Patna High Court
Vinay Verma vs Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank on 23 July, 2026
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6821 of 2020
======================================================
Vinay Verma son of Late Sukhdev Prasad Verma, Resident of Mohalla-
Balbhadarpur, House No. 60, near L.I.C. Office, P.o. and P.s.- Laheriasarai,
District- Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank through its Chairman Head Office Kalambagh
Road, Muzaffarpur, 842001
2. The Chairman cum the Appellate Authority, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Head
Office Kalambagh Road, Muzaffarpur, 842001
3. The Chief Manager, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Head Office Kalambagh
Road, Muzaffarpur, 842001
4. The General Manager cum the Disciplinary Authority, Uttar Bihar Gramin
Bank, Head Office Kalambagh Road, Muzaffarpur, 842001
5. The Regional Manager, Jhanjharpur, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, ADB
Chowk, P.o.- Araria, District- Araria
6. The Branch Manager, Bithauli Branch, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Post-
Bithauli, Laheriasarai- Biraul Road, District Darbhanga
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Md. Shahnawaz Ali, Adv.
Mr. Md. Shadab Alam, Adv.
Mr. Bipin Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prabhakar Jha, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 23-07-2026
Heard Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned Senior
Advocate, along with Mr. Md. Shahnawaz Ali, learned Advocate
for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhaka Jha, learned Advocate for
Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
2/29
the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank.
2. The challenge in the present writ petition is made to
an order contained in letter No. HO/DAD/12/19-20/No. 319
dated 23.10.2019 issued by the General Manager-cum-
Disciplinary Authority whereby the petitioner has been inflicted
with the punishment of dismissal. The petitioner also sought
quashing of the order dated 04.01.2020 contained in letter No.
HO/DAD/12/19-20/No. 458 passed by the respondent
Chairman-cum-Appellate Authority whereby the appeal
preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal came to
be rejected.
3. The facts, in brief, leading to institution of the
present writ petition are that the petitioner was duly appointed to
the post of Junior Management (JMGS Grade-I) Officer. After
working so many places, in May, 2017 the petitioner was posted
as Branch Manager, Bithauli Branch, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank
(in short 'Bank'); Subsequently he was transferred as Branch
Manger to Araria Sangrampur Branch in the month of July,
2019. While working as Branch Manager (Officer Scale-I) at
Bithauli Brnach under Regional Office, Darbhanga, a Charge
Sheet was duly issued to the petitioner alleging the act of
omission and commission of the petitioner constituting
Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
3/29
misconduct under Regulations 18 and 20 of the Uttar Bihar
Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulation, 2010
read with Amended Regulation 2013, attracting penalty under
Regulation 39. The articles of charges against the petitioner
clearly reveal that the petitioner by using his power flouted the
financing norms of the Bank, committed gross misconduct in
violation of the banking norms, fraudulently sanctioned and
disbursed 44 fake loan with malafide intention to the fake
borrowers under Joint Liability Kisan Credit Card (in short
'JLKCC') Schemes. The aforesaid act of the petitioner was
found to be unbecoming of Bank's Officer and prejudicial to the
interest of the Bank which constituted misconduct.
4. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner submitted his
reply. However, the same did not satisfy the authority and a
departmental proceeding was commenced; the Enquiry Officer
and the Presenting Officer were appointed. The petitioner
submitted his detailed statement of defence. On the other hand,
the Management Representative/Presenting Officer produced
documentary evidences and one witness in the proceeding along
with other necessary papers, including the copy of 44 loan
documents, as per the demand of the petitioner. The defence
also produced 5 documents and examined three defence
Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
4/29
witnesses during departmental enquiry. The Presenting Officer
also submitted his written brief statements and finally the
Conducting Officer returned his finding by holding the charges
proved against the petitioner vide enquiry report dated
27.09.2019
(Annexure-17 to the writ petition). The petitioner
was further called upon to submit his submission in respect of
finding of Enquiry Officer, which was responded vide letter
dated 12.10.2019. The Disciplinary Authority on consideration
of the facts emerged in the enquiry and the materials available
on record, vis-a-vis the gravity of charge proved, inflicted the
“punishment of dismissal which shall ordinarily be a
disqualification for future employment” vide order dated
23.10.2019 (Annexure-18) in terms of Regulation 39(1)(b)(v) of
the Service Regulation, 2010 read with the Amended
Regulation, 2013. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal
before the Appellate Authority-cum-Chairman which came to be
rejected vide order dated 04.01.2020 (Annexure-22) by
concurring the decision of the Disciplinary Authority.
5. Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned Senior Advocate
adverting to the facts submitted that upon transfer of the
petitioner from Bithauli Branch to Araria Sangrampur Branch,
with respect to 44 JLKCC loan accounts, an enquiry was
Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
5/29
conducted by one Gautam Govind, (Branch Manager, Shiv
Nagar Ghat) and he submitted his report on 27.08.2018 alleging
that since there is a failure on the part of the petitioner, who
failed to give importance to KYC verification and pre-sanction
verification, hence the outstanding amount of Rs.14,11,432/-
ought to be recovered from the petitioner as all the loan
accounts were fake. Based upon such report, the Assistant
Regional Manager was appointed as Examinee Officer, who
vide his letter No. 179 dated 13.09.2018 intimated that there is
no accountability of the petitioner. The report of the Assistant
Regional Manager was also intimated to the Chief Manager of
the Bank through the Regional Manager vide letter No. 210
dated 14.09.2018 stating therein that the so called alleged fake
accounts have been closed after recovery of the loan amount and
thus it was recommended that in the light of the aforesaid
letters, no accountability of any officer/employee of the Bank is
surfaced. But surprisingly the same Branch Manager who had
vide his letter No. 179 dated 13.09.2018 certified that the loan
accounts were not fake, informed the Regional Manager that
what had been communicated earlier that was a mistake due to
oversight, and in fact all the 44 JLKCC loan accounts were
completely fake which led to reference of the matter in a Fraud
Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
6/29
Declaration Committee and to the utter surprise the Regional
Manager, Assistant Regional Manager and the then Branch
Manager, who had earlier certified that there was no
accountability of any officer or employee with respect of 44
JLKCC loan accounts, decided to recommend to the Head
Office to take action against the petitioner. It is the specific case
of the petitioner that he had followed all the norms of the Bank
while sanctioning the loan after proper verification of the
beneficiaries through Voter ID Card presented by them. Since
there was no mechanism to verify the authenticity of the Voter
ID Card and thus on the basis of local inspection, loan amounts
were sanctioned.
6. Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned Senior Advocate for
the petitioner while assailing the impugned orders submitted
that the charge sheet being defective not accompanied by the
distinct and precise statement of imputation, list of documents
and list of witnesses, the disciplinary authority proceeded
thereupon, is per se illegal and the finding of the Enquiry
Officer is based on no evidence and, as such, the alleged charges
were not proved in the manner known to the law. It is further
contended that despite the demand having been made by the
delinquent petitioner, copies of prosecution documents were not
Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
7/29
provided and thus the entire disciplinary proceeding stands
vitiated in the eye of law. It is vehemently contended that when
the charge sheet and the enquiry report are defective, then
automatically all future orders shall also become defective. To
support the aforesaid contention, reliance has been placed on the
decision rendered in the cases of Roop Singh Negi Vs. The
Punjab National Bank & Ors. [(2009) 2 SCC 570], State of
Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha [(2010) 2 SCC
772] and in the case of Kuldeep Singh vs. The Commissioner
of Police & Ors. [(1999) 2 SCC 10].
7. It is further contended that a Bench of this Court in
the case of Manish Prajapati Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
[2025(3) BLJ 232 (Pat.)] where the charge memo does not
contain any list of witness nor it was ever produced during
enquiry, the Court held that without citing any witness in the
charge memo, the Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of
some of the witnesses which were not relevant and thus the
Court held that the allegation has not been proved as it is a case
of no evidence.
8. Learned Senior Advocate further argued that the
Enquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary authority has illegally
returned the finding of charges proved against the petitioner by
Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
8/29
illegally shifting the onus of disapproving the same upon the
petitioner which is clearly unsustainable in the eye of law.
[Vide:Tej Narayan Chaudhary Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors,
2020(1) BLJ 11]. The disciplinary authority completely failed
to consider the explanation of the petitioner on the findings
given by the Enquiry Officer while inflicting severest
punishment of dismissal which shall ordinarily be a
disqualification for future employment.
9. It is further urged that the report of the Gautam
Govind based upon which the Enquiry Officer returned his
finding of guilt is wholly perverse and rested upon presumption
and it is not clear as to how he reached on such conclusion. The
certificate of the Mukhiya which was produced and exhibited by
the Management has not even been proved as the concerned
Mukhiya has never been examined and thus cannot be relied
upon. The finding of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner did
not follow the norms and conditions of the Bank is vague and
unfounded as the enquiring authority failed to refer any specific
banking norms which the petitioner had violated. There is
nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was the
beneficiary of the loan amount. Furthermore, the order of
punishment is grossly disproportionate to the charges and has
Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
9/29
caused grave prejudice not only to the petitioner but also to his
entire family. To support his submission, reliance has also been
placed on a decision rendered in the case of Surekha Domaji
Bele Vs. Executive Engineer, Testing Division,
MSEDCL[2026 SCC OnLine SC 1109].
10. Per contra, learned Advocate for the Bank, Mr.
Prabhakar Jha vehemently refuted the contention of the learned
Advocate for the petitioner and submitted that it was the
responsibility of the petitioner as Branch Manager to establish
the genuineness of the borrowers and in the instant case it has
already been established that the petitioner sanctioned and
disbursed loan to the fake borrowers, who do not even exist at
the address mentioned in the KYC which clearly depicts the
petitioner had not even visited the borrowers’ house and even
met with the borrowers personally. The aforesaid act clearly
shows the malafide of the petitioner. Moreover, fake voter ID
and photograph does establish that KYC verification has not
been done.
11. It is further contended that Sri Gautam Govind in
its investigation report dated 27.08.2018 verified all the loan
accounts and submitted separate report for each and every 44
suspicious loan accounts with a clear finding that there is huge
Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
10/29
tampering in the Voter ID Cards which have been taken as KYC
documents. During investigation, he also visited the Ward along
with Mukhiya and Ward Member to meet the borrowers but
none of them were found in that locality. The public
representative also stated that the borrowers are not of these
locality. The recommendation for closure of the account is only
made because of the fact that accounts are declared as fake and
thus the closure of the account does not mitigate the seriousness
of the irregularity. Sanction and disbursement of loan to fake
borrowers is a fraudulent act. Therefore, accountability has been
fixed against the petitioner. Gautam Govind was also produced
as Management witness in departmental proceeding who was
cross examined with respect to his report. In the said process, he
supported the charges and the contents of the report. The
certificate issued by the Mukhiya that all the 44 borrowers are
not the resident of Bithauli and their names are not enrolled in
the electoral roll has not been disapproved by producing any
evidence. Electoral roll was also produced as MEx 4/1 to MEx
4/5.
12. It is further argued that the petitioner also
produced three defence witnesses. However, they failed to give
the details of borrowers by looking at their photographs and
Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
11/29
they have also stated in course of enquiry that they did not know
the borrowers with the names and addresses. The petitioner has
been given ample opportunity of hearing and all the documents
which have been sought for by the petitioner, as is evident from
the minutes of the proceedings, copies of which have also been
placed on record as Annexure-13 to the writ petition.
13. Mr. Jha learned Advocate for the Bank thus
contended that there is no infirmities in the enquiry conducted
by the Enquiry Officer and the impugned order of dismissal is
proportionate to the charges, which has also been affirmed by
the Appellate Authority. Placing reliance upon the case of
Regional Manager, U.P., SRTC, Etawah & Ors. Vs. Hoti Lal
& Anr. [(2003) 3 SCC 605], it is submitted that the Bank
institution is an institution of hope and trust of public at large
and the act of the petitioner was contrary to the banking norms
and regulations as well as the guidelines and thus the writ
petition lacks any merit. Further, reliance has also been placed
on a decision rendered by a Bench decision of this Court in the
case of Binod Singh Saumitra Vs. Chairman & Managing
Director, Allahabad Bank [2018(3) PLJR 543] as well as the
decision rendered by the Division Bench in the case of The
State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Yavitri Devi & Ors. [LPA No. 1358
Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
12/29
of 2017], that the departmental proceeding cannot be faulted on
the ground that no witness was examined. The Bank officer who
was charged to have sanctioned without adhering to the lending
norms, his action amounts to serious misconduct [Vide:State
Bank of India & Ors. Vs. T. J. Paul. (1999) 4 SCC 459.
14. This Court has anxiously heard the learned Senior
Advocate/Advocate for the respective parties at length and also
perused the materials available on record, besides went through
the decisions referred hereinabove by both the parties. Before
coming to the facts of this case, it would be relevant to highlight
the scope of judicial review in view of the pronouncements of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered time to time.
15. In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. S. Sree Rama
Rao [AIR 1963 SC 1723], a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Curt ruled that the High Court is not a court of appeal
over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental
enquiry against a public servant. It is concerned to determine
whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that
behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf,
and whether the rules of natural justice are violated or not.
Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted
with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which
Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
13/29
evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the
delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of
the High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to review the evidence.
16. Similarly, in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India
[(1995) 6 SCC 749], the Court underscored that the power of
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 eyes of the court.
While exercising the power of judicial review, the Court does
not act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence
and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence.
However, the Court 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.
17. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal
evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
14/29
Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be
permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal [Vide:
Union of India Vs. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364]. In the
aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further clarified that
if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached
by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent
error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a
writ of certiorari could be issued.
18. In State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. Nemi
Chand Nalwaya [(2011) 4 SCC 584], the Court observed that
High Court/Tribunal ought not to reassess the evidence led in
the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another
view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has
been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on
evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the
reliable nature of the evidence will not be ground for interfering
with the findings in departmental enquiries.
19. It is would also be relevant to refer a judgment
rendered in the case of Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekaran
[(2015) 2 SCC 610], where the Court exhaustively laid down
the parameters as to when the High Court shall not interfere in
the disciplinary proceedings, which parameters would be worth
Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
15/29
benefiting to quote hereinunder:
“(i) re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the
enquiry, in case the same has been conducted
in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence
on which findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it
may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment
unless it shocks its conscience.”
20. In the light of the scope and ambit of judicial
review, now this Court primarily takes into consideration the
facts of the case. There is no dispute that the petitioner was
appointed to the post of Junior Management Scale-I Officer in
Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank and at the time of alleged misconduct
he was serving as Branch Manager, Bithauli Branch and thus the
entire action leading to initiation of a departmental proceeding
culminated into punishment having been carried out under the
Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service
Regulation, 2010. Chapter IV of the Regulation 2010 which
deals with Conduct, Discipline and Appeals. Clause 39(1)(b)
deals with Major Penalties and (v) thereof stipulates “dismissal
Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
16/29
which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future
employment”. However, it is made clear that no order imposing
any of the major penalties specified above shall be made except
by an order in writing signed by the competent authority; and no
such order shall be passed without the charge or charges framed
in writing and given to the officer and enquiry held so that he
shall have reasonable opportunity to answer the charge or
charges and defend himself, in case of the officers of the Bank.
21. Before initiation of departmental proceeding,
admittedly a preliminary enquiry was conducted by one Gautam
Govind with respect to 44 JLKCC loan accounts and he
submitted his report on 27.08.2018. Based upon such report, the
reply of the petitioner was sought for and subsequently the
matter is placed in a Fraud Declaration Committee in presence
of the Regional Manager, Assistant Regional Manager and the
then Branch Manager who have finally recommended to take
action upon which the petitioner was served with show cause
and finally the Bank has taken a decision to initiate a
departmental proceeding by serving memorandum of charge
sheet containing charges, inter alia, he sanctioned and disbursed
loans in the name of fake borrowers, as borrowers were not
found residing or exist on the address as mentioned in the loan
Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
17/29
accounts and KYC documents. He pasted fake photograph of
the borrowers as these photograph does not match with any
local person of the village Bithauli i.e address mention in Bank
record. He obtained fake KYC documents as EPIC No.
mentioned in Voters ID cards belong to different block and
application name of borrower did not match with the original
EPIC holder name. He did not verify KYC documents. He did
not conduct pre and post inspection before sanction and
disbursement of loan. Fraudulent act of Sri Verma was also
ascertained from the certificate of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat
Bithauli, which confirms that the borrowers, as mentioned in
Bank’s record, do not belong to Bithauli Village.
22. The charge sheet contains in Annexure-1 and 2, the
details of all the loan accounts mentioned besides the
imputation. However, this is the admitted position that in the
charge sheet there were no list of documents and the witnesses
by whom the articles of charges are proposed to be sustained.
The Conducting Officer as well as the Presenting Officer were
duly appointed by the Bank and upon notice the petitioner
entered his appearance and had opted one Sudhir Kumar as a
defence representative. The management
representative/Presenting Officer produced eight
Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
18/29
documents/papers as documentary evidence along with copies
of 44 loan documents as per the demand of the petitioner in
support of charge levelled against him. It is also relevant to note
here that the Management has also produced Gautam Govind as
a witness in order to prove the contents of the report dated
27.08.2018. The petitioner along with his defence representative
was all along present in the enquiry and; all the documents on
which the Bank has placed reliance, have been handed over to
the petitioner.
23. Now the question for consideration before this
Court is as to whether the charge sheet which does not contain
list of documents and witnesses suffers from vice of illegality
and on the basis which the enquiry that has been conducted be
held unsustainable in law?
24. There is no confrontation with regard to the settled
proposition of law that the charges would be proved only on the
basis of the documentary and/or oral evidences, unless accepted
by the delinquent. In Roop Singh Negi (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has clearly ruled that mere tendering the
documents would not be suffice to prove the charges unless oral
evidence is produced to prove the contents thereof. It is well
settled that unless the author of the documents is produced as
Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
19/29
witness or examined or cross-examined, the charges cannot be
said to have been proved and thus at the time of framing of the
charge, the disciplinary authority ought to furnish a list of
documents and witnesses by whom he proposes to sustain the
charges. Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai
Prakash Saini Vs. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative
Federation Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 505
has held that unless the charged employee accepts his guilt in
clear terms, an enquiry on the charges drawn against him would
have to be held. In the enquiry, the employer/department would
have to take steps first to lead evidence against the workmen /
delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross
examine those witnesses. Only thereafter, the workmen /
delinquent shall be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence
and/or submit an explanation about the evidence led against
him. Even in a case based solely on documentary evidence,
unless the relied upon documents are admitted by the charged
employee, a witness would have to be examined to prove those
documents and when so examined, the witness would have to be
tendered for cross-examination.
25. Now coming to the Regulation, 2010, which
governs the disciplinary proceeding of Officers/Employees of
Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
20/29
the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank. Regulation 39 mandates that in
case an officer commits a breach of discipline or guilty of
misconduct or commits an act detrimental to the interests of the
Bank shall be liable for major punishment, including dismissal
which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future
employment, provided charge/charges are framed in writing and
given to the officer and enquiry be held so that he shall have
reasonable opportunity to answer the charge or charges and
defend himself. Regulations do not mandate that the memo of
charge shall accompany with list of documents/witnesses. It is
not the case of the petitioner that the documents on which the
Bank management has placed reliance in order to sustain the
charges have not been handed over to him, rather copy of the
proceedings which have been brought on record clearly suggest
that all the documents and even the documents which have been
demanded by the petitioner have been handed over to him.
Since some of the documents, including the electoral roll of
concerned Ward/Panchayat as well as the application forms of
the loan accounts, were either public documents and or
authenticity of which have not been disputed, hence contents of
which are not required to be proved by its author. The
Management has also produced Sri Gautam Govind who had
Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
21/29
submitted his report on 27.08.2018 in order to prove its
contents. Thus, the submission of the learned Senior Advocate
for the petitioner that the mere absence of the list of documents
and witnesses in the charge sheet does not invalidate it or affect
the disciplinary proceedings. It would also be useful to refer the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tara
Chand Vyas Vs. Chairman & Disciplinary Authority &
Others; (1997) 4 SCC 565, where the Court held that if the
charges are based on documentary evidence which have been
duly supplied to the delinquent and the veracity of which has
not been disputed by the charged officer, the finding of guilt
cannot be interfered with.
26. Now coming to the enquiry report, it is the
admitted position that the proceeding was commenced against
the petitioner on 07.06.2019 and concluded on 21.08.2019 in ten
sittings. At the inception, the petitioner was allowed to opt
Defence Representative and upon his appointment the
Presenting Officer produced necessary documentary evidence
which were duly marked as management exhibit. The aforesaid
documentary evidence also include the report dated 27.08.2018
duly prepared by one Sri Goutam Govind wherein he had
disclosed that he analysed each and every account and
Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
22/29
submitted separate report in each and every 44 loan accounts,
and found there was huge tampering with the Voter ID Card
which have been taken as KYC documents. The name
mentioned on EPIC taken as KYC was found different from the
names mentioned in the original EPIC.
27. The management also produced Sri Goutam
Govind as a witness to prove the contents of the report, who was
duly examined by the Presenting Officer and cross-examined by
the petitioner, in respect of his finding/investigation report. The
petitioner has also taken the plea in the writ petition that copies
of the prosecution documents were not provided despite calling
for the same. However, the same does not find to be correct in
view of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer as
recorded in the minutes of the proceeding dated 26.04.2019,
which clearly suggests that all the necessary documents
including 44 applications of loan account have been handed
over to the petitioner. Moreover it is not specifically disclosed
as to which document called for by the petitioner has not been
handed over to him and thereby any prejudice has been caused.
Such plea of the petitioner appears to be unfounded.
28. In course of enquiry, the petitioner has also
produced three defence witnesses namely, Amarnath Jha, Sri
Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
23/29
Ramashankar Jha and Sri Santosh Rai, who said that they know
the borrowers personally. However, during cross examination
when they were asked to give the details of the borrowers by
looking at photographs of borrowers, they have shown their
inability and deposed that they do not know the borrowers with
their names and address. In the aforesaid premise, the
contention of the petitioner that the certificate of Mukhiya dated
03.11.2018 confirming that all the 44 borrowers are not the
resident of Bithauli and their names are not enrolled in their
electoral roll finds relevant even if the Mukhiya of the
concerned Panchayat was not examined as the report of the
Mukhiya gets corroborated from the electoral roll of Bithauli,
which is duly marked as management exhibit 4/1 to
management exhibit 4/5; the authenticity of which has never
been disputed by the petitioner.
29. Hence, the plea canvassed on behalf of the
petitioner that onus of disapproving the charge has been
wrongly shifted upon the petitioner, in view of the aforesaid
facts, does not persuade this Court. What is required to be
looked into is as to whether in a departmental proceeding the
delinquent has been afforded fair opportunity and the rules of
natural justice are followed. After careful consideration of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
24/29
enquiry report, and the minutes of the proceedings, this Court is
of the firm opinion that the petitioner has all along been
provided proper and adequate opportunity of hearing and at no
stage of enquiry he has been deprived of his right to defend his
case resulting into any violation of the principles of natural
justice.
30. The Enquiry Officer after proper examination of
the materials available on record, considering the deposition of
witnesses, has returned the finding that the charges levelled
against the petitioner stood proved.
31. The explanation of petitioner, on enquiring report,
was duly considered by the disciplinary authority before
inflicting punishment. The impugned order of punishment
reflects that the disciplinary authority has applied his mind to
the explanation /second show cause reply of the petitioner and
on being found that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is based
upon admissible evidence, the order of dismissal came to be
passed. Time without number, the Court has observed that if a
disciplinary authority accepts the finding recorded by the
Enquiry Officer, no details reasons are required to be recorded
in the order imposing punishment.
32. Keeping in mind, a Bank Officer is required to
Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
25/29
exercise higher standard of honesty and integrity. It would also
be apposite to refer the decision rendered in the case of State
Bank of India & Ors vs. Bela Bagchi & Ors. [(2005) 7 SCC
435]:
“15. A bank officer is required to exercise
higher standards of honesty and integrity.
He deals with money of the depositors and
the customers. Every officer/employee of the
bank is required to take all possible steps to
protect b the interests of the bank and to
discharge his duties with utmost integrity,
honesty, devotion and diligence and to do
nothing which is unbecoming of a bank
officer. Good conduct and discipline are
inseparable from the functioning of every
officer/employee of the bank. As was
observed by this Court in Disciplinary
Authority-cum-Regional Manager v.
Nikunja Bihari Patnaik³, it is no defence
available to say that there was no loss or
profit c which resulted in the case, when the
officer/employee acted without authority.
The very discipline of an organisation more
particularly a bank is dependent upon each
of its officers and officers acting and
operating within their allotted sphere.
Acting beyond one’s authority is by itself a
breach of discipline and is a misconduct.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
26/29The charges against the employee were not
casual in nature and were serious. That
being so, the plea about absence of d loss is
also sans substance.”
33. A Co ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Bali Ram Prasad Singh vs. The General Manager (HR) cum
Reviewing Authority, Bank of India & Anr. [(2019) 1 BLJ 235
(PHC)] in its paragraphs 29 and 30 placing reliance upon the
Apex Court decision has ruled that every officer/employee of
the Bank is required to exercise higher standard of honesty and
integrity, while carrying out his duly. It would be worth
benefiting to quote the relevant paragraphs:
“29. In the case of Chairman & Managing
Director, United Commercial Bank and
Others vs. P.C. Kakkar reported in 2003 (4)
SCC 364; the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that “a Bank Officer is required to exercise
higher standards of honesty and integrity.
He deals with money of the depositors and
the customers. Every officer/ employee of
the Bank is required to take all possible
steps to protect the interest of the Bank and
to discharge his duty with utmost integrity,
honesty, devotion and diligence and to do
nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank
Officer, Good conduct and discipline are
inseparable from the functioning of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
27/29every officer/employee of the Bank…”
30. In the case of Disciplinary Authority-
cum- Regional Manager vs. Nikunja
Kumari Patnaik (supra) the Hon’ble Apex
Court has held that “It is no defence
available to say that there was no loss or
profit resulted in case, when the officer/
employee acted without authority. The very
discipline of an organization more
particularly a Bank is dependent upon each
of its officers and officers acting and
operating within their allotted sphere.
Acting beyond once authority is by itself a
breach of discipline and is a
misconduct........"
34. After careful perusal of the enquiry report as well
as the impugned order of dismissal, now this Court takes up the
plea of the learned Senior Advocate that the order of dismissal is
disproportionate to the charges. There is no dispute that the
High Court/Tribunal while exercising power of judicial review
cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and
impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the
conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately
mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate
Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
28/29
authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the
litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose
appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.
35. Once this Court has come to the conclusion that
the order of punishment is based upon the enquiry report which
clearly reflects that the petitioner has fraudulently sanctioned
and disbursed 44 fake loans with malafide intention to fake
borrowers which is an act of institutional corruption, resulting
into misappropriation and financial loss to the Bank, eroding
public trust and confidence; based upon such finding, the
disciplinary authority, after following the procedure adopted and
due compliance of the principles of natural justice, imposed the
punishment in terms with Regulation 39(2)(b)(vi) of Regulation,
2010, no interference is required. Since the act of the petitioner,
besides constituting gross misconduct, it clearly undermine the
hope and trust of the public at large. The punishment imposed
does not require any reconsideration.
36. This Court also considers it necessary to address
the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that no loss
has been caused to the Bank. The said contention is wholly
misconceived and untenable. The record reveals that all 44 loan
accounts were directed to be closed, having been declared fake
Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
29/29
accounts. Consequently, in such circumstances, no mechanism
remained available to the Bank for the recovery of the loan
amounts disbursed under the said accounts. Accordingly, the
submission that no loss was caused to the Bank is devoid of
merit and is liable to be rejected.
37. Lastly, this Court also does not find any error in
the appellate order whereby the appellate authority-cum-
Chairman, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank has rejected the appeal of
the petitioner by affirming the order of the disciplinary
authority.
38. In view thereof, this Court does not find any merit
in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
39. The parties shall bear their own cost.
(Harish Kumar, J)
Anjani/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE N.A. Uploading Date 23.07.2026 Transmission Date N.A.
