Delhi High Court – Orders
Sh Dinesh Kumar vs State Bank Of India And Others on 6 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~68
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4362/2026
SH DINESH KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. R. S. Gautam, Advocate.
versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshit Kapur, AoR for SBI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 06.04.2026
1. This petition assails the order dated 31st May, 2023, whereby the
Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service; the
appellate order dated 24th September, 2024; and the review order dated 30th
July, 2025. Consequential service and retiral benefits are also sought.
Background
2. The Petitioner joined the State Bank of India [“the Bank”] on 14th
March, 1988 as a clerk/typist and, during the relevant period, was serving as
Deputy Manager (Accountant) at the Bank’s Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi.
3. On 14th June, 2021, the Petitioner and the then Cash Officer, Mr.
Rajeev Kumar Gupta, entered the strong room/cash bin area for counting
cash. During the course of the day, officials from another branch visited for
verification of the cash position of the branch. It is recorded that, at that
stage, no shortage in the currency chest was reported and the day-end
reporting to RBI/FSLO proceeded. Later in the evening, a shortage of INR
W.P.(C) 4362/2026 Page 1 of 20
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:13:20
20 lakhs in the running bin was reported, and, during a search, three packets
of INR 2,000 notes amounting to INR 6 lakhs were found in a drawer at the
Petitioner’s workstation. The amount was thereafter taken into custody by
branch officials.
4. The disciplinary proceedings, however, proceed on a broader
allegation. The impugned order dated 31st May, 2023 records that, while the
Petitioner was posted as Deputy Manager (Accountant), unauthorized
withdrawals from the currency chest and ATMs/CDMs aggregated to INR
61.42 lakhs; that INR 6 lakhs was recovered from his drawer on 14 th June,
2021; and that the resulting net loss to the Bank was INR 55.42 lakhs. The
order further records that the Petitioner had, in writing, made statements
admitting withdrawal of funds on 14th June, 2021 and 15th June, 2021.
5. A charge-sheet dated 22nd December, 2021, subsequently amended on
23rd March, 2022, framed nine allegations, including alleged
misappropriation of INR 44 lakhs from the currency chest, shortage of INR
11.42 lakhs in ATMs/CDMs, unauthorized use of another custodian’s
credentials, use of a third-party account for diversion of funds, possession of
INR 6 lakhs in the drawer, reliance on written statements attributed to the
Petitioner, and consequential financial and reputational loss to the Bank. In
the first inquiry, all nine allegations were held proved.
6. Upon conclusion of the first inquiry, a tentative penalty order dated 4 th
August, 2022 proposed dismissal from service. Thereafter, further
proceedings were undertaken, including a reinvestigation by Mr. Naresh
Kumar Kohli, whose report dated 18th November, 2022 and clarification
dated 22nd December, 2022 were considered. A further inquiry was
conducted on aspects described as involving “new facts”. The appellate and
W.P.(C) 4362/2026 Page 2 of 20
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:13:20
review orders record that, in the subsequent inquiry, six allegations were
examined, of which four were held proved, one partly proved, and one not
proved.
7. By the impugned order dated 31st May, 2023, the Disciplinary
Authority considered the record of both inquiries and the Petitioner’s
submissions, and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service under Rule
67(j) of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992 [“SBI Service
Rules”]. The period of suspension was directed to be treated as not spent on
duty. The order also records that the Petitioner attended the personal hearing
on 16th August, 2022, but did not attend hearings fixed on 30 th May, 2023
and 31st May, 2023.
8. The appeal was dismissed on 24th September, 2024. The Appellate
Committee endorsed the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, took note of
both inquiries, and held that the penalty was “commensurate with the
gravity” of the misconduct. It also rejected the contention regarding
impermissibility of the further inquiry and the reliance placed on the order
dated 20th March, 2023 passed by this Court in the earlier writ proceedings
being W.P.(C) 3439/2023.
9. The review was rejected by order dated 30th July, 2025. The
Reviewing Committee reiterated the position of the Bank and upheld the
disciplinary action. The order also refers to the Vigilance Manual to justify
the course adopted in conducting further inquiry.
Petitioner’s Submissions
10. Mr. R.S. Gautam, counsel for the Petitioner, assails the impugned
orders and his submissions are summarised as follows:
10.1. The first challenge is directed at the handwritten letters dated 14 th
W.P.(C) 4362/2026 Page 3 of 20
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:13:20
June, 2021 and 15th June, 2021. These writings are involuntary and obtained
under extreme pressure from senior branch officials, at a time when the
Petitioner’s physical condition was unstable and he had been isolated from
normal duties. An earlier writing referring to INR 14 lakhs was torn up and a
fresh writing for INR 20 lakhs was procured. The disciplinary case rests
disproportionately on these writings, and once their voluntariness is in
dispute, the matter required far closer scrutiny.
10.2. The functioning of the currency chest and ATM/CDM system
required joint custodianship, separate keys, and independent authentication
mechanisms. In that backdrop, the theory that the Petitioner alone removed
substantial amounts of cash, without corroboration from guards, access logs,
or CCTV footage, is inherently implausible and insufficiently examined in
the impugned orders.
10.3. Regarding the recovery of INR 6 lakhs, the record establishes only
recovery from an open drawer, without any evidence as to who placed the
money there or when. There is no recovery from his person. Given that this
recovery forms a crucial link in the Bank’s narrative, its evidentiary fragility
undermines the broader conclusion drawn against him.
10.4. As regards the evidentiary gaps in the first inquiry, out of six material
witnesses identified, only three were examined. Key persons, including Mr.
Santosh Kumar Tiwari, Mr. Shivanand Tiwari and Mr. Vinay Kumar, were
not examined, despite the case involving alleged diversion of funds through
a third-party account, ATM/CDM operations, and unauthorized use of
credentials. The omission to examine such witnesses vitiates the inquiry.
10.5. The legality of the further inquiry is also questioned. The first inquiry
had culminated in a tentative penalty order dated 4 th August, 2022, and the
W.P.(C) 4362/2026 Page 4 of 20
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:13:20
SBI Service Rules do not contemplate a second inquiry of the nature
undertaken. Reliance is also placed on order dated 20 th March, 2023 passed
by this Court in W.P.(C) 3439/2023, to contend that the earlier decisional
framework stood set aside and could not have been revived in substance.
10.6. Particular emphasis is placed on the report furnished by Mr. N.K.
Kohli. The said report records that CCTV coverage did not extend to the
entire bin, vault, or accountant’s seat, and that there was no clear recording
showing unauthorized removal of cash. In the face of such material, the
authorities could not proceed on the premise of direct visual evidence.
10.7. Further, the appellate and reviewing authorities failed to undertake an
independent evaluation. Both orders substantially reiterate the disciplinary
findings, with the review order, in particular, recording absence of
submissions under several heads despite detailed objections on record. The
exercise, therefore, is affirmatory rather than a review.
10.8. The impugned proceedings also suffer from violation of constitutional
and procedural safeguards. The penalty of dismissal is in breach of Article
311 of the Constitution, inasmuch as the findings are not supported by
cogent evidence on record and the procedure adopted, including the conduct
of a second inquiry, is contrary to the governing service rules.
10.9. The proportionality of the penalty is also assailed. Even assuming
some lapse, the material on record does not establish misconduct of such
gravity as would warrant the extreme penalty of dismissal. There is no clear
proof of dishonest intent, criminal motive, or gross misconduct, and the
punishment is disproportionate to the alleged acts.
10.10. Reliance is also placed on the surrounding circumstances and
timeline. The branch remained closed on 12th and 13th June, 2021; no
W.P.(C) 4362/2026 Page 5 of 20
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:13:20
shortage was reported prior to 14th June, 2021; and the Petitioner was
thereafter removed from active duties and eventually suspended on 17 th
June, 2021. In this backdrop, the allegation that he alone effected large-scale
withdrawals running into INR 61.42 lakhs, without detection by systems,
guards, or contemporaneous reporting, is inherently improbable.
Respondents’ Submissions
11. On the other hand, Mr. Akshit Kapoor, counsel for the Bank, submits
that the impugned orders and the disciplinary record establish the
Petitioner’s misconduct. His submissions are summarised as follows:
11.1. The case rests on a chain of circumstances, including the shortage
detected in the currency chest, shortages in ATM/CDM operations, recovery
of INR 6 lakhs from the Petitioner’s drawer, the handwritten letters dated
14th June, 2021 and 15th June, 2021, the complaint of Mr. Santosh Kumar
Tiwari, the supporting vouchers and account trail, and CCTV footage
indicating suspicious movement.
11.2. The plea of coercion is untenable. In departmental proceedings, the
standard of proof is of preponderance of probability, and not proof beyond
reasonable doubt, and the Disciplinary Authority has treated the handwritten
letters as voluntary.
11.3. As regards the further inquiry, the same was undertaken to address the
Petitioner’s grievances and to ensure fairness in the process. The review
order supports this course by reference to the Vigilance Manual and the
circumstances in which reinvestigation was considered necessary.
11.4. On the question of penalty, the proved misconduct pertains to
handling of public funds and strikes at the integrity expected of a bank
officer. The authorities have considered the penalty of dismissal to beW.P.(C) 4362/2026 Page 6 of 20
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:13:20
commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.
Discussion and Analysis
Scope of Judicial Review
12. The first point to be kept in view is the limited scope of judicial
review in a disciplinary matter. A writ court does not sit as an appellate
court over a domestic inquiry. It is not open to it to reappreciate the
evidence, test its sufficiency as if conducting a fresh trial, or substitute one
plausible factual view for another. The Court is concerned with a narrower
set of questions, including: whether the inquiry was held by a competent
authority; whether the prescribed procedure and the requirements of natural
justice were observed; whether irrelevant considerations crept in or relevant
material was wrongly excluded; and whether the conclusion is based on no
evidence or is so perverse that no reasonable person could have reached it.1
13. There is another principle which cannot be lost sight of in a matter
concerning a bank officer. The Supreme Court has routinely emphasized that
officers dealing with public funds are held to a high standard of integrity and
discipline. Acting beyond authority, in the banking context, is itself serious
misconduct, and actual loss is not always the sole measure of gravity.2
14. Even so, the aforesaid principles do not relieve the disciplinary
process of its obligation to remain fair, reasoned, and anchored in material
that can legitimately support the conclusion reached. A bank case is not
made stronger merely because it concerns a bank. The higher standard of
integrity expected in such institutions cuts both ways. It justifies serious
1
B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749; Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC
610; Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (2021) 2 SCC 612.
2
See: Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & Ors. v. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC
364; Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik (1996) 9 SCC 69.
W.P.(C) 4362/2026 Page 7 of 20
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:13:20
consequences where misconduct is established, but it also requires caution
and care in ensuring that suspicion is not mistaken for proof and that
disputed admissions are not treated as self-proving merely because they
exist on paper. Therefore, if the findings are based on no evidence, or are
perverse, or if relevant material has been excluded while irrelevant material
has influenced the outcome, interference remains open under Article 226.
15. The matter must therefore be examined on a narrower set of questions
than the petition, in its present form, suggests. The real questions are
whether the findings rest on legally sustainable material; whether the
Petitioner was denied a fair opportunity in any substantial sense; whether the
further inquiry was conducted within permissible bounds; whether the
appellate and reviewing authorities addressed the substance of the challenge;
and whether the penalty imposed survives the limited scrutiny that Article
226 permits in a disciplinary matter of the present nature.
16. From that standpoint, some of the Petitioner’s formulations overstate
the legal position. The repeated invocation of Article 311, and the manner in
which the submissions are framed, tend to suggest that the charge must be
established with a degree of rigour akin to a criminal proceeding, or that
only misconduct of a criminal character would justify a major penalty. That
formulation does not carry the case very far. What matters here is not
whether the charge resembles a criminal accusation in form, but whether the
domestic process was fair and whether the findings rest on some legally
sustainable material.
Whether Findings are based on “No Evidence”
17. That brings the Court to the central question: is this a case of “no
evidence”? In the opinion of the Court, on the record, it is not. The
W.P.(C) 4362/2026 Page 8 of 20
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:13:20
Disciplinary Authority did not proceed on bare suspicion or on the basis of
vague allegations. The impugned final order dated 31st May, 2023 records a
case of alleged unauthorized withdrawals from the currency chest and
ATMs/CDMs amounting to INR 61.42 lakhs, recovery of INR 6 lakhs from
the Petitioner’s drawer, the Petitioner’s own writings dated 14 th June, 2021
and 15th June, 2021, physical verification material, witness depositions,
account-voucher material, and CCTV footage treated as corroborative of
suspicious activity.
18. The legal distinction that governs the inquiry must also be kept clear.
A “no evidence” case is fundamentally different from a case where the
evidence is said to be insufficient or open to doubt. In judicial review, the
Court does not reappraise the adequacy of evidence, but it does examine
whether there exists some material with probative value, whether relevant
material has been ignored, and whether the conclusion drawn is so
unreasonable as to be perverse.
19. In a departmental proceeding, the material relied upon is not required
to satisfy the strict standards of proof applicable in a criminal trial. The
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not, in terms, govern such proceedings.
What is required is that the material must be logically probative, bear a
reasonable nexus to the charge, and be such as a prudent mind may act upon.
As explained by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Anr. v. Rattan
Singh3, all materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are
permissible, and the inquiry is to be approached in a commonsense manner
rather than by the technical rules governing court proceedings. At the same
time, this relaxation does not permit arbitrariness; suspicion cannot
W.P.(C) 4362/2026 Page 9 of 20
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:13:20
substitute proof, and findings cannot rest on inherently unreliable material or
a chain of reasoning too weak to sustain the conclusion.
Testing Evidentiary Value of the Handwritten Letters
20. The Petitioner’s principal prong of attack is directed at the
handwritten letters dated 14th June, 2021 and 15th June, 2021. It is urged that
these writings were not voluntary admissions but were procured under
pressure from senior officials; that an earlier writing referring to INR 14
lakhs was torn up; and that fresh letters were dictated when the Petitioner
was under severe physical and mental strain and effectively removed from
normal functioning in the branch.
21. However, the matter cannot rest on mere assertion of coercion. The
inquiry officer and the Disciplinary Authority did not treat these writings as
isolated documents. The dismissal order shows that the letter dated 14 th
June, 2021 was read alongside the contemporaneous allegation of shortage
in the running bin, the stated recovery of INR 6 lakhs from the Petitioner’s
drawer, and the supporting depositions of Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta and Mr.
Praveen Kumar Malik. The letter dated 15th June, 2021, as well as the
ATM/CDM-related writing, were likewise considered as part of a broader
evidentiary chain. The plea of coercion was noticed and rejected, and the
writings were accepted as inculpatory material.
22. Once that is so, the question before this Court is not whether another
fact-finder might have exercised greater caution, or whether this Court, if
trying the matter afresh, would have insisted on stronger corroboration. The
real question is whether the inference drawn from those writings, read with
surrounding circumstances, was one that no reasonable authority could have
3
(1977) 2 SCC 491.
W.P.(C) 4362/2026 Page 10 of 20
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:13:20
drawn. On the present record, that threshold is not met.
23. It is equally true that a bare, uncorroborated writing, especially where
coercion is specifically alleged, may not safely sustain a grave charge. The
employer must still lead material that reasonably supports the conclusion
reached. But this is not a case where the Bank relied solely on a disputed
writing. The writings were treated as contemporaneous admissions and were
read with the physical verification material, the recovery from the drawer,
contemporaneous reporting, ATM/CDM shortage documents, voucher and
account material, and witness depositions. Whether one considers that chain
strong or weak, it is certainly not “non-existent”. That distinction is decisive:
a case of “no evidence” is not the same as a case where the evidence is said
to be insufficient.
24. The position becomes clearer when the standard of proof is kept in
view. In a disciplinary proceeding, guilt is tested on the standard of
preponderance of probability, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. This
permits the authority to look at the totality of circumstances and draw
reasonable inferences from the material on record.
25. A contemporaneous handwritten admission, if found genuine and not
accepted as having been extorted, is a circumstance of considerable
evidentiary weight, capable of tilting the evidentiary balance unless the
explanation offered against it is sufficiently persuasive to displace it.
26. That is where the Petitioner’s case ultimately falters. An explanation
of coercion was offered but not accepted by the fact-finding authorities. That
rejection may be open to debate on facts, but it is not irrational. The
authorities were entitled to notice that the writings were broadly consistent
with the shortages then being reported, that they referred to specific
W.P.(C) 4362/2026 Page 11 of 20
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:13:20
amounts, and that they were accompanied by other incriminating
circumstances on record. In these circumstances, the mere plea that the
writings were dictated could not, by itself, compel exoneration.
Testing Recovery of INR 6 lakhs from Petitioner’s Drawer
27. The same reasoning applies to the INR 6 lakhs found in the
Petitioner’s drawer. The Petitioner contends, not without force, that the
money was not recovered from his person; that it was found in an open
drawer; that it has not been established who placed it there; and that the
Bank has not traced what happened to that amount after the search. These
are not frivolous objections. But they do not advance the case of the
Petitioner to the relief sought.
28. A disciplinary authority is entitled to act on circumstantial material,
provided the inference drawn is rational and not merely speculative. Direct
recovery from the person is one form of incrimination; recovery from a
drawer or desk under the employee’s control is another. It may not be
conclusive, but it is certainly relevant. The law does not insist that every
incriminating fact in a disciplinary case must assume the form of direct
physical recovery from the employee’s person before it can be relied upon.
29. The disciplinary order did not proceed on the bare proposition that
‘money was found in a drawer, therefore guilt stands proved’. It relied on
the physical verification report, contemporaneous reporting of the shortage,
and the depositions of Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta and Mr. Praveen Kumar
Malik, both of whom are recorded as supporting the recovery from the
drawer in the Petitioner’s presence. That circumstance was also read with
the handwritten writings already referred to. In other words, the drawer
recovery was treated as one link in the chain, not the whole chain.
W.P.(C) 4362/2026 Page 12 of 20
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:13:20
30. The Petitioner’s alternative theory remains possible as an argument. It
may be said that the drawer was open, that someone else could have placed
the cash there, and that the Bank ought to have gone further before fastening
responsibility. But the existence of an alternative hypothesis does not, by
itself, invalidate a disciplinary finding. In a writ court, the question is not
whether such an alternative is possible; it is whether the conclusion actually
drawn by the disciplinary authority was so unreasonable that no prudent
authority could have accepted it on the material available. That threshold is
not crossed here.
31. There is also a point of ordinary evidentiary prudence that cannot be
ignored. A person in charge of, or having dominion over, a drawer, desk, or
workspace would ordinarily be expected to offer an explanation for a
substantial amount of cash found there in suspicious circumstances,
particularly in a banking environment. This is not a criminal-law
presumption in the strict statutory sense; it is a commonsense inference that
a disciplinary authority is entitled to draw, unless the explanation offered
carries sufficient persuasive force. In service law, and especially in banking
service, the employee’s control over the place of recovery is a relevant
circumstance in assessing probability, more so where the recovery is
accompanied by contemporaneous writings and shortage reports.
32. Therefore, neither the handwritten letters nor the drawer recovery can
be viewed in isolation. Looked at separately, each may admit debate.
Looked at together, and in the context of the contemporaneous record, they
provided the Disciplinary Authority with a body of material on which it
could reasonably proceed.
Arguments regarding Joint Custody and System Controls
W.P.(C) 4362/2026 Page 13 of 20
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:13:20
33. The argument founded on joint custody does require careful attention.
The Petitioner has consistently contended that the currency chest could not
be operated by one person acting alone; that separate keys were required;
that ATM/CDM operations proceeded on dual control; and that the very
architecture of the system renders the Bank’s theory of single-handed
withdrawal inherently doubtful. This submission is not insubstantial. Where
the institutional design itself is said to prevent unilateral operation, a
disciplinary authority cannot deal with the point casually.
34. Even so, the matter does not end there. The Bank‘s case is not that
these safeguards did not exist, but that they were bypassed, misused, or not
adhered to by the Petitioner. The dismissal order refers to CCTV material
indicating the Petitioner entering the currency chest area and accessing the
running bin. It also refers to ATM/CDM shortage material, the allegation of
unauthorized use of another custodian’s credentials, and the Petitioner’s own
writings and signatures during the relevant period. Once the case is viewed
in that light, the joint-custody argument ceases to be a complete answer. It
remains a point in defence, but it does not, by itself, render the Bank’s
conclusion impossible. In disciplinary law, particularly in banking service,
acting beyond authority or outside prescribed controls is itself a serious
feature of misconduct. The existence of safeguards does not, in law,
preclude a finding that those safeguards were breached.
35. This is also where the standard of proof assumes significance. In a
criminal trial, the existence of dual control might be invoked as a source of
reasonable doubt requiring strict elimination of alternative possibilities. In a
domestic inquiry, however, the question is narrower: whether, on the totality
of the record, it was reasonably open to the disciplinary authority to
W.P.(C) 4362/2026 Page 14 of 20
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:13:20
conclude that the Petitioner had acted in derogation of those controls. That is
to be assessed on the standard of preponderance of probability, and not proof
beyond reasonable doubt. The writ court does not ask whether every
theoretical alternative has been excluded; it asks whether the conclusion
drawn was one that could reasonably be drawn from the material before the
authority.
ATM/CDM Component & Non-Examination of Witnesses
36. The ATM/CDM component and the Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari
account trail stand on somewhat less secure footing than the handwritten
letters and the recovery made from the drawer. The Petitioner is justified in
pointing out that not all named witnesses were examined. The appellate
order itself records that six witnesses had been cited and only three were
examined. It is also correct that the ATM verification documents were
questioned as not being in standard format and as lacking COS numbers.
37. At the same time, the non-examination of every cited witness is not,
by itself, fatal to a departmental proceeding. The law does not require a
disciplinary inquiry to fail merely because each person named in the charge-
sheet was not ultimately examined. What is material is whether the charge,
or its substantial part, still rests on evidence having some probative value,
and whether the delinquent has suffered real prejudice because a withheld
witness was indispensable to a decisive issue. This is not a case where no
witness was examined, or where the findings rest entirely on undisclosed or
untested material. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Mr. Praveen Kumar Malik, and
Mr. Prabhat Ranjan were examined. The dismissal order also refers to
vouchers, account statements, ATM verification reports, the Petitioner’s
signatures or stamp on certain vouchers, and the writings attributed to him.
W.P.(C) 4362/2026 Page 15 of 20
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:13:20
The non-examination of some witnesses may weaken the Bank‘s case on
certain aspects, but it does not, on the present record, reduce the entire
disciplinary outcome to one based on no evidence.
Effect of the Report by Mr. N.K. Kohli
38. The report by Mr. N.K. Kohli must be stated fairly, as the Petitioner is
justified in placing reliance on it. The report records that, “As the full
coverage of CCTV camera not covering all the BIN/vault and accountant
seat, only suspicious activity pointed out by me in this report and there is no
clear-cut CCTV camera recording available, where a person picked cash
unauthorisedly from the vault/Bin”. This aspect is significant. The Bank
could not have proceeded on the footing that there existed direct visual
evidence of the alleged act of removal of cash. No such recording emerges
from the report.
39. However, the report does not carry the Petitioner’s case to its logical
conclusion. It weakens any overstatement based on CCTV, but it does not
amount to a finding of innocence. The report does not state that nothing
suspicious occurred, nor does it exclude the Petitioner from suspicion. What
it indicates is that the footage does not directly capture the act of
unauthorized removal. The case, however, did not rest solely on direct
CCTV proof. It rested on the handwritten writings, the drawer recovery, the
physical verification material, the ATM/CDM reports, witness depositions,
and the account-voucher trail, with CCTV treated as corroborative of
suspicious conduct and unauthorized access. The report, therefore, corrects
exaggeration, but it does not efface the incriminating material on record.
Seen in that cumulative context, the challenge cannot be characterised as
one where the findings are based on no evidence or are perverse in law.
W.P.(C) 4362/2026 Page 16 of 20
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:13:20
Legality of Further Inquiry / Second Inquiry
40. The next question concerns the further inquiry. The Petitioner
contends that there is no provision in the SBI Service Rules for a second
inquiry and that the subsequent exercise was, therefore, unlawful. There is
some force in the caution underlying that submission. A disciplinary
authority cannot repeatedly reopen inquiries until it secures a report it
prefers. The decision of the Supreme Court in K.R. Deb v. The Collector of
Central Excise, Shillong4 remains a reminder that repeated inquiries cannot
be used as a device to hunt for an adverse conclusion after earlier inquiries
fail to satisfy the authority.
41. However, K.R. Deb itself recognises an important distinction. Where
a serious defect has crept into the earlier inquiry, or where material evidence
was unavailable or had not been examined for good reason, further evidence
may be directed. The same distinction is material here. This is not a case
where the Bank obtained an exonerating report and then kept re-running the
process until guilt emerged. The first inquiry concluded against the
Petitioner, not in his favour. The record indicates that, after the tentative
penalty dated 4th August, 2022, the Petitioner raised substantial objections,
whereupon the disciplinary authority ordered reinvestigation, obtained the
N.K. Kohli report and clarification, and remitted the matter for further
inquiry on aspects described as involving “new facts”, while retaining the
earlier material on record. The review order also justifies this course with
reference to the Vigilance Manual. Whether described as a second inquiry, a
further inquiry, or a remittal, the material on record does not disclose an
impermissible exercise of the kind cautioned against in K.R. Deb.
W.P.(C) 4362/2026 Page 17 of 20
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:13:20
42. The order dated 20th March, 2023 passed by this Court in the earlier
writ proceedings, being W.P.(C) 3439/2023, does not carry the Petitioner’s
case further. It is correct that the tentative order dated 4th August, 2022 could
not survive once further inquiry was directed, as that would amount to “pre-
judging the matter”. That, however, is precisely why the Bank proceeded to
pass a fresh final order on 31st May, 2023 after the further inquiry. The
grievance, in substance, is that the conclusion remained the same. That, by
itself, does not establish illegality. What the earlier order proscribed was
prejudgment through the survival of the tentative view; it did not preclude
the disciplinary authority, upon reconsideration, from arriving at the same
conclusion if the record continued to support it.
43. The real question, therefore, is whether the Petitioner was denied a
substantive opportunity in the course of the further proceedings. On the
record, opportunities of personal hearing were afforded, and the Petitioner
had been actively contesting the matter throughout. In that backdrop, the
Court is unable to hold that the disciplinary process stands vitiated on the
ground that the further inquiry was impermissible in law.
Adequacy of Appellate and Review Orders
44. The adequacy of the appellate and review orders must next be
examined. The disciplinary order records both the Bank’s material and the
Petitioner’s response on each head before setting out the Disciplinary
Authority’s conclusions. The appellate order also identifies the principal
heads of challenge and deals with them. The review order indicates the
reasons why the Committee was unpersuaded on the drawer recovery, the
handwritten letters, the further inquiry, and the report by Mr. N.K. Kohli.
4
(1971) 2 SCC 102.
W.P.(C) 4362/2026 Page 18 of 20
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:13:20
While these orders could have been more elaborately reasoned, they are not
so devoid of reasoning as to warrant interference on that ground alone.
Proportionality of Punishment Awarded
45. That leaves the question of punishment. A bank officer deals with
public funds and occupies a position where integrity, discipline, and fidelity
to procedure are not ornamental expectations; they are operational
necessities. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that bank
officers are held to a higher standard of honesty and discipline, and that
acting beyond authority constitutes serious misconduct.
46. Once the findings against the Petitioner are not found to be based on
no evidence or to be perverse, the penalty of dismissal cannot be said to
shock the conscience of the Court. This is not a case of a minor or isolated
procedural lapse. The Bank‘s case is of unauthorized withdrawal from the
currency chest and ATM/CDMs, a substantial cash shortage, recovery from
the Petitioner’s drawer, and contemporaneous writings attributed to him. In
a case of this nature, involving a bank officer handling cash operations, the
penalty cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate merely because the
Petitioner advances a competing factual explanation.
Consequential Aspects
47. The Petitioner’s prayer for pensionary and other consequential
benefits cannot survive once the challenge to the dismissal fails. The petition
itself indicates that by a letter dated 28th February, 2024, issued by the
Assistant General Manager of the Bank, the gratuity and provident fund
amounts have already been released to the Petitioner. If any admissible
terminal or statutory dues remain, independent of the challenge to dismissal,
the Petitioner is at liberty to pursue the same in accordance with law.
W.P.(C) 4362/2026 Page 19 of 20
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:13:20
Conclusion
48. In the opinion of the Court, no interference is warranted under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
APRIL 6, 2026/hc
W.P.(C) 4362/2026 Page 20 of 20
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:13:20