdraw the money. The suit has been decreed in favour ofth& Bahk apd, therefcre, the Bank cannot coritend inlone breath that the D.0. has mis- utilized thefuhdsof the Bank^and afthe sametimefiled civilsuit againstthe accbunt holders fbrrecoveryofthe amounts which were: credited in fheir accounts by mistake. l5.In theimpugned ordertafter extractihgthe chargesheet, staitementbf J» articles of charge and ttie statement of imputation ^ of ^. misiMhduct/misbehaviouF in support 6f tRe artieles o^ against the D.0. and conclusioh crf the enquiry officer in the^e report, the question for cdnsjderatten has been formulated in paragraph-21 which reads as uncler:- "(21) The qyestion, that would arise^^^^,^ consideratibn anrd aecisjon, is wHether tHe diseiplm authority, havirig 1 issugcl the charge-merno artd thereafter liaving fjled ttie civil suit for recovery of the amounts frornthefouraecountholclersoftMeBanKtin the groynd that th^ have withdrawn certain amounts, whieh;^re credifecl mtp jtheir ^ecou^ ^^ ^ disGiRlinaryjaiutNor^y wa^jusfifi^cl^n irripdsir^ penalty of dismissal from service?" is.CQnsidering the^pleadings of the Bank in tHe civil sujt fi^ defendahts namely, Santosh Kumar^rma, Lekhraj Megftam^ Satish Constructiori and Amrit Pratap Das, wherein it has been averredtliatcertaiRwrohgentriesv/eremadebytheBankinthename of those fbur accouht holdere and taking advantage ctf those \^ entries, the defendants heid withdrawh tKe money, it has been held that it was notthe delinquentl officer who had withdrawn the money which was depbsited in the Tiame of four accpunt holders. Further considerihg that the Bank Mas already obtajned a deeree against 4 account Irolders, the ordgrs of punishment passed bythe disciplinary authority and confirmed bytlie appellate authority have been quashed and the decision of the Suprem6<C6uFt in the matter of Jasbir Singh Vs. Punjab&Sihd Bankandothers{(20C?7) 1 Supreme 566} tias been followed. I ,. CourtCases —.-_Li '•!' ^-L^ t.. 10 17, In Ihe case of Jasbir [SIngli (Supra), a peon of the banfc was prosecuted underSectioh 409/201 of the IPC for fraudyleritly withdrawing a sum by forging sighatures of the depositQrs. He was acquitted 6f the charges by the Criminal Court. Despite aeqyittal departmental proceedings continued and ended in an ex-parte report holcling the charges againsttB&appellsinthaabeenproved.Thebank also filed a civii suit againstthe delihqyent p^n for recbvery of the sum^vhich was fraydulentlywitlidrawnbyhim. Thesuit was decreed. However, the appeal preferred by the employee was allowed by the Additiohal District Judge with a finding that the respondent;bank miserably failed to prove thafrthe appellsint has withdrawn thg said sum and that he had embezzled an amouht of Rs.25,000/- was also nbt proved and thus the bank was not erititlSc) to recover the said sum. ThecorreGtriessofthesaidjudgrnentwasnotquestipnedbythebank and itattainedfinality.Qnthesefacts.itwasheldasunder- 'ln the present case, the respondent BanK invited findings of a competent civil court on the issue as to whiether the appellant had committecl ariy embezzlement or raot; Embezzlement of fuhct was the principal charge |against the appellant in all the proceedings. The respctndent gank failed to prove any bf the chaFges before ahy court of law. The judgment in civil matter having jattained finality, wa& bindirig on the ' : . , respondent Bank." j.,. •:,:.,:-...,;,•,•:, : .: ,: : :. '/ . 1&. However, in the facts of the present case, the deeeased delinquent officer was charged thatl while functioning as an officer Of during Ihe relevant period, he received 8 bank drafts Qf M/s M. Farel Hussain; M. Habib Bhai and M/s Mohanlal Bhagwati Prasad amounting T. -~ \( the Bank l^t .-^' f'>! ::f" to Rs.1,00,300/-for credjtihg tKe proceedsof drafts in their respective accouhtswhereas, in fact, he mari^ed t6 creditthe amouht bf bartk draft in th6 account of other personsand subsequently managed to obtain cheques from thejconcerhed persons and obtained payment of Rs.1,00,100/-. T „ l9.The subject matter of the suit filed by the Bank against 4 aciGOunt holders wasthat 4 accbunt holders Knowing fully well that wrong credit ehtries have been madeiin ttieir names, they had withdrawn the^said aiTtounts ahd^m aforesaid aniOuTO was filed a^ disciplihary proceeclings were initiatect against the deceased D.O. for hisallegedmisconducrtofcreditingthebankdraftsreceivedfromother account holders in the aecourits ofthose 4 aCGountholders. Hg was further charged that hemanaged fo obtain various clTequgsfrom the aforesaid accounthbldersahdobtainedpaymenttheir-againstfromthe Branch and thus hecommitted miseonduct urider Rule 3 (1) of the Allahabad Bank Qfficer Emplbyees (ConduGt) Regulations, 1976. Thus, the miseoncluctalleged againstthe deceased D.O.was entireiy different ahd he couldi not be exoherated from the eharges 6f misconduct only on the; ground that the Bank had filed a civil suit against 4 account holders for refuhd of tlie sum withdrawn by them whieh was erroneously credited in their accounts by the Bahk. The ratio oflawlaid down in thejudgment ofJasbirSinflh (Supra) hasno applicationwhatsoeverin;thefactsofthepresentcase. a Next question for ourconsideration is - whether the decfeased D.0. was affbrded proper oRportuhity of hearing ^durihg enquiry by tlie T,VI ''^^. tS! .^- <-: t enquiry officer, Ihe disciplinary ahd whetlier the proeeclure followed? authonty and the appellat& aUthbrity .prescribed under Regylafion, 1976 was 21. From perusal of th& recerd, we find tliat the charge sheet was duly servgd to ttte respondent along with statement of articles yf charge, statennent of imputation of miscohdyct/misbehaviour iri supj36rt of thie artieles of eharge with deitails of bank drafts and the names of aGCount holders iri whose accounts tHe amount of bank draft was credited including the amount ariGt tBe date 6f withdrawals, list 6f;c|QCuments by whieh articlescffGha witnesses was alsb mside availableto'the D.0.. The D.0. did riot file repiy to the charge' sheet and thi6 after^^^ i^ departmental enquiry relatingto charges in terms cff regu^ We Regulation, 1976 andiencjyiFyofficerwasappointed. 22.Thenoticeofenquiryproee&dingwasdulyServedon^hedelinquent ofRcer ancl he availed fh.e services of one Shri D.S. Ram, Officer, Regional Dffice, Bhopa|,|as his assistant during enqyiry proceeding. Orifhefirst hearing held|on22^April, 1987, on denial^^o^^^^ the deceased D.0;, enquiry ofRcereippnsedabouttheprocedurethat .*:••'.•• • . . • :• . •' '.'•.' ••'•.•.'.'. would be followed for conducting enquiry prbceedihg^^ decided that the P.0. shall submit list of documents and list of witnesses by which and by Awhom articles of charge were proposed to besubstantiafedbeforettieenqyiry^withaeopytothe D.0., whowould be afforded an opportuhityto irispecrf the^ocurnents furniste^ PresentingOffieerandsHallsubmit^rtificateQfsuchJinspecAibno^ 1 .•'.••'.' documents. The ctiarged offiGervras to sybmitlist of doGumentsand f! a 13 A. 'i%:,- '' •^e^3 ,£ listofwitnessesandthereafteriridicatinQthedocumehtsandwifnesses whowoutdberequireGltolbepresentahdexahriihed. Zs.Afterthestageofinspedidnofdo^hie'rtts^etc.hgaringof^^e to cdmmenG& on day^o-day basis aind after evidehce of^^ over,theD.O-vrast6'prc^ycehisvWti^§sesancthem^ himself as his witriess. ;The D.Q. fyrnisHed ceFtjficate 6f inspeetioh dated 7-7-1987 andMel alsosytimitteddoGumentson 28-7-1987, thereafteFenquirycOmmehcedfrbm 1-8-1987 and 6 m^ witnesseswereexaminedbetween 1-8-1987and 7-8-1987 tlre^^^ whieh'evidencedfthe B.O.wasalso reeorded. 24.From perusal of tHe proeedure;1oll^ conductihg eHquiry, it is|e|earWat the^ m examined in the presence 6f the D.0., who was^ a assistance bf the DA.. Th& delinquent cfflcer participat^^ proceedings and cross-examinecl the management witnesses without -anyobjection. ; ;/:1', '.ri' '11'.1^ ::':;;; • ' '. ,' : .; 25.The eriquiry offj(%r after obtairiing written briefe fro submitted his detailed enquiiy report on 15 September, 1987. /^ elaborately considering the oral •and documentary evidenGe adduced durihg eriqujry proceeding by the respective parties,it was held that ^ the deceased D.0. managed ^ accountsbfDurgBranchlandthereafterrnanagedtoobtainselfdrawn Y,'^-:':.:..^::.. ' '.^ ' ::JF :-':j:.^ cheques from them with the plea of acOusting w^ clearly exhibits his direct thisconhection. involvemeht in the forgery in Durg Branch in ^' '• f^ss'^.-. ^/?/ '^^"- ""^'•:'- ^ • ^^ tf1 ' S8^:':s ^ !11 i'w3&~'::S • '^: ••.7.^.^^y'- 26. The appeal preferred by thie D.O^ has been further dismissed after GonSidering each ofthe against order of punishmeht same. grouhds taKen in the meniiorandum bfappeal and assigning reasons fOr rejiectirig tHe 27. Shri B.P. Sharma, learned vehertfentlyarguedthat accountholders on the statemehts ancl tfrus, the for preparation to cross-c 14 :^4-l date counsel appearing fbr respQndent, .mariagement was permitted to examine4 ofhearingitselfwithoutpnornotjcetothe D.0. ahd withbut providing him with the^^^^to D.0. was nbt afforded sufficient Qpportuhify -examinetheaforesaidwitnesses. 28 From perusalofthe proGeeding befdrethe enquiry officer, we find that l' •• '••:••'.'"• ••'.•'•:'':' •• • •'•••.'••'•'••' "• ••• ••' '• ' •'.'"' ••••••. noanyobjectio'hwasraisedby^e D.0. orhis DA. during^^^ the afbresaid witnesses were duly cross-examined by tlie delinquent officer and, therefor^, the aforesaid contention was rigtitly^rejected by the appellateautnority. 29.As regardsttieargument additional documerits an8 August, 1987 was not\ yefence, after goihg and 7th August, 1987 of >the belated requestfbrdireci was rejected after assigning produce his defence date on whieh he enquirywasclosed. that prayer of the D.0. for order t6 produGe witngsses filed oh 5th Aygust, 1987 and 7th c6nsider6d whieh materially affected his through fhe 6rder1sh6etsdated 5 August, 1987 fhe enquiry officer,we are of the opihjoh that direcfionfbrprQduetionofdoGuments/witnesses valid reasons and the D.0. was asked to documents/witriesses on 7th August, 1987^ the ''..•'•'; ' •.•'.'••••• • I '.•'.:•..-.• tendered himself as clefence witness and thereafter #~ 30. Learned counsel fbr the resp&hdent could not demonstrate as t6 what to tKe delinquent officer on account of non- -prodyction of the ddcuments/witnesses sought to be produced atthefagendoftheenquiry. prejudice has caused examinatioH/non-i 31.1t issettledlawthat administrative decision ahd unless it was illogiGal was sliockingfothe defiance of logic or limited to the;deficiency decision. jn the matter of departmental pfGiceedings suffers from the procedural impropriety or consbience ofthe Court, in the sense that it was in mbral standard. The scope ofjudicial review js in dedsion making process and^ n^ 32. The judicial review is arelieldagainstthe rulesofriaturaljusticeor the mode bf enquiry or discipliriary autKority is AIRSCW379},while decisioh of the diseiplinary Article2266fthe "Itistritethatthe jurisdiction under hearing an djsciplinary delinquent emplbyee TriburTal or the exereising the Z-" 15 the Court should not interfere with the perrhissible onlywliere the enquiry prdceeclings clelinqueritofficerinamahnerinconsistentwiththe iih vidlatioh ofthestatutory rules prescribecl in wherethec6h(:;lusk:inorfindingreachedbythe based on n6 evidenee. 33lnthematter6fGoVernmentdf|n(lia&Ahr.Vs.GeorgePhilip{2007 considering thescope of interferehce agairist the authority.in exerGise of Junsdiction under Constitution, ithsisbeen heldthus:- Tribunal orthe High Courtexercising Article226;c>ftheConstitutionarenot appeal against the decisipn of ttie authority imposing) pyhishimeht uppn th;e i. ThejurisdiGtiOn eyercised by the Gourt is a limited one and whil^ power 6f judicial review, ^they carinot set I1: li aside the punisltmSnt penalty unless Substantial hon-eompliance a gross violation caused prejudice miscarnage ofjustjce diSproportionatelo 6f tb 34. It is settled lawtliat^whene thecharged offiGer holds a position bftrust integrity are inbuilf requirements of functioning, it deal with the matter leniently. Miseonyuct^^i^ dealt\A/ithstern|y.Wheretheperson;dealswith engaged in financial-transaGtions or act in a where Honesty and inte would hot be proper to such cases has to be pOsted in thesaid Bank docurtientary evidence officer arrived at a coricjtisioh obtain self drawn cheques creciitswhichclearly 36. From perusal of the ordeir the grounds raised bythe find fbrce in the argunnent not been shown asto '\.. aceount of non-supply 16 altbgetheror imposesome other find that there has beeh a of the fvAes of procedure or rules of natural justice which has the employee and has resulled jn or the punishment is shockingly thegravainenoftheGharge." public money or is fidudary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trustwQrthiness js a must and unexeeptionabie. 35Jfweexaminefactsofthepresehtcaseintheab6vesettledprinciples oflaw,wearedfthe6pini6ntRatthedeceasedD.O.wasinyisputably attheTelevantfime.Onthebasisoforaland adduced by the managSment, the enquiry that the D.0. managed to credit vtfrong entries in 4 differentaGcounts|ofDyrgBuinctt,thereaftermanagedto from therrf with the plea 6f adjusting wrong exhil}its hisdirectinvolvemeritintheforgery. 6f tlie appellate authority also, we find that D.0. was duly considered and rejected. We 6f learnecl eounSQl fbr the Bank 'that it has prejudicewascausecltotherespondenton •!: •'•'. •' '.•' • • .'':.'/.-- fff enquiry ^report and that the relgvant 3arve 1. 17 •regulationsofth6Bankdon6tprovidefQrsupplyofcopyoftli6enquiry reportbeforejmpositionofpenalty. 37. Thus; considering the^acts and circumstances ofthecase and the fact thatthe D.0. did not file replytothechargesheetandtRattheenquiry wasGOnductedinhispreserieeandhepartieipatedihthesamewithout any objection, the ground taken by the respondent that principles of natural justiee were ndt followed by the enquiry offieer, the diseiplinary authorityancltheappellateauthbrityfisrejected. SS.Ohthe basisofafbresaiddiseussion,tl'ieappealpreferreclbyttieBank is allowed arullhe Jmpugned^i^er^t^23riM^ learnedSingleJudgeinW.p. N6.1303/1990 isheFebysetasideand the aforesaid writ petition preferred by the respondeht is dismissed. Noortlerasfbcosts. Sd/- ] Dhirendra Mishra \ &- Judge Sd/- R-N.Chandrakar Judge