Cm Nos. 7261/2022 & 8281/2024 vs J&K Bank Limited Th. Its on 24 July, 2025

Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench

Cm Nos. 7261/2022 & 8281/2024 vs J&K Bank Limited Th. Its on 24 July, 2025

Author: Javed Iqbal Wani

Bench: Javed Iqbal Wani

                                                                                            2025:JKLHC-SGR:193

                                                                              Sr. No. 01
          HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                         AT SRINAGAR

                                                          Reserved on:-  11.04.2025
                                                         Pronounced on:- 24.07.2025
WP(C) No. 2887/2022
CM Nos. 7261/2022 & 8281/2024

Naseer Ahmad Sheikh, Aged 61 years,                                        .....Petitioner(s)
S/o Shiekh Ghulam Ahmad, R/o Shiekh Ul Alam Colony,
Nowgam, District Srinagar.

                           Through: Mr. Shuja Ul Haq, Advocate.

                     Vs.

1. J&K Bank Limited Th. its                                             ..... Respondent(s)
   Chairman Corporate Headquarters MA Road Srinagar;
2. President Supervision and Controlling Division (S&C)
   J&K Bank Corporate Headquarters Srinagar;
3. Disciplinary  Authority  J&K               Bank      Corporate
   Headquarters, MA Road Srinagar;
4. Executive Manager S&C               J&K     Bank     Corporate
   Headquarters Srinagar.

                           Through: Mr. Aadil Asmi, Advocate.

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE

                                       JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner herein has prayed in the instant petition for the

following reliefs:-

“i. By issuance of writ, order or direction one in the nature of
certiorari, the order dated 01.04.2022 read with order dated
09.11.2022 issued by the respondent-Bank, whereby the
petitioner has been dismissed from services of the bank w.e.f.
30.06.2021,i.e., the date on which the petitioner retired from the
service of the bank on superannuation be quashed;
ii. By issuance of writ, order or direction one in the nature of
mandamus, the respondents be commanded to release all
pensionary benefits and other post retiral benefits in favour of
the petitioner;

iii. Any other relief, which this Court may deem fit and proper
under the circumstances of the case may also be passed in
favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.”

2 WP(C) No. 2887/2022 2025:JKLHC-SGR:193

FACTS:-

2. The petitioner herein states that after rendering over 34 years of

service in the respondent-Jammu and Kashmir Bank (for short, the “Bank”), on

30.06.2021 suffered a dismissal retrospectively vide order dated 01.04.2022 from

the Bank with effect from the date of his superannuation and its affirmation by the

appellate authority vide order dated 09.11.2022 and the said dismissal originates

from a departmental disciplinary proceeding initiated during his service.

3. It is stated by the petitioner that initially, on 08.01.2021,

an explanation was sought from the petitioner in connection with the alleged

irregular Sanctioning of Temporary Overdrafts (for short, “TODs”), some of which

had turned into Non-Performing Assets (for short, “NPAs”) within a short span

of time, to which, the petitioner claims to have submitted a detailed reply, denying

any violation of bank rules, asserting that the TOD’s were granted in accordance

with the norms and without causing any financial loss to the Bank. The said reply

was followed by a charge-sheet dated 21.05.2021 issued against the petitioner,

alleging misconduct therein during his tenure as Branch Head at Branch Unit

Barzulla and Branch Unit Rangreth. The specific charges pertained to allowing

overdrafts without sanction from competent authorities, leading to seven Accounts

becoming NPAs and granting twenty-three TODs without verifying

creditworthiness and the petitioner was, as such, charge-sheeted for the following

alleged acts of omission and commission:-

(i) Breach of rules of business of the bank and instructions for the
running of a department.

(ii) Showing undue favour to any party by grant of concession
against the banking practice likely to involve loss to the bank.

(iii) Doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank involving the
bank in serious loss.

(iv) Misuse of official position and powers.

3 WP(C) No. 2887/2022 2025:JKLHC-SGR:193

4. It is further stated that a second charge-sheet dated 28.06.2021 was

served upon him, alleging irregularities in sanctioning a housing loan of ₹20.00

lakhs (Rupees Twenty Lacs) to one-Mr. Javaid Ahmad Kralyari and accepting his

brother, namely, Mr. Arif Ahmad Kralyari as co-borrower in violation of loan

norms, while also alleging that the loan was partly funded through a TOD granted

to the borrower and the guarantor was a known defaulter, to which charge-sheet,

the petitioner submitted replies to both charge-sheets, asserting that all actions

were taken in accordance with established procedures and under instructions from

superiors a fact not denied by the Bank, while stating further that the petitioner had

already got 05 Accounts regularized and obtained sufficient documents for

realizing/recovering the amount from the borrower.

5. It is also stated that an inquiry, in this regard, was initiated and

concluded by the Bank with two reports dated 07.09.2021 and 10.09.2021,

following which a show cause notice dated 20.11.2021 was issued to the petitioner,

proposing dismissal and recovery of financial loss, to which the petitioner replied,

contended that the inquiry was fundamentally flawed and violative of principles of

natural justice including denial of opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and

examine documents, whereafter, however, the disciplinary authority issued the

dismissal order dated 01.04.2022 with retrospective effect from 30.06.2021 and an

appeal against this order as well was rejected by the Chairman of the Bank of

09.11.2022.

6. The petitioner herein alleges that both orders are arbitrary, mala fide

and based on no evidence, besides pleading that the disciplinary proceedings

were conducted in violation of the Office Service Manual, 2000

(for short, “OSM 2000”), particularly, Rules 376 and 380 and that he was denied a
4 WP(C) No. 2887/2022 2025:JKLHC-SGR:193

fair opportunity to defend himself, while asserting further that the TODs in

question were sanctioned as per verbal instructions from higher authorities and

were either within his delegated powers or deemed sanctioned in terms of Rule

337(c) and Para-21 of the Central Vigilance Commission Guidelines (for short, the

“CVC Guidelines”), which the bank is bound to follow, alleging further that no

allegation of personal gain, corruption or fraud has been made against the

petitioner and that his unblemished service record has been overlooked and that the

retrospective dismissal order is legally unsustainable, especially when passed after

his retirement and consequent denial of retiral dues despite no proven financial loss

to the Bank, has left him and his dependent family in distress.

7. The petitioner has assailed the orders dated 01.04.2022 and

09.11.2022 passed by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities respectively on

various grounds pleaded in the petition and raised by the counsel for the petitioner

while arguing the matter, which for the sake of brevity and convenience are

summarized as under:-

(i) That the enquiry proceedings were vitiated by several procedural
lapses that go to the root of the matter. The petitioner was not
allowed to cross-examine witnesses nor was he given access to the
relevant documents relied upon by the Presenting Officer.

His requests to inspect records pertaining to the sanction of TODs
at the Zonal Office were ignored. No opportunity was provided to
lead evidence in defence. The enquiry, according to the petitioner,
was a mere formality and lacked adherence to basic principles of
natural justice;

(ii) That the petitioner had specifically objected to the appointment and
conduct of the Enquiry Officer, alleging bias and lack of
impartiality. It is submitted that the officer not only assumed the
role of the Presenting Officer at several stages but also failed to
maintain neutrality. The fact that objections regarding his conflict
of interest were raised during the personal hearing and yet ignored
renders the enquiry report legally unsustainable;

(iii)That the impugned dismissal has been made effective from the date
the petitioner attained superannuation. The petitioner contends that
no dismissal order can take effect from a date when the employer-
employee relationship has already come to an end, unless
specifically permitted under the service rules. In the absence of any
5 WP(C) No. 2887/2022 2025:JKLHC-SGR:193

such enabling provision, the retrospective operation of the dismissal
order is ex-facie without jurisdiction and unsustainable;

(iv) That the allegations against the petitioner pertain to sanctioning of
TODs/ODs during his tenure as Branch Head. It is his case that all
such transactions were either within his powers or done under
verbal instructions of the Zonal Head. It is further pointed out that
in many cases, proposals for post-facto approval were submitted but
remained unattended. No case of financial embezzlement, personal
gain or fraudulent conduct has been made out. There is also no
determination of actual loss suffered by the Bank. The petitioner
submits that at best, the allegations reflect an error of judgment,
but certainly not misconduct warranting dismissal;

(v) That the penalty of dismissal, especially after 34 years of service, is
shockingly disproportionate to the nature of the allegations.
The petitioner highlights his unblemished record, past
contributions to the Bank’s growth and the absence of any
criminality or dishonesty. He submits that the punishment imposed
has had the effect of depriving him of all post-retirement benefits,
including pension, which is neither justified nor legally permissible
on the facts of the case;

(vi) That the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority failed
to consider crucial aspects that ought to have weighed in his favour.
These include the length and quality of his service, the absence of
any prior disciplinary history, the prevailing business
circumstances at the time (notably, the period following the
abrogation of Article 370 and the COVID-19 pandemic) and the
fact that recovery proceedings had already been initiated by the
Bank in several of the accounts in question;

(vii) That the alleged TODs were sanctioned under urgent instructions
and in many instances, post-facto proposal were submitted but were
neither confirmed nor rejected. Relying para-21 of the CVC
guideline and Rule 337(c) of the OSM 2000, it is contended that
failure of the controlling authority to communicate any decision
within a stipulated period results in “deemed sanction”.
The disciplinary action initiated in disregard of these provisions, it
is argued, is arbitrary;

(viii) That the enquiry proceedings been conducted in breach of Rule 380
of the OSM 2000. The procedure of listing of witnesses, recording
of evidence, and permitting defence evidence was either not
following or was circumvented. Even basic requirements such as
providing an opportunity to inspect documents or respond to
evidence were not complied with. The petitioner alleges that the
Enquiry Officer mechanically concluded the proceedings without
recording any satisfaction regarding the compliance of procedural
safeguards;

(ix) That he has been selectively targeted while similarly placed officers,
including those who had issued instructions or were part of the
approval process, have not been proceeded against. No action has
been taken against the Zonal Head or other supervisory authorities,
even though the sanctioning of the TODs was allegedly done under
their directions. The petitioner submits that such discriminatory
treatment amounts to victimization;

6 WP(C) No. 2887/2022 2025:JKLHC-SGR:193

(x) That the pension and post-retiral benefits are not acts of generosity
but earned entitlements, protected under Article 300 A of the
Constitution. Their denial, without due process, has caused
financial ruin and deprived the petitioner of his right to livelihood
guaranteed under Article 21. It is submitted that depriving a retired
employee of his pension based on unproven allegations and
procedurally flawed enquiry is ex facie unconstitutional;

(xi) Lastly, that the findings of misconduct are not supported by any
credible evidence. The Enquiry Officer, according to him,
proceeded on conjectures and surmises, and relied upon
assumptions rather than concrete proof. The Presenting Officer, it
is alleged, failed to prove any of the charges by leading cogent
evidence, yet the findings were returned mechanically without due
appreciation of the material on record.

8. A detailed counter affidavit to the petition has been filed by the Bank

on 28.06.2023, opposing the maintainability as well as the merits of the writ

petition on the ground that the petition involves disputed questions of fact, which

cannot be adjudicated in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution.

9. It has been further stated that, in law, in matters pertaining of

departmental proceedings, the scope of judicial review is limited to examining the

decision-making process and not the merits of the disciplinary authority’s

conclusions and that this Court is not to act as an appellate forum or re-evaluate

evidence, except where findings are unsupported by any material or where the

proceedings stand vitiated by patent illegality or violative of the principles of

natural justice.

10. On the factual side, the respondents have stated that the petitioner was

placed under suspension on 17.03.2021, following an internal investigation, which

revealed serious irregularities committed by him during his tenure as Branch Head,

Barzulla, which investigation culminated in the issuance of two separate charge-

sheets dated 21.05.2021 and 28.06.2021, in that, the petitioner had allowed TODs

and overdrawals without proper sanction in violation of the Bank’s internal
7 WP(C) No. 2887/2022 2025:JKLHC-SGR:193

guidelines, resulting in substantial financial exposure and eventual classification of

several accounts as NPA’s.

11. It is also stated that the petitioner submitted replies to both charge-

sheets, however, upon consideration, the disciplinary authority found the

explanation submitted thereto unsatisfactory and ordered two full-dress enquiries,

appointing Mr. Hayat Mohammad Rather and Mr. Gulzar Ahmad as Enquiry

Officers in respect of the respective charge-sheets.

12. It is further stated that the petitioner actively participated in both the

proceedings, during which, according to the respondents, ample opportunity was

afforded to him to defend himself, whereafter the said Enquiry Officers submitted

their reports on 07.09.2021 and 20.09.2021, finding most of the imputations

proved and on the basis of the said reports, a consolidated show cause notice was

issued to the petitioner alongwith copies of the enquiry findings, to which the

petitioner responded in writing and also sought a personal hearing, which was duly

granted, whereafter, by order dated 01.04.2022, the disciplinary authority imposed

the penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioner with retrospective effect

from 30.06.2021, which is the date of petitioner’s superannuation, whereupon an

appeal came to be filed by the petitioner against the said order and same was

considered and rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 09.11.2022.

13. The respondents in the reply have strongly denied the allegations of

bias, malice or procedural impropriety alleged by the petitioner and it is submitted

that the petitioner never raised any objection regarding the appointment of the

Enquiry Officer or the conduct of proceedings during the pendency of the enquiry,

so much so, no request for recusal or change of enquiry officer was made at any
8 WP(C) No. 2887/2022 2025:JKLHC-SGR:193

stage by him and that the allegations of bias or predetermined intent are baseless

and an afterthought made only after the findings went against him.

14. It is being next stated that the petitioner’s claim that the TODs were

sanctioned under instructions from superior authorities is entirely unsubstantiated,

in that, according to the Bank’s internal guidelines, any overdraft beyond the

delegated authority of a Branch Manager requires prior written approval from the

competent authority and that the petitioner neither obtained prior approval nor

secured post-facto sanction and that the TODs were extended in a reckless and

unauthorized manner and remained outstanding well beyond the permissible

period, eventually resulting in substantial financial loss.

15. It is further stated that the disciplinary authority, after perusing the

records, quantified the loss caused to the Bank due to the petitioner’s actions to the

tune of ₹2.26 Crores and ₹1.76 Crores respectively, which fell into the NPA

category.

16. As regards the petitioner’s retiral dues, it has been stated that the

gratuity and provident fund amounts were adjusted towards loans outstanding

against the petitioner under various staff loan schemes and the amount of

₹6.37 lakhs, remaining after such adjustment, was credited to his Savings Account

and that since the penalty imposed was one of dismissal, the petitioner got

disentitled to pension or leave encashment under the applicable service regulations,

particularly, Regulation 22 of the J&K Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations,

1995 (hereinafter referred to as the, “Regulations of 1995”) and Rule 159 of the

OSM 2000.

17. It is also stated that the petitioner’s reliance on Rule 337(c) of the

OSM 2000 and para-21 of the CVC Guidelines to assert deemed sanction is not
9 WP(C) No. 2887/2022 2025:JKLHC-SGR:193

applicable to the Bank in the absence of formal adoption by the Board of Directors

and that there is no concept of deemed sanction applicable in the facts of the

present case, especially when no written proposals of follow-up was shown to have

been taken by the petitioner.

18. Denying that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner to be excessive,

the respondents have stated that the punishment imposed was proportionate to the

gravity of the misconduct established, as the authorities considered all relevant

materials including the petitioner’s replies, personal hearing, service record and the

financial impact of his actions and has relied upon the decision of the Supreme

Court passed in case titled as, “Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Ajit Kumar Singh

passed in Civil Appeal No. 3663 of 2023″, while reiterating that the Court’s

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited to examine

whether the procedure adopted was fair and legal and cannot sit in appeal over the

conclusions of the disciplinary authority.

19. To counter the stand of the respondents taken in the counter

affidavit (supra), the petitioner herein filed an application bearing CM No.

6886/2024 on 04.11.2024, seeking leave of this Court to file rejoinder affidavit,

which application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 14.11.2024 and

the rejoinder was taken on record. Further, this Court while considering the

matter on 12.12.2024 observed that the petitioner during the course of

arguments, had made a request to place on record the enquiry report vide

CM No. 8281/2024, which as per him was not sustainable in law, the said

request was acceded to and liberty was given to the petitioner to do the

needful and the respondents were given liberty to file a supplementary

affidavit in response to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner.
10 WP(C) No. 2887/2022 2025:JKLHC-SGR:193

20. In the rejoinder affidavit (supra) filed by the petitioner, it is stated that

the entire disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner including issuance of

charge-sheets, conduct of enquiry and imposition of penalty was admittedly

undertaken in terms of the OSM 2000, however, the Bank, while relying upon the

said Manual for initiating and conducting proceedings, has taken a contradictory

stand by denying the applicability of Rule 337(c) of the same Manual, which

provides for “deemed sanction” in cases, where no decision is taken within a

specified period. The petitioner submits that the respondents cannot selectively

apply only those provisions of the Manual, which support their case while

disregarding others.

21. It is further stated that the respondents’ assertion that no material was

placed on record to show that proposals for post-facto sanction of TODs were

submitted, the petitioner has referred to a Communication dated 09.09.2019 issued

by Mr. M.A. Mir, the then Senior Executive (Advances), Zonal Office, Kashmir,

addressed to all branches and zonal offices, calling for details of TODs/adhoc

sanctions granted beyond delegation, but not yet confirmed and in response

thereto, the petitioner, on the same day, submitted a list of 20 such cases through

e-mail, out of which, subsequently, post-facto sanction was granted in 14 cases,

while the remaining six cases were neither sanctioned nor rejected, thereby,

according to the petitioner, attracted the application of Rule 337(c) of the OSM

2000. The petitioner has further placed reliance on an email dated 21.11.2020 sent

by his successor Branch Head at Branch Unit Barzulla to the Zonal Office and the

Cluster Office, wherein it was categorically acknowledged that the earlier

Communication dated 09.09.2019 had been responded to by the petitioner on the

same day, enclosing the list of TODs/adhocs for necessary sanction. The said
11 WP(C) No. 2887/2022 2025:JKLHC-SGR:193

e-mail further recorded that no Communication had been received with regard to

certain Accounts and requested the authorities to accord approval to the remaining

facilities including those of Blue Pearl and M/S Milk Bar. This, according to the

petitioner, lends corroboration to his stand that the necessary proposals were

submitted in time and the delay or inaction lay at the respondents’ end.

22. Insofar as the submission of hard copies of the post-facto proposals is

concerned, the petitioner asserts in the rejoinder affidavit that the dispatch register

of the Barzulla Branch evidences that hard copies of the post-facto proposals were

duly forwarded to the Zonal Office, a certified extracts of the said register was also

produced during the enquiry, but the Enquiry Officer declined to entertain it and

even a specific request made by the petitioner to inspect the receipt register

maintained at the Zonal Officer, Kashmir was also denied and further, the

petitioner was not permitted to examine Mr. Azad Ahmad-the then Zonal Head to

establish receipt of the proposals and, as such, these denials undermined the

petitioner’s right to a fair and effective defence.

23. It is being next stated in the rejoinder affidavit that on 22.04.2022, the

petitioner addressed a Communication to the Disciplinary Authority, seeking

copies of (i) the personal hearing recorded on 04.01.2022, (ii) the closure letter

pertaining to the housing loan case and (iii) the updated status of the loan accounts

cited in the charge-sheet, however, by response dated 25.04.2022, the Bank

declined the request, stating that the documents were privileged. The petitioner

contends that the refusal to furnish these documents adversely affected his ability

to respond effectively to the finding recorded against him.

24. The petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit has also rebutted the

respondents’ denial regarding applicability of the CVC Guidelines, pointing out
12 WP(C) No. 2887/2022 2025:JKLHC-SGR:193

that the Board of Directors of the Bank in its 50th Meeting held on 15.06.2019,

passed a Resolution formally adopting the CVC Guidelines to the extent they were

not inconsistent with the RBI’s Master directions and that this decision followed a

Communication from the Finance Secretary, Government of J&K dated March,

2019 and was reiterated in subsequent Board Meetings, as such, the CVC

Guidelines are binding on the Bank and relevant to the disciplinary process.

25. The petitioner, on the question of recoveries, asserts in the rejoinder

affidavit that during his tenure and even post his transfer from Barzulla Branch, he

made significant efforts to ensure liquidation of overdues and as a result of his

continued persuasion, recoveries amounting to ₹42.59 lakhs in 13 potential NPA

TOD Accounts and ₹29.61 lakhs in 8 NPA Accounts were made, which facts are

borne out from an internal Communication dated 01.02.2021 addressed by the then

Branch Head of Barzulla to the Recovery Division, Zonal Office Kashmir and that

these recoveries were not only ignored by the Enquiry Officer, but were also not

considered as mitigating circumstances by the disciplinary authority.

26. Subsequent to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, the

respondents have placed on record a supplementary affidavit on 18.03.2025 in

compliance to the directions of this Court dated 12.12.2024, wherein it has been

stated that the order of dismissal passed on 01.04.2022, which took effect

retrospectively from the date of the petitioner’s superannuation, i.e., 30.06.2021,

clearly records that the period of suspension preceding dismissal would neither be

treated as time spent on duty nor would qualify for any service-related benefits

and, however, the subsistence allowance paid during the said period was treated as

pay for that duration and that the said order reserves the Bank’s right to initiate

separate legal or criminal proceedings, if necessary, for breach of trust and
13 WP(C) No. 2887/2022 2025:JKLHC-SGR:193

recovery of dues against the petitioner and while refuting the petitioner’s claim

regarding deemed sanction under Rule 337(c) of the OSM 2000, the Bank

reiterates that the petitioner extended TODs and other credit facilities well beyond

his delegated authority and without seeking either prior sanction or post-facto

approval from the competent authority and that no such directions were issued by

any superior authority to justify the petitioner’s actions and, therefore, the

provision for “deemed sanction” is inapplicable in the facts of the case.

27. It is being also stated in the supplementary affidavit (supra) that the

issues now being selectively raised by the petitioner, had already been examined

and dealt with in the course of departmental proceedings and the findings recorded

in the speaking order issued by the Disciplinary Authority have been reiterated,

in particular, it is pointed out as follows:-

 The petitioner allowed multiple TODs without verifying their
end use.

 Several TODs were granted despite the fact that earlier ones
remained overdue and approvals from the competent authority
were still pending.

 In specific cases like M/S Khazin Rafi, M/S Telecine India and
M/S Taxperts, overdues were allowed without any proper
sanction.

 In case of M/S Blue Pearl, a TOD was sanctioned despite the
beneficiary being a salaried employee and ineligible for such
facility.

 The TODs for M/S Milk Bar, M/S Blue Pearl and M/S J&K
Electricals were allegedly prepared and dispatched, but the
concerned Zonal Officer vide Communication dated
16.07.2021, denied receipt of any such proposals. Yet, the
petitioner proceeded to sanction the facilities.

28. It is being also stated in the supplementary affidavit that the petitioner

failed to follow basic diligence, extended facilities without requisite approvals and

bypassed necessary internal procedures, thereby breached the trust reposed in him

and that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural

justice and the petitioner were afforded full opportunity to defend himself.
14 WP(C) No. 2887/2022 2025:JKLHC-SGR:193

29. As regards the petitioner’s reference to the recovery efforts made in

certain Accounts post his transfer by him, the respondents submit that such

recoveries, though not disputed, yet the same do not negate or absolve the

petitioner’s misconduct and that the recoveries effected later cannot cure the

irregularities committed at the time of sanction.

30. The supplementary affidavit further highlights that post the

petitioner’s dismissal, additional serious irregularities came to light, which read as

follows:-

 Sanctioning of an adhoc facility of ₹40 lakhs to a borrower
despite poor track record and overdrawn status inherited from
another branch;

 Unauthorized extensions of overdrafts without formal approvals;
 Improper end-use of funds, including diversion of loan proceeds
to repay personal accounts;

 Lapses in documentation, such as absence of mortgage deeds and
registration deficiencies;

 In one case, verification of account opening was done without
obtaining a registered mortgage deed.

31. It is being further stated that the aforesaid additional instances reveal a

pattern of serious negligence, procedural breaches and unauthorized

accommodation of borrowers, reflecting adversely on the petitioner’s conduct.

The respondents also clarify that the CVC Guidelines, though adopted by the Bank

vide Board Resolution, are applicable only to the extent they are consistent with

the RBI’s Master directions and the Bank’s internal policy and, as such,

the petitioner’s reliance on these guidelines is misplaced.

32. In the conclusion, the Bank submits that the disciplinary proceedings

were fair, the punishment imposed was proportionate to the misconduct established

and that the petitioner has approached the Court with unclean hands while
15 WP(C) No. 2887/2022 2025:JKLHC-SGR:193

concealing material facts and would, as such, pray that the petitioner’s rejoinder be

discarded and the writ petition be dismissed with costs.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

33. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the enquiries conducted by the

Enquiry Officers insofar the merits of the allegations are concerned, however, can

delve into the manner, in which the enquiries are conducted in order to ascertain as

to whether, as alleged by the petitioner, enquiries have been conducted in an

arbitrary manner or not.

34. Before entering into aforesaid issue, it would be appropriate to

examine the relevant rules relied upon by the parties.

Rule 337(c) of the OSM 2000 reads as follows:-

“No employee shall, in the performance of his official duties or
in the exercise of power, conferred on him, act otherwise than
in his best judgment except when he is acting under the
direction of his official superior; and shall where he is acting
under such direction, obtain the direction in writing wherever
practicable and where it is not practicable to obtain the
direction in writing he shall obtain written confirmation of the
direction as soon thereafter as possible.”

From the reading of the aforesaid Rule, it is clear that an employee is

expected to discharge his duties and exercise the powers vested in him by applying

his own independent judgment, except in cases where he acts under the directions

of his official superior, in which cases, he is required to obtain the directions in

writing, wherever practicable, and if not immediately possible, to obtain written

confirmation of such directions at the earliest opportunity.

35. In the present case, the petitioner has specifically pleaded that a

number of TODs, five in particular, were sanctioned under the verbal instructions

of the then Vice President (Central Kashmir), who had previously approved earlier

TODs in the same Accounts and he has further claimed that some of the
16 WP(C) No. 2887/2022 2025:JKLHC-SGR:193

subsequent TODs remained pending, which were neither sanctioned nor rejected

and, thus, attracted para-21 of the CVC Guidelines, which provide for deemed

sanction in such situations.

While the Bank has sought to argue that para-21 of the CVC

Guidelines (supra) does not apply to it, however, it has placed no material on

record to substantiate the said assertion, so much so, no Board Resolution

excluding the applicability of para-21 has also been filed, whereas, on the contrary,

the petitioner has placed on record a copy of the Bank’s own vigilance manual,

which records that the Board of Directors in its Meeting dated 15.05.2019,

reiterated adoption of the CVC Guidelines in the interest of transparency and

improved vigilance, which also records that while preparing the manual,

inconsistencies between the RBI’s directions for Private Sector Banks and the

CVC Guidelines for Public Sector Banks were harmonized and necessary changes

incorporated. Thus, in the absence of any cogent material to the contrary, this

Court is inclined to accept the petitioner’s plea that the CVC Guidelines to the

extent not inconsistent with the RBI directions were applicable to the Bank.

More significantly, the Enquiry Officer, while rejecting the petitioner’s plea that

TODs were sanctioned on superior instructions, did not summon or examine the

said superior officer/Vice President before drawing adverse inferences.

Once the petitioner had made a clear and specific allegation that the facilities were

extended on verbal instructions of the superior officer, the burden was on the

Enquiry Officer to summon such officer and offer the petitioner an opportunity to

cross-examine him, which, however, was not done. Further, the record does not

tend to show any effort made to verify whether the earlier TODs in the same

Accounts had, indeed, been sanctioned under the same superior officer’s direction
17 WP(C) No. 2887/2022 2025:JKLHC-SGR:193

or not. This failure on the part of the Enquiry Officer amounts to denial of

reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and offends the principle of

Audi Alteram Partem.

36. As regards another set of TODs, the petitioner claimed that the

proposals for post-facto sanction were sent to the Zonal Office (ZOK Central) on

11.09.2019, but no response was received in this regard. The Enquiry Officer, to

ascertain this plea, addressed an e-mail to the said Zonal Office and received a

reply from one-Azad Ahmad Banday (Senior Executive, Advances Department),

denying receipt of such proposals. The petitioner thereafter requested to cross-

examine Mr. Banday, but the request was rejected on the ground that the

Communication had been made in an official capacity and not in personal capacity.

This reasoning, in the considered view of this Court, is wholly unsustainable, as

the right to cross-examine a person, who provides adverse material against the

charged official, is a foundational element of principles of natural justice. Whether

a statement is made official or personally is immaterial, what matters is its

evidentiary impact. By denying the petitioner any opportunity to test Mr. Banday’s

version, the Enquiry Officer has failed to comply with basic procedural fairness,

rendering the enquiry faulty.

37. Furthermore, the petitioner has placed on record a contemporaneous e-

mail dated 11.09.2019, issued by the Senior Executive (Advances), directing all

branches to furnish a list of TODs sanctioned beyond delegated authority, which

had not been confirmed. The e-mail specifically sought this information

“latest by 5.00 PM today” and indicated that the matter was urgent. It has not been

denied by the respondents in their supplementary affidavit that the petitioner, on

the same date, responded to this e-mail with details of 20 TODs, out of which 14
18 WP(C) No. 2887/2022 2025:JKLHC-SGR:193

were later sanctioned, while 6 remained pending. This contradicts the respondents’

stand that no proposal was received and even the enquiry report does not record

any discussion on these sanctioned 14 TODs, thus, suggesting material irregularity

in the holding of the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer.

38. Perusal of the record also reveals that the Presenting Officer during

the hearing before the Enquiry Officer held on 07.08.2021, submitted that the e-

mail sent on 11.09.2019 was merely for information-gathering and not for approval

of the facilities. However, the wording of the e-mail and the pattern of approvals

issued thereafter suggest otherwise. The very fact that 14 of the TODs were

subsequently approved indicates that such Communications formed part of the

informal post-facto sanction mechanism. Moreover, the request to furnish details of

TODs beyond delegated powers clearly implies that such practices were common

and not unique to the petitioner. Significantly, the Bank has failed to place on

record any instance, where other similarly placed officers, who followed the same

practice of submitting such TODs for approval, were subjected to a disciplinary

action. No evidence has been led to show that such conduct, in comparable

circumstances, was treated as misconduct. Thus, under these circumstances, it is

manifest that the petitioner appears to have been singled out, without any rational

basis, for what appears to have been an institutional practice.

39. It is pertinent to mention here that in order to show his bona fide, the

petitioner had volunteered to assist in recovery of the outstanding TODs/ODs and

his efforts had led to partial recoveries and he during his tenure and even post his

transfer from Barzulla Branch, on the question of recoveries, made significant

efforts to ensure liquidation of overdues and as a result of his continued

persuasion, recoveries amounting to ₹42.59 lakhs in 13 potential NPA TOD
19 WP(C) No. 2887/2022 2025:JKLHC-SGR:193

Accounts and ₹29.61 lakhs in 8 NPA Accounts were made. The said facts are

borne out from an internal Communication dated 01.02.2021 addressed by the then

Branch Head of Barzulla to the Recovery Division, Zonal Office Kashmir.

The said recoveries were not only ignored by the Enquiry Officer, but were also

not considered as mitigating circumstances by the disciplinary authority. The said

recoveries made in several Accounts post transfer of the petitioner lend weight to

the petitioner’s contention that the facilities were not fraudulent or mala fide.

40. It is significant to note here that the petitioner has spent close to three

decades in service of the Bank and during this long tenure, there is nothing on

record to suggest that his conduct was ever found wanting or that his professional

integrity had been doubted. In fact, as specifically pleaded by the petitioner and

notably not denied by the respondents, he was instrumental in bringing significant

business to the Bank and though it is, of course, open to the Bank to ensure that its

officers act within their delegated authority and comply with internal processes, but

discipline must be tempered with fairness and an isolated departure from

procedure, especially in an environment, where certain practices were informally

accepted ought not to result in the severest punishment available. What is also

manifest from the record is that the petitioner’s conduct was neither dishonest nor

motivated by any personal gain and on the contrary, the petitioner’s requests for

post-facto approvals, recoveries made in the Accounts and the absence of any

allegation of pecuniary benefit point to a case of administrative misjudgment rather

than a serious misconduct or least a misconduct.

41. This Court is mindful of the fact, as also the position of law that

punishment in disciplinary matters must be proportionate to the gravity of the

charge and the surrounding circumstances, however, in the petitioner’s case, given
20 WP(C) No. 2887/2022 2025:JKLHC-SGR:193

the background of service, the nature of lapses and the manner in which the

enquiry was conducted, the extreme penalty of dismissal from service, particularly,

after retirement, seemingly, is excessive and disproportionate, more so, qua the

forfeiture of pension, which in law, is a right earned by an employee for past

services rendered and cannot be withheld or forfeited except in accordance with

law and under valid rules. However, in the present case, the denial of such benefits

flowed from the penalty of dismissal owing its origin to an unfair and flawed

enquiry, which has been found to be bad in law. The Bank appears to have

prejudged the matter and the enquiry seems to have been conducted more in the

nature of a ritualistic compliance than a genuine fact-finding exercise, thus,

rendering the enquiry proceedings vulnerable to judicial interference.

42. What further tilts the balance in favour of the petitioner is the way the

post-enquiry proceedings unfolded, as after receiving the dismissal order, the

petitioner made a request for certain basic information, such as the current status of

the TODs in question and copies of documents relevant to his defence for the

purpose of filing an appeal, which, however, came to be denied to him by the Bank

on the ground that the documents were “privileged”. Such denial, in the context of

a retired officer, seeking to challenge his dismissal was neither fair nor justified

and only compounded the procedural unfairness already evident in the enquiry

proceedings. Thus, this Court finds it difficult to accept that the petitioner deserved

to be visited with the harshest possible consequence for what appears to be an error

in administrative judgment rather than a willful or reckless act. All of this assumes

even greater significance when seen in light of the petitioner’s long-standing

service, the recoveries he facilitated in the disputed Accounts and the absence of

any allegation or mala fide intent or dishonest gain.

21 WP(C) No. 2887/2022 2025:JKLHC-SGR:193

43. Taking a holistic view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that

the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is not commensurate with the nature

of the alleged lapses and the decision to dismiss the petitioner, particularly, with

retrospective effect after his retirement appears not only excessive, but also

inequitable, especially in the absence of a fair opportunity to present a full and

effective defence. Given that the penalty of dismissal is found to be legally

unsustainable and the proceedings vitiated by procedural lapses, the forfeiture of

pension and other retiral benefits cannot be justified.

44. For what has been observed, considered and analyzed hereinabove,

the instant petition succeeds, as a consequence whereof, the impugned order dated

01.04.2022 passed by the respondent-Bank is quashed and the respondents are

commanded to release all the pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner,

preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this

order is produced by him before the respondents. In the event of failure, the

respondents shall be liable to pay interest @ 8% to the petitioner on the said

pensionary/retiral benefits from the date the same became due to the petitioner till

the date of actual payment.

45. Disposed of alongwith connected application(s).

46. No order to as costs.

(Javed Iqbal Wani)
Judge
Jammu
24.07.2025
Ram Krishan

Whether the judgment is speaking? Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable? Yes