Patna High Court
Rakesh Roshan Gupta vs The Chairman-Cum- Managing Director, … on 4 March, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.283 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1323 of 2020
======================================================
Rakesh Roshan Gupta Son of Raghunath Prasad Gupta, Resident of Flat No.
305, C/o- Satyam Apartment, Montessori School Lane, Boring Road, P.S.-
S.K. Puri, District- Patna
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The Chairman-cum- Managing Director, State Bank of India Nariman Point,
Mumbai.
2. The Appellate Authority-cum-Chief General Manager, State Bank of India,
Local Head Office (LHO), West Gandhi Maidan, Patna.
3. The Appointing Authority -cum- General Manager, State Bank of Indian,
Local Head Officer, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna.
4. The Deputy General Manager (Business and Operation), State Bank of
India, Zonal Office, Kala Bhawan Road, Purnea.
5. The Assistant General Manager (Domestic Enquiry), State Bank of India,
Local Head Office, Patna.
6. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Siwan.
7. The Manager (Vigilance), State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Patna.
8. Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Son of Ravindra Prasad, Resident of Mohalla- Jai
Prakash Nagar, Purnea College Chowk, P.S.and District- Purnea, Erstwhile
Branch Manager, Agwanpur Branch, Saharsa, at present posted as Manager,
Personal Banking Branch, Near Dr. I.D. Singh Clinic, New Colony, Naya
Bazar, Saharsa, Pin Code- 852201, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Sanket, Advocate
Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY)
Date : 04-03-2025
1. The appellant has filed the instant appeal against
Patna High Court L.P.A No.283 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
2/22
the judgment dated 23.2.2024 passed in CWJC no.1323 of 2020,
whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the
writ application. The appellant had filed the writ application
praying for quashing the order of punishment dated 7.6.2019,
whereby the punishment of reduction to the post of Award Staff
fixing the basic pay as Rs.21,240/- per month was imposed on
the appellant with a further order that the period of suspension
would be treated not on-duty. The appellant had also prayed for
quashing the appellate order dated 20.11.2019.
2. The relevant facts in brief are that while the
appellant was posted as the Assistant Branch Manager in the
Munger Branch of the State Bank of India, an F.I.R. being
Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case no.341 of 2013 was registered against
him on 9.7.2013 for offence under sections 406 and 420 of the
Indian Penal Code. On investigation final form was submitted
and the same was accepted by the learned Court below on
24.2.2016
. With the acceptance of the final form, the criminal
case stood closed. The petitioner was proceeded against in a
disciplinary proceeding in terms of Rule 68(1) of the State
Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992 (‘the Rules of
1992’ in short) on the following charges :-
“(i) On 15.03.2013, you
unauthorisedly posted and passed a voucher for
Patna High Court L.P.A No.283 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
3/22
Rs.50,000/- for debit to S.B. Account no.
11859364685 of Shri Parmeshwari Thakur and
credited the proceeds to your own S.B. Account
no. 10789017933, maintained at Munger
Branch. Later on, you have restored the amount
of Rs.50,000/- to the above mentioned S.B.
Account of Shri Parmeshwari Thakur on
25.3.2013 from your O.D. Account no.
10788905146 maintained at Munger Branch.
(ii) On 13.03.2013, you have opened a
S.B. Account no. 32880557595 in your own
name under the segment “Personal Public-
Others” and under a new CIF no. 86653881021,
without obtaining permission from competent
authority. In this account, you have concealed
your SBI identity, local address and PAN no.
against extant instructions of the Bank.
(iii) You were on unauthorised absence
from duty from 10.05.2013 to 05.06.2013.”
3. The departmental proceeding started and the
Enquiry Officer submitted an enquiry report dated 6.5.2014, the
summary of the report being that the allegation no. 1 was not
proved while allegation nos. 2 and 3 were found to be proved.
The charges having been partly proved, the disciplinary
authority along with the letter dated 12.5.2014 served a copy of
the enquiry report on the appellant observing that they did not
Patna High Court L.P.A No.283 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
4/22
agree with the findings of the enquiring authority with respect to
the allegation no.1. Observing that the disciplinary
authority/appointing authority will take the final decision after
examining the enquiry report, the appellant was given liberty to
file his representation within a period seven days. The appellant
submitted his reply on which the appointing authority by order
contained in letter dated 6.2.2015 imposed the penalty of
dismissal on the appellant.
4. The order of dismissal was challenged by the
appellant in this Court in CWJC no. 4163 of 2015 which was
withdrawn by order dated 19.3.2015. A review application being
Civil Review no. 106 of 2015 preferred by the State Bank of
India against the order dated 19.3.2015 passed in the writ
application was dismissed imposing a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on
the Bank.
5. The appellant preferred a statutory appeal which
was rejected by the appellate authority on 18.9.2015. The
appellant challenged the order of the appellate authority in
CWJC no. 19743 of 2015 which was allowed by order dated
23.4.2018. The learned Single Judge was pleased to set aside the
order of both the disciplinary authority as also the appellate
authority and further directed for reinstatement of the appellant
Patna High Court L.P.A No.283 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
5/22
with all consequential benefits, however, observing that it would
be open for the authorities to proceed in the matter expeditiously
from the stage of the second show-cause notice.
6. On the appellant having filed a representation dated
4.5.2018, the Bank ordered for reinstatement of the appellant on
17.7.2018. A second show-cause notice was served by the Bank
on the appellant to which he filed his reply. The appellant
received a communication dated 21.2.2019 from the appointing
authority mentioning therein the reason for the disagreement
with the findings of the enquiring authority and the disciplinary
authority in respect of allegation no.1 contained in the
charge-sheet. The appellant submitted his reply on 12.3.2019.
The appellant thereafter received a letter dated 1.6.2019 from
the appointing authority intimating him that after having
considered the records of the enquiry, it was proposed to impose
the major penalty of removal from the Bank on the appellant
and as such he was given liberty to appear in the office of the
appointing authority and to make submissions as to why the
proposed penalty be not imposed on him. The appellant filed his
reply on 6.6.2019 whereafter, the respondent authorities came
out with an order contained in letter dated 7.6.2019 imposing
the penalty of “Reduction to the post of Award Staff and fixing
Patna High Court L.P.A No.283 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
6/22
of basic pay at Rs.21,240/- p.m.” in terms of Rule 67(g) and
67(f) of the Rules of 1992 and further that the period of
suspension was to be treated as not on duty. The appeal
preferred by the appellant was rejected by the appellate
authority by order dated 21.11.2019.
7. The appellant challenged both the order of
punishment dated 7.6.2019 passed by the appointing authority
as also the order rejecting the appeal dated 20.11.2019 by the
appellate authority by filing CWJC no. 1323 of 2020. The same
having been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, the instant
appeal has been preferred.
8. It was submitted by Sri Mrigank Mauli, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the learned
Single Judge has not appreciated the allegations and the
explanation furnished by the appellant. As per the enquiry
report, the allegation no. 1 which related to the appellant’s
unauthorisedly passing a voucher for Rs.50,000/- for debit of
the amount of Shri Parmeshwari Thakur on 15.3.2013 and
crediting the same in his account on 25.3.2013 is concerned, the
same was not proved. The orders of appointing authority as also
the appellate authority were non speaking and they had not
considered the defence of the appellant nor the statement of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.283 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
7/22
Parmeshwari Thakur made before the Judicial Magistrate. It was
submitted that no witness had been produced by the Department
for proving the charges against the appellant and the same was
in teeth of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Learned Senior counsel in support of his contentions relied on
the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank [(2009) 2 SCC
570], Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) & Ors.
vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava [(2021) 2 SCC 612] and
Satyendra Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [2024
SCC Online SC 3325].
9. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant
further submitted that pursuant to order dated 23.4.2018 passed
in CWJC no.19743 of 2015, whereby having quashed the orders
impugned, while directing for reinstatement of the appellant
with all consequential benefits, liberty was granted to the
authorities to proceed in the matter from the stage of second
show-cause. Though a notice was given by the disciplinary
authority, the matter was referred to the appointing authority
who by letter dated 21.2.2019 issued a show-cause notice to the
appellant differing with the enquiry report and on receipt of the
appellant’s reply proceeded to pass the order of punishment on
Patna High Court L.P.A No.283 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
8/22
7.6.2019 which was against Rule 68.3(iii) of the Rules of 1992.
It was submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge is not
sustainable, the same be set aside and the instant appeal be
allowed.
10. In response, Sri Sanjiv Kumar, learned Counsel
appearing for the State Bank of India submitted that in the
enquiry conducted, charge no.1 of the three charges was not
proved while the other charges were proved. The
disciplinary/appointing authority differing with the findings of
the Enquiry Officer held charge no.1 also to have been proved
and imposed the punishment of dismissal on the appellant. The
appeal preferred by the appellant was also rejected. It was
submitted by learned counsel for the Bank that though the order
of punishment was set aside in the writ application (CWJC no.
19743 of 2015) preferred by the appellant, however, liberty was
granted to the disciplinary authority to proceed from the stage of
second show-cause notice. Accordingly, the appellant was
served with a second show-cause notice dated 15.9.2018 to
which the appellant filed his reply. Thereafter, the appointing
authority served the appellant with another notice contained in
letter dated 1.6.2019, stating therein that it was proposed to
impose major penalty of ‘removal from the Bank’ and thus the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.283 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
9/22
appellant was called upon to appear for personal hearing and to
make submissions as to why the proposed penalty be not
imposed. The appellant filed his reply and the appointing
authority after considering the same passed a speaking order
imposing the penalty of ‘reduction to the post of Award Staff
and fixing of basic pay at Rs. 21,240 p.m.’ and further that the
period of suspension will not be treated to be on-duty. The
appellant preferred an appeal against the said order of
punishment which was rejected on 20.11.2019.
11. Learned counsel for the Bank further submitted
that the appointing authority issued reasons for differing with
the findings of the inquiring authority with respect to the charge
no. 1. The power of judicial review on the Constitutional Courts
is not that of an appellate authority, but is confined to the
decision making process. The Court is not expected to
reappreciate the evidence or to go into adequacy thereof. Further
submission made was to the effect that acquittal of the charged
officer in the criminal proceeding did not preclude a
departmental enquiry on the charges of misconduct as object of
both the proceedings were different. Besides the appellant
having opposed calling of the customer as prosecution witness,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the customer of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.283 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
10/22
Bank need not be involved in a domestic enquiry. It was
submitted that the question was not as to whether there was
mandate of the customer or not, but the question was that the
appellant had no authority to use double entry voucher while
withdrawing the money of a customer. It was finally submitted
that if the disciplinary authority accepts the findings of the
inquiring authority, no detailed reason is required to be
recorded.
12. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for
the Bank relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Karnataka Power Transmission
Corporation Limited vs. C. Nagaraju & Anr. [(2019) 10 SCC
367], State of Karnataka & Anr. vs. Umesh [(2022) 6 SCC
563], State Bank of India vs. Tarun Kumar Banerjee & Ors.
[(2000) 8 SCC 12], General Manager (P), Punjab & Sind
Bank & Ors. vs. Daya Singh [(2010) 11 SCC 233], State
Bank of India & Ors. vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey [(2013) 2
SCC 740], State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Ramesh Dinkar
Punde [(2006) 7 SCC 212], Suresh Pathrella vs. Oriental
Bank of Commerce [(2006) 10 SCC 572], Boloram Bordoloi
vs. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank & Ors. [(2021) 3 SCC 806] and
S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India [(1990) 4 SCC 594].
Patna High Court L.P.A No.283 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
11/22
13. Heard learned Senior counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the respondent-State Bank of India.
14. The appellant who was posted as the Assistant
Branch Manager in the State Bank of India was proceeded
against departmentally under the Rules of 1992 on three charges
as stated herein above. The charges were that on 15.3.2013, he
had unauthorisedly posted and passed a voucher of Rs. 50,000/-
for debit of the savings bank account of Shri Parmeshwari
Thakur, credited the proceeds to his own account and later
restored the amount to the account of Shri Parmeshwari Thakur.
The second charge was that on 13.3.2013, he opened a savings
bank account in his name under the segment “Personal Public-
Others” without obtaining permission from the competent
authority and concealing his SBI identity. The third charge was
that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty from 10.5.2013 to
5.6.2013.
15. The enquiry report submitted on 6.5.2014 found
charge no.1 to be not proved while charge nos. 2 and 3 were
found to be proved. It may be mentioned here itself that perusal
of the enquiry report (Annexure-12) shows that the Presenting
Officer presented seven prosecution documents and named one
witness. The sole witness named was also not produced before
Patna High Court L.P.A No.283 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
12/22
the Enquiry Officer.
16. The defence of the appellant with respect to
charge no. 1 was that from DEx-5 it was clear that savings bank
account of Shri Parmeshwari Thakur had been debited on the
basis of the instructions given by him. The enquiring authority
taking into consideration the double entry vouchers, with
respect to the transactions both of which contained the debit
confirmation of the account holder came to the conclusion that
they could not be considered as unauthorised transactions and
thus the said charge was not proved.
17. So far as charge no. 2 is concerned with respect to
opening of a savings bank account by the appellant in the
segment “Personal Public-Others” without obtaining permission
from the competent authority and concealing his SBI identity is
concerned, it was the case of the appellant that there was no
circular or rule for taking prior permission from the competent
authority and he had not concealed his identity of being an SBI
employee in opening of the account. The said account was
closed without any transaction. However, the enquiring
authority taking into consideration PEx-3 which was the account
opening form, without the said document having been exhibited
or proved proceeded to place reliance on the same and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.283 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
13/22
concluded that the allegation was found to be proved.
18. In case of charge no.3, it was the defence of the
appellant that leave had been duly sanctioned to him from
1.5.2013 to 9.5.2013 for the marriage of his sister, extension of
which was sought further till 25.5.2013. The same was followed
by the illness of his aunt on 25.5.2013 and leading to her death
on 30.5.2013 for which further extension was sought, however
the same was rejected. Soon after communication of the
rejection, he joined. The Enquiry Officer proceeded to hold the
charge to be proved on the basis of the prayer for extension of
leave having been rejected and placing reliance on the
attendance register (PEx-6), which was once again neither
exhibited nor proved, no witness having been examined.
19. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop
Singh Negi (supra), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had
taken note of the fact that no witness was examined to prove the
documents and the management witnesses had merely tendered
the documents without proving the contents thereof and thus,
the same cannot be treated as evidence. It was held as follows :-
“14. Indisputably, a departmental
proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The
enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.283 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
14/22The charges levelled against the delinquent officer
must be found to have been proved. The enquiry
officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking
into consideration the materials brought on record
by the parties. The purported evidence collected
during investigation by the investigating officer
against all the accused by itself could not be treated
to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No
witness was examined to prove the said documents.
The management witnesses merely tendered the
documents and did not prove the contents thereof.
Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry
officer on the FIR which could not have been treated
as evidence.”
(emphasis supplied)
20. Following the judgment in the case of Roop Singh
Negi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Satyendra Singh (supra) held that even in an ex parte enquiry
it is sine quo non to record the evidence of the witnesses for
proving the charges. It was held as follows :-
“17. Thus, even in an ex-parte inquiry, it
is sine qua non to record the evidence of the
witnesses for proving the charges. Having tested the
facts of the case at hand on the touchstone of the
Rules of 1999, and the law as expounded by this
Court in the cases of Roop Singh Negi and and
Nirmala J. Jhala, we are of the firm view that the
inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant
pertaining to charges punishable with major penalty,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.283 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
15/22were totally vitiated and non-est in the eyes of law
since no oral evidence whatsoever was recorded by
the department in support of the charges”
(emphasis supplied)
21. It may be observed here that so far as the criminal
case is concerned, on investigation having been conducted in
connection with the F.I.R. registered, final form was submitted
in the learned Court below on 30.9.2013 and having gone
through the contents of the material that had transpired in course
of investigation, the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-IV, Saharsa was pleased to accept the same by his
order dated 25.2.2016.
22. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant has further submitted that notice contained in letter
dated 21.2.2019 was issued to the appellant by the appointing
authority differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer with
respect to charge no.1. On a detailed reply having been filed by
the appellant, the appointing authority proceeded to pass the
order of punishment dated 7.6.2019. Both the letter dated
21.2.2019 and the order dated 7.6.2019 are contended to be in
violation of Rule 68.3(iii) of the Rules of 1992, relevant part of
which is quoted herein below :-
“68. 3 (i) ……… ………… ………… ……
(ii) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it
Patna High Court L.P.A No.283 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
16/22disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority
on any article of charge, record its reasons for such
disagreement and record its record is sufficient for
the purpose.
(iii) If the Disciplinary Authority, having
regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of
charge, is of the opinion that any of the penalties
specified in rule 67 should be imposed on the officer,
it shall, not-withstanding anything contained in sub-
rule (4), make an order imposing such penalty.
Provided that where the Disciplinary
Authority is of the opinion that the penalty to be
imposed is any of the penalties specified in clauses
(e), (f), (g), (h), (i) & (j) of rule 67 and if it is lower
in rank to the Appointing Authority in respect of the
category of officers to which the officer belongs, it
shall submit to the Appointing Authority its
recommendations regarding the penalty that may be
imposed. Records of the enquiry specified in Clause
(xxi) (b) of sub rule (2), shall also be submitted to
the Appointing Authority in respect of penalties to be
imposed under clauses (f), (g), (h), (i) & (j) of rule
67. The Appointing Authority shall make an order
imposing such penalty as it consider in its opinion
appropriate.”
23. The Rules thus clearly stipulate that in case the
disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the
enquiring authority on any article of charge, it is to record its
reason for such disagreement and proceed to impose penalty.
Only when the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.283 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
17/22
penalty to be imposed is any of the penalties specified in clauses
(e) to (j) of Rule 67 and it is lower in rank to the appointing
authority in respect of the category of officers to which the
officer belongs that it shall submit its recommendation
regarding the penalty that may be imposed to the appointing
authority and the appointing authority shall make an order
imposing such penalty as it considers in its opinion appropriate.
In view of the clear stipulation in Rule 68.3, quoted above, it
was for the disciplinary authority to record its opinion with
respect to its disagreement with the findings of the enquiring
authority and not refer the matter to the appointing authority as
has been done in the instant case. The Court finds substance in
the submissions made on behalf of the appellant.
24. Coming to the judgments relied upon by learned
counsel for the respondent-Bank, the judgments in the case of
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited
(supra) and State of Karnataka & Anr. vs. Umesh (supra)
have been cited in support of the contention that rules of
evidence which are applied to criminal cases are distinct from
that governing disciplinary enquiry and thus acquittal of the
charged officer in the criminal proceeding does not preclude a
departmental inquiry on charges of misconduct as object of both
Patna High Court L.P.A No.283 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
18/22
the proceedings are different. There can be no dispute with
respect to the proposition of law and as such the appellant was
proceeded against in the departmental proceeding.
25. The next judgment in the case of State Bank of
India vs. Tarun Kumar Banerjee (supra) has been relied upon
to submit that a customer of the Bank need not be involved in a
domestic enquiry as the same would not be conducive to
banker-customer relationship and would not be in the interest of
the Bank. It may be observed here that in the instant case,
though the customer namely Shri Parmeshwari Thakur may not
have been involved in the proceedings conducted against the
appellant, however, this would not absolve the Bank of proving
the charges levelled against the appellant by leading oral
evidence and proving the documents/exhibits being relied upon
by the prosecution as also proving the contents thereof.
26. Two judgments have been relied upon by learned
counsel for the Bank to submit that it is not necessary that in
every case there should be oral evidence. So far as the case of
General Manager (P), Punjab & Sind Bank (supra) is
concerned, the facts of the case were distinct insofar as in the
said case during enquiry the relevant documents in support of
the charges were not only exhibited, but were proved by the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.283 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
19/22
cashier of the Bank one Mr. K.P. Singh in his deposition during
the departmental enquiry. In the said case the relevant
documents including the ledger entries were produced through
the witnesses concerned and thus the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that in the circumstances, the conclusions arrived at by the
Enquiry Officer could not have been held as being without any
evidence in support. So far as the second judgment in the case
of State Bank of India vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey (supra)
is concerned, the facts of the case were different from the
present case. The enquiring authority therein permitted the
charged officer to inspect the record, however, the charged
officer walked out of the enquiry and was later contending that
the enquiring authority should not have relied upon the
documents which were not made available or disclosed to him.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even in an ex parte
enquiry, some evidence is necessary to establish the charges.
Further, when the charged officer denies the charges,
uncontroverted documentary evidence in such situation is
sufficient to prove the charges. It was further held that in some
cases prove may only be documentary and in come cases oral
and the requirement of proof would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.283 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
20/22
27. Learned counsel for the Bank has further relied on
the judgments are in the case of State Bank of India vs.
Ramesh Dinkar Punde (supra) and Suresh Pathrella vs.
Oriental Bank of Commerce (supra) to submit that good
conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of
every employee of the Bank. There can never be two views of
the matter.
28. Learned counsel for the Bank has further relied on
the judgment in the case of Boloram Bordoloi (supra) to
submit that in case the disciplinary enquiry accepts the finding
of the enquiring authority, no detailed reason is required to be
recorded in the order imposing punishment. Further reliance has
been placed on the judgment in the case of S.N. Mukherjee
(supra) to submit that if the appellate or revisional authority
affirms the order of punishment, they need not give separate
reasons. Accepting the same, what is also required is that all the
points raised by the applicant be dealt with by the
appellate/revisional authority.
29. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for
the appellant, in the opinion of the Court are of no assistance to
the appellant in the facts of the instant case. As held in the
judgments referred to herein above, though strict rules of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.283 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
21/22
evidence do not apply to a departmental proceeding,
nevertheless, the charges levelled are required to be proved by
leading evidence. Depending on the facts of the case, the
prosecution is required to prove the charges levelled with the
support of documentary evidence together with oral evidence
being led to mark the document as an exhibit, to prove the same
as also the contents thereof.
30. So far as the facts of the instant case are
concerned, a perusal of the enquiry report would show that
besides not finding that charge no.1 was not proved, so far as
charge nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the enquiring authority has
proceeded to accept the documents which found mention in the
charge-sheet and proceeded to give the finding that the same
were proved. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra)
followed in the case of Satyendra Singh (supra), no oral
evidence having been led, it was a case of no evidence and thus,
the consequential order of punishment cannot be sustained.
31. The appellate authority also erred in not
considering the points raised by the appellant in the appeal filed
and dealt with herein above and having rejected the appeal.
32. For the reasons stated herein above, in the opinion
Patna High Court L.P.A No.283 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
22/22
of the Court, the order of punishment as also the order of the
appellate authority cannot be sustained and are both hereby set
aside.
33. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,
the order of the learned Single Judge also cannot be sustained
and is set aside.
34. The appeal is allowed with all consequential
benefits with effect from the date of his first dismissal (ie
6.2.2015) which shall be paid to the appellant within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ: I agree.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
avinash/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE 29.01.2025 Uploading Date 04.03.2025 Transmission Date