Uttarakhand High Court
Juheb Ahmad vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 24 July, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
UKHC010108492020
2026:UHC:6362-DB
Judgment reserved on:-11.06.2026
Judgment delivered on:-24.07.2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/B) No.337 of 2020
Juheb Ahmad ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned D.A.G. for the State.
Mr. Mahendra Singh Rawat, learned counsel for the Bank.
Coram : Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Per: Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner was
appointed as an Officer Scale-I in Uttarakhand Gramin
Bank on 03.11.2011 and served at various branches of
the Bank. While posted as Branch Manager at Chakki
Mod Branch, Udham Singh Nagar, certain irregularities
relating to loans advanced under Government-sponsored
schemes came to notice of the Bank during an inspection
conducted in the year 2017. The inspection revealed that
documents pertaining to several closed loan accounts
were not available in the branch records. Pursuant
thereto, the petitioner was called upon to submitt a
written explanation which he filed on 12.10.2017 and he
was subsequently placed under suspension by order
dated 16.10.2017. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated
29.12.2017 was issued to the petitioner alleging various
irregularities in sanction and disbursement of loans.
Upon consideration of the matter, a charge-sheet dated
UKHC010108492020
2026:UHC:6362-DB
12.03.2018 containing three articles of charge was served
upon the petitioner and a departmental inquiry was
initiated under the Uttarakhand Gramin Bank (Officers
and Employees) Service Regulations, 2012. An Inquiry
Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed and, after
conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted
his report dated 20.02.2019 holding the charges proved
against the petitioner.
2. On the basis of the inquiry report, the
disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice
proposing punishment and, after considering the
petitioner’s reply and affording him personal hearing,
passed an order dated 31.12.2019 imposing the penalty
of dismissal from service, which was to ordinarily operate
as a disqualification for future employment. Aggrieved,
the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal under
Regulation 49 of the Service Regulations. The appellate
authority, by order dated 07.08.2020, dismissed the
appeal and affirmed the order of punishment. Challenging
the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has filed the present
writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary
authority and affirmed by the appellate authority are
wholly arbitrary, illegal and in gross violation of the
principles of natural justice. It is contended that although
the petitioner repeatedly sought supply of relevant
documents, including audit reports, inspection reports,
preliminary inquiry materials and other records relied
upon by the department, the same were never furnished
to him. In the absence of such documents, the petitioner
UKHC010108492020
2026:UHC:6362-DB
was deprived of an effective opportunity of hearing to
submit his explanation and defend himself during the
disciplinary proceedings.
4. It is further submitted that the departmental
inquiry was conducted in a perfunctory and unfair
manner. No departmental witness was examined to prove
the allegations levelled against the petitioner and no
opportunity of cross-examination was afforded. The
Inquiry Officer merely relied upon certain documents and
assumptions without proving the contents thereof
through oral evidence. Even the officers whose reports
and certificates formed the basis of the charges were not
produced during the inquiry. It is, therefore, argued that
the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are
unsupported by legally admissible evidence.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
contended that the Inquiry Officer failed to consider the
material evidence produced by the petitioner in his
defence, including survey reports, statements of
borrowers and loan documents which had been traced
and produced during the inquiry. It is submitted that the
petitioner had specifically demonstrated that surveys were
conducted prior to sanction of loans and that assets were
created under the Government-sponsored schemes.
However, the Inquiry Officer ignored such material and
proceeded on mere presumptions, particularly by
assuming that absence of certain records necessarily
implied that no surveys had been conducted or that
assets had not been created. It is also argued that the
inquiry report itself does not contain clear and conclusive
findings on each charge. According to the petitioner, while
UKHC010108492020
2026:UHC:6362-DB
certain lapses were discussed in the report, no categorical
findings were returned as to whether each charge stood
proved, partly proved or not proved. Despite the absence
of such definite findings, the disciplinary authority
mechanically treated all charges as proved and proceeded
to impose the extreme penalty of dismissal without
independent application of mind.
6. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner
had an otherwise satisfactory service record and the
branches under his charge consistently performed well
and remained free from non-performing assets. It is
contended that no department sponsoring the loan
schemes ever raised any objection regarding non-creation
of assets and no financial loss whatsoever has been
shown to have been caused to the Bank. The allegation
regarding non-availability of certain loan documents has
been viewed in isolation, ignoring the petitioner’s
explanation that no specific guidelines regarding retention
of such records had ever been supplied to him. It is also
submitted that the respondents have placed undue
reliance upon the petitioner’s letter dated 12.10.2017
treating the same as an admission of guilt, whereas the
said communication was allegedly obtained under
pressure during inspection proceedings and cannot be
construed as a voluntary confession of misconduct. It was
also contended that several allegations relating to
selective destruction of records, misuse of subsidy and
diversion of funds do not form part of the charge-sheet
and have been sought to be introduced subsequently
through the counter affidavit, which is impermissible in
law.
UKHC010108492020
2026:UHC:6362-DB
7. It is therefore, submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the disciplinary authority
failed to objectively consider the petitioner’s detailed
representation against the inquiry report and imposed the
punishment of dismissal in a mechanical manner. The
appellate authority also failed to address the substantial
procedural irregularities and infirmities pointed out by
the petitioner and affirmed the punishment without
proper consideration of the issues raised. It is, therefore,
contended that the impugned orders are unsustainable in
law and liable to be quashed.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that the impugned orders have been passed strictly in
accordance with the Uttarakhand Gramin Bank (Officers
and Employees) Service Regulations, 2012 and after
affording the petitioner full opportunity of defence. It is
contended that during inspection of Chakki Mod Branch,
serious irregularities were detected in the functioning of
the petitioner while serving as Branch Manager. The
inspection revealed that records pertaining to 33 closed
loan accounts under various Government-sponsored
schemes had been destroyed or were unavailable, thereby
frustrating verification of the loan transactions and
raising serious concerns regarding the manner in which
the loans had been sanctioned and administered.
9. It is further submitted that the petitioner
himself acknowledged the destruction of records and
tendered a written apology dated 12.10.2017. According
to the respondents, the charges against the petitioner
were not founded merely upon the said admission but
were independently established on the basis of
UKHC010108492020
2026:UHC:6362-DB
documentary evidence collected during the inquiry,
including loan records, account statements and other
branch documents. The respondents contend that the
petitioner’s subsequent attempt to withdraw from his
earlier admission is wholly untenable.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner lastly
submitted that the punishment imposed is shockingly
disproportionate to the misconduct proved. He pleaded
that subsequently the documents had been produced by
the petitioner and that no financial loss was caused to the
respondent-Bank; no allegations of wrongful gain to the
petitioner was even alleged. It is in this background
atleast the punishment of dismissal operating
disqualification from future employment deserved to be
set aside as it is shockingly disproportionate to the
misconduct if taken to be proved against the petitioner,
some lesser punishment would met the cause of justice.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted
that all documents relied upon by the department was
supplied to the petitioner and adequate opportunity was
granted at every stage of the proceedings. The petitioner
actively participated in the inquiry, submitted his replies,
examined defence witnesses and produced documents in
support of his case. It is contended that no prejudice
whatsoever was caused to the petitioner and the
allegation regarding denial of reasonable opportunity is
an afterthought raised only after the charges were found
proved. It is further argued that the Inquiry Officer, upon
appreciation of the material available on record, returned
findings holding the charges proved against the petitioner.
The disciplinary authority thereafter furnished a copy of
UKHC010108492020
2026:UHC:6362-DB
the inquiry report, considered petitioner’s representation
and granted personal hearing before imposing
punishment. The appellate authority also independently
examined the matter and found no infirmity either in the
conduct of the inquiry or in the conclusions recorded by
the disciplinary authority.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is
extremely limited and this Court cannot reappreciate the
evidence as an appellate authority. Once the findings are
based on some evidence and the inquiry has been
conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure,
interference is not warranted merely because another
view may be possible on the facts of the case. It is
contended that the petitioner was holding a position of
trust as an officer of a banking institution and was
expected to maintain the highest standards of integrity
and accountability. The proved misconduct relating to
destruction of loan records and irregular handling of
accounts under Government-sponsored schemes
constituted a serious breach of such trust. In the facts
and circumstances of the case, the punishment of
dismissal cannot be said to be disproportionate. The writ
petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
13. Having heard learned counsels for the parties
and after perusal of the material available on record, this
Court is of the considered opinion that although the
findings recorded in the departmental inquiry do not
warrant interference in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the punishment of
dismissal imposed upon the petitioner cannot be
UKHC010108492020
2026:UHC:6362-DB
sustained. It is well settled that this Court, while
exercising power of judicial review, does not sit as an
appellate authority over the findings recorded in a
departmental inquiry. Interference is permissible only
where the inquiry is conducted in violation of the
prescribed procedure or the principles of natural justice,
where the findings are perverse or unsupported by
evidence, or where the punishment imposed is so
disproportionate to the misconduct proved that it shocks
the conscience of the Court. In the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC
772, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that a
departmental inquiry is a quasi-judicial proceeding and
must be conducted in a fair manner by affording the
delinquent employee a reasonable opportunity to defend
himself. The record of the present case does not disclose
any such procedural illegality so as to vitiate the inquiry
proceedings.
14. However, this Court finds considerable
substance in the contention of the petitioner with regard
to the proportionality of the punishment. The material
available on record indicates that although certain lapses
in maintenance and preservation of loan records have
been found proved against the petitioner, no financial loss
has been shown to have been caused to the Bank on
account of the misconduct attributed to him. It is also
borne out from the record that the documents, which
were initially stated to be unavailable, were subsequently
produced by the petitioner. The respondents have also not
alleged any misappropriation of funds or personal
pecuniary gain on the part of the petitioner. In such
circumstances, while the misconduct cannot be
UKHC010108492020
2026:UHC:6362-DB
condoned, the punishment of dismissal from service
appears to be shockingly disproportionate to the nature of
the charges proved.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Surekha Domaji Bele v. Executive Engineer, Testing
Division, MSEDCL, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1109, has held
that where the punishment of dismissal is found to be
wholly disproportionate to the misconduct proved, the
findings of misconduct may be allowed to stand while the
matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority for
reconsideration of the quantum of punishment after
taking into consideration the employee’s length of service,
past service record, age, nature of misconduct, absence or
presence of financial loss and other relevant
circumstances. The principle laid down therein squarely
applies to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, while
the findings recorded in the departmental inquiry are
maintained, the order of dismissal deserves to be set
aside with a direction to the disciplinary authority to
reconsider the punishment afresh.
16. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed.
17. The findings recorded in the inquiry report, as
affirmed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate
authority, are maintained. However, the order dated
31.12.2019 passed by the disciplinary authority imposing
the punishment of dismissal from service, as affirmed by
the appellate order dated 07.08.2020, is hereby set aside
on the ground that the punishment imposed is shockingly
disproportionate to the misconduct proved.
UKHC010108492020
2026:UHC:6362-DB
18. The matter is remitted to the disciplinary
authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment,
keeping in view the petitioner’s length of service, past
service record, nature and gravity of the misconduct, the
absence of any financial loss to the Bank and all other
relevant circumstances. While reconsidering the matter,
the disciplinary authority shall consider imposition of an
appropriate punishment other than dismissal from
service and shall pass a fresh reasoned order in
accordance with law, preferably within a period of eight
weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of
this order.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
SK
