$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 50/2026 & CM APPL. 7041/2026 ANIL KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate with Appellant in person.

versus CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anuj Jain, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R

% 02.02.2026 CM APPL. 7040/2026 (for exemption

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 7041/2026 (for delay in re-filing the appeal

3. This is an application seeking condonation of 16 days’ delay in re-

filing the appeal moved on behalf of the appellant.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 16 days’ in re-filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

5. The application stands disposed of.

LPA 50/2026

6. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the Appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.11.2025 (“Impugned Judgment”)

passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 9689/2018 (“Writ Petition”).

7. The brief factual matrix of the case is as under:

7.1. The Appellant was employed as a clerk with Respondent No. 1.

On 20.04.2006, the Appellant received a cash of ₹60,580/- towards the payment of fees of four students of DAV Public School. While receiving the said amount of ₹60,580/-, the Appellant issued cash receipts in respect of the said amount, however, the said receipts were not scrolled from the Accounts Department of the Respondent No.1. Although the Appellant issued counter foils of the receipts under his initials / signature by putting rubber stamp of cash receipts, the said amount was not accounted for and was not deposited in the current account of DAV Public School on 20.04.2006.

7.2. On 29.07.2006, the DAV Public School forwarded the photocopies of the aforesaid fee receipts to Respondent No. 1 and requested for taking necessary action as the fee deposited through the said receipts was not credited in the School’s account maintained with Respondent No. 1. On 08.08.2006, entire fees of ₹60,580/- plus late fees was deposited with Respondent No. 1 through the deposit receipts bearing the same serial number as the serial numbers printed on the counter foils released by the Appellant on 20.04.2006.

7.3. Accordingly, the Respondents alleged that the Appellant misappropriated funds of ₹60,580/- for the period of 110 days.

7.4. The Respondents suspended the Appellant on 02.09.2006 and issued memos dated 06.09.2006 and 10.10.2006. The Appellant replied to the said memos on 25.09.2006 and 18.10.2006. Since, the reply was not found satisfactory, charge sheet dated 28.10.2006 was issued to the Appellant. Thereafter, departmental enquiry was conducted in vide final report dated 28.03.2007, the charges against the Appellant were found to be proved. The Disciplinary Authority, thereafter, gave personal hearing dated 20.06.2007 to the Appellant and in view of the said proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority of the Respondents founded it fit to dismiss the Appellant from the service vide dismissal order dated

20.06.2007.

7.5. In the meanwhile, the DAV Public School vide letter dated

08.09.2006 withdrew the complaint dated 29.07.2006 as the amount of ₹60,580/- was deposited on 08.08.2006.

7.6. The Appellant raised the industrial dispute before the learned Industrial Tribunal by way of a reference dated 11.02.2009. The Appellant filed statement of claim before the Industrial Tribunal on 22.06.2009 and the Respondents filed written statement on

19.11.2009.

7.7. Vide order dated 21.01.2010, the learned Industrial Tribunal framed a preliminary issue as to whether the departmental enquiry conducted by the Respondents was legal, just and fair and not in violation of principles of natural justice.

7.8. After conclusion of the evidence of both the sides and hearing the arguments on the preliminary issue, vide order dated

08.06.2016, the learned Industrial Tribunal decided the preliminary issue i