Patna High Court
Smt. Aparna Prasad vs The Chairman Cum Managing Director, U C O … on 15 July, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2912 of 2017
======================================================
Smt. Aparna Prasad wife of Late Prabhat Kumar Karan resident of Mohalla
Betwan Bazar, Behind Sub-Beam Engineering Works, P.S. Kasim Bazar,
District Munger.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Chairman Cum Managing Director, U C O Bank Head Office 8th Floor,
10-B.T.M, Sarani, Kolkata-700001.
2. The General Manager and Circle Head, Patna UCO Bank, Circle Office
Maurya Lok Complex, 4th Floor, Block-A, New Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-
800001.
3. The Assistant General Manager Patna Region Regional Office, UCO Bank,
Maurya Complex, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-800001.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. M. Chatterjee, Advocate
Mr. Samir Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vishwajeet Kumar Mishra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 15-07-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the UCO Bank are present.
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking
quashing of the order dated 16.05.2016, passed by the Appellate
Authority (Annexure-12), by which the appeal dated
28.11.1995
, preferred by the petitioner’s husband against the
final order dated 11.10.1995, has been rejected. A further prayer
has been made to grant all consequential benefits to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2912 of 2017 dt.15-07-2025
2/9
petitioner’s husband after setting aside the order of the Appellate
Authority as well as that of the Disciplinary Authority.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner’s husband was posted at the Jogbani Branch as
Incharge Manager and had taken a loan of Rs. 25,000/- for
personal needs on 27.04.1992. It is stated that, under the
direction of the Manager, the petitioner’s husband deposited the
loan amount of Rs. 25,000/- along with 30% interest per annum
on the very next day, i.e., on 28.04.1992. Counsel further
submits that the respondent-Bank issued a show-cause notice to
suspend the Assistant General Manager, UCO Bank, Zonal
Office, Patna, and issued Articles of Charges and a statement of
allegations against the petitioner’s husband on 10.11.1992.
Counsel also submits that a domestic enquiry was conducted
against the petitioner’s husband on the basis of the charge sheet
dated 10.11.1992. It has been submitted that on 15.05.1993, the
Enquiry Officer wrote a letter to the petitioner’s husband,
directing him to attend the enquiry at the premises of UCO
Bank, Jogbani Branch. In response, the petitioner’s husband
wrote a letter dated 03.06.1993 to the General Manager, UCO
Bank, Head Office (Vigilance), Kolkata, requesting withdrawal
of the said proceeding, stating that the loan was taken on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2912 of 2017 dt.15-07-2025
3/9
basis of an F.D.R., which was due on 31.01.1994 for Rs.
27,000/-.
4. Counsel further submits that, after completion of
the enquiry proceedings, the Presenting Officer submitted a
written brief of the enquiry proceedings on 27.01.1995. The
Enquiry Officer thereafter submitted the enquiry report on
10.07.1995 to the A.G.M. (Disciplinary Authority) upon receipt
of the said report. It has been indicated therein that the loan was
disbursed on 27.04.1992 and was fully adjusted on 28.04.1992
with interest at the rate of 30%, and that the Bank did not suffer
any loss. According to the petitioner, this fact alone is sufficient
for closure of the disciplinary proceeding.
5. Counsel further submits that the final order was
passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 11.10.1995 on the basis
of the enquiry report, imposing the punishment of reduction by
two lower stage in the present time-scale in the basic pay of the
petitioner’s husband. Counsel further submits that, being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the
Disciplinary Authority dated 11.10.1995, an appeal was
preferred before the Appellate Authority on 28.11.1995.
Thereafter, the petitioner’s husband filed CWJC No. 9696 of
2007, seeking quashing of the Disciplinary Authority’s order
Patna High Court CWJC No.2912 of 2017 dt.15-07-2025
4/9
dated 11.10.1995. Counsel further submits that this Hon’ble
Court dismissed the said writ petition solely on the ground of
delay, observing that although the disciplinary order was passed
on 11.10.1995 and the appeal was filed on 28.11.1995, the writ
petition itself was filed only in the year 2007.
6. Counsel further submits that, being aggrieved
and dissatisfied with the order passed in the said CWJC, the
petitioner preferred L.P.A. No. 644 of 2014. During the
pendency of the L.P.A., the petitioner’s husband passed away.
Thereafter, I.A. No. 2023 of 2015 was filed. Counsel further
submits that vide order dated 16.03.2016 passed in L.P.A. No.
644 of 2014, this Hon’ble Court directed the Appellate
Authority to dispose of the pending appeal within a period of
three months. Pursuant thereto, the appeal preferred by the
petitioner was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order
dated 16.05.2016, which was communicated to the petitioner by
letter dated 31.05.2016.
7. Counsel further submits that the said order
passed by the Appellate Authority dated 16.05.2016 is impugned
in the present writ petition, and upon perusal of the said order, it
becomes crystal clear that the punishment imposed by the
Disciplinary Authority, namely, reduction by two lower stage in
Patna High Court CWJC No.2912 of 2017 dt.15-07-2025
5/9
the time-scale of basic pay of the petitioner’s husband, passed
by the Disciplinary Authority was retained.
8. Counsel further submits that the said order is
absolutely bad in law for the reason that the petitioner’s husband
had refunded the loan amount on the very next day along with
30% interest, which, according to him, a punishment
categorized under Clause 4(d) of the UCO Bank Officer
Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976
(hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1976”). Counsel further
submits that, upon imposition of punishment, the Appellate
Authority has also approved an additional punishment falling
under Clause 4(e) of the Rules of 1976. Counsel further submits
that, for one alleged misconduct, two separate punishments have
been imposed. Counsel also submits that the petitioner is an old
aged widow of the deceased employee, and the imposition of
the punishment of reduction by two lower stage in the present
time-scale in the basic pay has resulted in an exorbitant
reduction in the pension amount.
9. In view of the fact that two punishments have
been imposed for a single alleged act of misconduct, and that
the punishment is disproportionate and excessive, counsel
submits that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to interfere in
Patna High Court CWJC No.2912 of 2017 dt.15-07-2025
6/9
the matter.
10. Learned counsel for UCO Bank, on the other
hand, submits that the specific misconduct committed by the
petitioner’s husband has already been clearly indicated in the
enquiry report. It is stated that on 27.04.1992, the petitioner’s
husband disbursed a loan amount of Rs. 25,000/- in his own
name, showing as security F.D.R. No. 60125/KY/647/91-92,
dated 31.01.1994, for Rs. 27,000/-, which had already pledged
to the bank and loan was outstanding against the security of said
Fixed Deposit Receipt. Counsel submits that the Enquiry
Officer, upon detailed consideration in the report, found the
charge to be proved against the petitioner’s husband. It is due to
this reason matter was sent to to the Disciplinary Authority, who
thereafter passed the impugned order.
11. Counsel further submits that under the Rules of
1976, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner’s husband is
minor in nature. He further submits that, while exercising
powers of judicial review in matters relating to departmental
proceedings, the scope is very limited. Counsel also submits that
there has been no procedural irregularity nor any violation of the
principles of natural justice in the conduct of the enquiry or in
the disciplinary proceedings.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2912 of 2017 dt.15-07-2025
7/9
12. Counsel further submits that the petitioner’s
husband reimbursed the loan while he was serving as the
Incharge Branch Manager, suppressing the material fact that the
F.D.R. had already been mortgaged. Despite this, he availed the
loan, thereby violating the norms and procedures of the Bank.
13. Counsel further submits that, under normal
circumstances, such misconduct, the delinquent should be
dismissed from service. However, in the present case, a lenient
view was taken, and only a minor punishment was imposed.
14. Upon hearing the parties, it transpires to this
Court that the issues raised for consideration are: (i) whether
two punishments have been imposed upon the petitioner’s
husband, and (ii) whether the punishment imposed is exorbitant.
15. From the perusal of the facts on record, it is
evident that the petitioner’s husband availed a loan while
serving as the Incharge of the Branch for a few days. It is also
established that he reimbursed the said loan amount by marking
an F.D.R. that had already been pledged as security with the
Bank for another purpose.
16. However, it is equally true that the said loan
amount was refunded by him on the very next day along with
30% interest. Nevertheless, this repayment was not made suo
Patna High Court CWJC No.2912 of 2017 dt.15-07-2025
8/9
motu, rather, it was made pursuant to instructions from the
Branch Manager who had subsequently joined.
17. It further appears that proper opportunity of
hearing was provided to the petitioner’s husband during the
disciplinary proceedings. A show-cause notice was issued, and
there is no indication of any violation of the principles of natural
justice. The punishment imposed has also been categorized as
minor in nature under the applicable service rules.
18. Under Clauses 4(d) and 4(e) of the Rules of
1976, which are applicable to the petitioner, the provisions state
as follows:-
“4(d) Recovery from pay or
such other amount as may be due to him of
the whole or part of nay pecuniary loss
caused to the Bank by negligence of breach
of orders;
4(e) Reduction to a lower stage
in the time-scale of pay for a period not
exceeding 3 years, without cumulative effect
and not adversely affecting the officer’s
pension.”
19. It transpires to this Court that an action which
has been done by the petitioner himself upon instruction of the
Branch Manger about refund of money cannot be said as a
punishment. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that
Patna High Court CWJC No.2912 of 2017 dt.15-07-2025
9/9
only one punishment has been imposed, namely, the reduction
by two lower stage in the present time-scale of basic pay, as
contemplated under Clause 4(e) of the Rules.
20. This Court is also of the firm opinion that,
since the punishment imposed is minor in nature, it cannot be
termed as exorbitant. The disciplinary action taken is in
accordance with law, and no ground for interference is made
out.
21. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
AFR/NAFR NA CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 21.07.2025 Transmission Date NA
