THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL Nos.587, 595, 627, 645, 649, 665 and 699 of 2025

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Mr. Mujib Kumar Sadasivuni, learned counsel for the appellants-Bank.

Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents in W.A.Nos.587, 595, 645, 649 and 665 of 2025.

Ms. K.Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the respondents in W.A.Nos.627 and 699 of 2025.

2. By the common impugned order dated 03.03.2025, the learned writ Court has quashed the impugned orders of dismissal from service imposed upon the writ petitioners. The learned writ Court has directed the appellants-Bank to reconsider imposing lesser punishment than dismissal from service or for re-initiating action against the employees by following the due process of law. The Bank authorities were directed to release provisional pension to all the writ petitioners till a decision is taken as to whether the enquiry is to be re-conducted in accordance with law or if lesser punishment than dismissal from service has to be imposed. The writ petitioners were Bank employees in different scales working in the same Bank, Aziz Nagar Branch. They were proceeded in a departmental enquiry for dereliction of duty and alleged large scale misappropriation of funds and loss to the Bank. The enquiry report indicted the employees leading to their dismissal from service, which was the subject matter of challenge. The writ petitioners raised the following objections in their challenge:

“(a) Whether the photocopies of the Bank records can be marked as exhibits and whether they constitute admissible evidence in the enquiry?

(b) Whether, mere marking of the documents, without proving the contents of the documents would satisfy the requirement of proof of misconduct in the domestic enquiry?

(c) Whether the charges against the petitioners stood proved in the domestic enquiry keeping in view the nature of the documents filed in the enquiry and also the nature of oral evidence adduced?

(d) Whether the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will be confined merely to see whether the procedure of domestic enquiry was followed by the Bank, more particularly when the charges themselves are not proved?

(e) In case the contentions of the petitioners are found valid, what is the relief the petitioners are entitled to?”

3. The learned writ Court took up the first question to be decided as to whether the photocopies of the Bank records can be marked as exhibits and whether they constitute admissible evidence in the enquiry. The Bank had taken a stand that the photostat copies of the documents relied upon by the enquiry officer were obtained from the custody of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and duly certified to be true by the Bank official before producing it in the enquiry proceedings. The learned writ Court held that photocopies of the Bank records unless specified to be so by the authority under whose possession the original documents are there, cannot be considered as admissible evidence. In these cases, admittedly, the original documents were in the custody of CBI. When the documents were in the custody of CBI, upon a proper search and seizure or production to the investigating agency by the Bank officials, the copies of those documents could have been obtained by taking permission from the Special CBI Court.

4. In the instant cases, the Bank, in their counter affidavit before the writ Court, has taken a stand at paragraph 9 that the officer of the Bank had approached the investigating officer of the CBI and obtained the photocopies thereof and then certified it to be true. The course was not proper as such evidence could not be adduced as secondary evidence by the Bank officer during enquiry when the copies thereof were not certified to be true by the officer of the investigating agency upon permission granted by the learned Special CBI Court.

5. The learned writ Court found the procedur