Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 2888

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Md. Tarique - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India And Others – Respondents
Writ A. No. 9579 of 2025
Decided On : 06-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent: A.S.G.I., Gyan Prakash Shrivastava.

The court upheld the disciplinary proceedings against a banking officer, affirming conformity with procedural requirements and the reasonableness of the penalty imposed for serious misconduct.

Headnote:(A) Central Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 - Regulation 6(17) - Disciplinary proceedings against a bank officer for alleged misconduct involving sanctioning and disbursing loans improperly - Court affirmed that disciplinary process was followed adequately, with noted procedural integrity (Paras 36-37).

(B) Legal principles - The principles of natural justice were upheld as the petitioner was provided ample opportunity for defense; procedural lapses were adequately addressed (Paras 24, 26).

(C) Issues - Key issues included the handling of charges against the petitioner, adherence to required procedures in disciplinary action, and whether the discipline imposed was disproportionate (Paras 20, 25).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced disciplinary proceedings with 58 charges related to irregularities in loan sanctioning, leading to a penalty of removal from service, which was reduced from dismissal after appeal (Paras 7, 8).

Findings of Court:
The Inquiry Officer's findings were detailed and substantiated by evidence, confirming misconduct without direct allegations of fraud or loss to the bank (Paras 30-36).

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the inquiry followed due process and that the imposed penalty was warranted due to serious procedural lapses and neglect of duties by the petitioner in loan processing (Paras 21, 36).

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural background of the disciplinary action. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. arguments regarding procedural fairness and misconduct. (Para 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 21 , 22)
3. arguments regarding procedural fairness and implications of misconduct. (Para 19)
4. the necessity of adherence to regulations in administrative proceedings. (Para 20)
5. judicial observations on adherence to established disciplinary protocols. (Para 23)
6. court's assessment of compliance with disciplinary procedures. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 30 , 31 , 36)
7. final dismissal of writ petition without interference. (Para 37)

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. Petitioner was appointed as Probationary Officer in Central Bank of India on basis of a selection proceedings conducted by Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS). He was granted appointment as Assistant Manager (Scale-1) and posted at Lucknow Zone in July, 2013. He was promoted as Officer Middle Management Grade (Scale-II) in April, 2016 and granted posting at Ahmedabad Zone and after working there till July, 2019, on his own request, he was transferred back to Lucknow Zone and posted as Manager (Scale-II Officer) at Branch Office Padleganj under Gorakhpur Region on 25.07.2019. Within few days, he was transferred and posted as Branch Manager at Branch Office Ramkola under Gorakhpur Region on 29.07.2019. In September, 2021, he was transferred to Lead Bank Office, Padrauna, Kushinagar where he lastly worked. An Internal Audit was conducted by Regional Branch Manager of Ramkola Branch where petitioner has worked as Branch Manager from 29.07.2019 to 22.09.2021 and a Regional Branch Internal Audit report was submitted in September, 2020, wherein number of objections were pointed out and according to petitioner, objections were rectified also and a compliance report was submitted by one Dharmendra Pandey on 03.03.2021.

2. Subsequently, a Checking Report of Audit Compliance of RBIA was obtained from one Ratnesh Ranjan, then posted as Senior Manager at Branch Office Padrauna, however, he has submitted an adverse report on 28.10.2021, that level of compliance was found unsatisfactory.

3. In pursuance of above reports, petitioner was served with a memo dated 02.11.2021 and an explanation was sought within a period of 7 days explaining the act of omission and commission mentioned therein as well as why disciplinary action be not initiated against him.

4. In response to above referred memo, petitioner has submitted a detailed reply dated 27.11.2021, however, it was not found satisfactory and Regional Manager proceeded to issue a Memorandum dated 27.01.2023 instituting a departmental proceedings against him with regard to Articles of Charge specified in Annexure-1 and 2 of said Memorandum. Annexure-1 levelled 58 charges against the petitioner based on Statement of Imputation of Misconduct specified with regard to each of said charge in Annexure-2. It was accompanied by list of Management documents and witnesses also.

5. On same day, Regional Manager appointed Mr. Ratnesh Ranjan, Senior Manager, Branch Office Padrauna as Inquiry Officer. Inquiry was conducted between 31.03.2023 to 13.07.2023 on various dates. Preliminary proceedings were conducted between 31.01.2023 and 05.03.2023 and between 06.03.2023 and 25.05.2023. Presenting Officer produced total number of 1403 documents. Between 26.05.2023 and 15.06.2023, oral testimony of Ashutosh Vikram, Branch Manager, Ramkola Branch was concluded. The petitioner was provided a chance to cross examine him. The petitioner has presented total number of 637 documents. Proceedings were conducted on 05.07.2023, 06.07.2023, 07.07.2023, 10.07.2023, 11.07.2023, 12.07.2023 and 13.07.2023 and after cross examination, Presenting Officer as well as petitioner were granted 15 days’ time to submit defence brief of prosecution/defence.

6. According to petitioner, he was not examined i.e. his statement was not recorded though he has submitted