Back
2025 Supreme(All) 2872
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Jag Pal Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India And 3 Others - Respondents
Writ A No.26097 of 2018
Decided on : 29-07-2025
Important Points
Subject
Disciplinary Action - Service Law
Act Referred
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Cashier at the State Bank of India, was accused in a FIR regarding unauthorized withdrawals from a customer's account. He faced disciplinary charges and was dismissed based on inquiry findings linking him to the fraud. (Paras 1-10)
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the inquiry lacked sufficient independent evidence beyond the alleged confession, rendering the dismissal unlawful. The order was set aside, allowing for a fresh approach by the disciplinary authority. (Paras 35-36)
Issues: Whether the disciplinary authority adequately considered the defense and evidence before dismissing the employee; the legality of using police confessions as sole grounds for disciplinary action. (Paras 20, 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that disciplinary actions must not be based solely on confessions made during police investigation. There must be independent evidence to substantiate charges. Failure to follow proper procedures leads to quashing of the order. (Paras 28, 34)
Result: Writ petition allowed; disciplinary orders quashed. The disciplinary authority directed to pass a fresh order. (Paras 35-36)
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ashok Khare( Senior Adv.), Satyendra Chandra Tripathi, Shiv Poojan Yadav, Sunil Kumar Srivastava
For the Respondent: A.S.G.I., Chandra Bhan Singh, Pankaj Srivastava, S.C.,Satish Chaturvedi
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. findings of the inquiry officer and charges against the petitioner. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 3. overview of the punishment process and appellate proceedings. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 19) |
| 4. prior court's directions and context of the current application. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. arguments regarding procedure and proofs in departmental inquiry. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. analysis of legal standards applied in disciplinary proceedings. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 7. discussion on evidence standards in the present case. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 8. final judgment and directives regarding disciplinary action. (Para 35 , 36) |
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
1. The petitioner, while working in a clerical cadre as a Cashier with Respondent-State Bank of India at Gonda Branch, has faced a disciplinary proceedings and his name was also revealed during investigation as an accused in a F.I.R. lodged by one Asha Pundir on 20.06.2024 about withdrawal of Rs.55 lakhs from her bank account without her information or permission.
2. The petitioner was arrested on 26.11.2014 and was released on bail vide an order dated 09.02.2015 passed by Special Judge, E.C. Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh.
3. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 18.04.2015 against the petitioner also on which cognizance was taken and trial was commenced.
4. According to supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner on 28.01.2024, after framing charges, some of the prosecution witnesses were examined and two co-accused were also summoned on basis of an application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., therefore, it appears that trial is still not concluded.
5. Simultaneously, petitioner has faced a disciplinary proceeding also and departmental charge-sheet dated 28.02.2015 was submitted and petitioner was placed under suspension. Charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner that he has committed following irregularities:
^^1½ vkids }kjk cSad dh xksiuh;rk dks Hkax fd;k x;kA
2½ vkidh feyhHkxr ls ;g /kks[kk/kMh dh x;hA
3½ vkids bl d`R; ls cSad ls 55-20 yk[k :Œ dh gkfu gqbZ rFkk cSda dh Nfo dks viw.kuh; {kfr iagqph gSA^^
6. Regional Manager of State Bank of India vide an order dated 15.04.2015 appointed Sri H.C. Sarkar, Chief Manager/Vigilance Department, Legal Head, New Delhi, as an Inquiry Officer.
7. After conclusion of inquiry, a written brief of Presenting Officer was submitted that the petitioner has breached secrecy of bank, he has committed fraud by hatching conspiracy and by aforesaid act, bank has suffered a loss of Rs.55.20 lakhs.
8. Petitioner has submitted a detailed reply to above referred brief and has annexed various documents and denied all allegations made therein.
9. The Inquiry Officer submitted an inquiry report dated 09.10.2015 that all the three charges were proved against the petitioner and relevant part thereof i.e. finding of the Inquiry Officer on each charge is mentioned hereinafter:
“My Findings
Following table gives the details of the amount withdrawn from A/c No.30860679645 of Smt. Asha Pundir by deposit Cheques by opening forged/fake account in other Branches.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| Sl. No. | Cheque No. | Date of Payment | Amount in Rs. | Paying Branch | Pex No. |
| 1 | 069774 | 07/06/2014 | 8 , 70,000.00 | Atrauli | P-8/6 |
| 2 | 069771 | 07/06/2014 | 8 , 50,000.00 | do | P-8/8 |
| 3 | 069772 | 07/06/2014 | 7 , 30,000.00 | do | P-8/10 |
| 4 | 069773 | 07/06/2014 | 9 , 40,000.00 | do | P-8/10 |
| 5 | 069791 | 11/06/2015 | 9,20,000.00 | ADB Gabhana | P-8/12 |
| 6 | 069792 | 11/06/2014 | 7,80,000.00 | do | P-8/12 |
| 7 | 069788 | 10/06/2014 | 4,30,000.00 | Chandaus | P-8/11 |
Pex 1/1 is the copy of office note submitted to Regional Manager, Region-II, by Chief Manager (Admin), in which it is revealed that the EPA has shared all the information with the fraudster regarding the A/c No.30860679645 of Smt. Asha Pundir. As a result, large amounts of withdrawals took place through different Branches by depositing Cheques bearing forged signature of drawer. It is only possible when an insider/Bank Employee pr
