Satish Kumar v. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank and Others

o o ooooooINoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAo AToCHANDIGARHo o CWP-25263-2025o Reservedoono:o01.09.2025o Pronouncedoono:o04.09.2025o o SATISHoKUMARo ...PETITIONERo o o o o V/So o SARVAoHARYANAoGRAMINoBANKoANDoOTHERSo o o ...RESPONDENTSo o CORAM:oooHON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoHARPREEToSINGHoBRARo Present:o Mr.oParthoGoyal,oAdvocateoforotheopetitioner.o o o Mr.oSauravoVerma,oAdvocateowitho o o Ms.oPreetioGrover,oAdvocateoforoo o o respondentoNos.1,o2,o4oando5.o o o o o ****o HARPREEToSINGHoBRAR,oJ.o(ORAL)o

1.o o TheopresentocivilowritopetitionoisopreferredounderoArticleo226/227o ofo theo Constitutiono ofo Indiao seekingo issuanceo ofo ao writo ino theo natureo ofo certiorario foro quashingo theo impugnedo charge-sheeto datedo 26.05.2025o (AnnexureoP-24)oasowelloasoimpugnedoorderodatedo30.05.2025o(AnnexureoP-27)owherebyodisciplinaryoproceedingsoagainstotheopetitionerowereoorderedotoobeo continuedobeyondotheodateoofohisosuperannuationoandohisoretiralobenefitsowereo withheldotilloitsocompletion.oo FACTUALoBACKGROUNDo

2.o o Briefly,o theo factso areo thato theo petitionero joinedo theo Gurgaono GraminoBankoasoaoClerkoono03.07.1989.oSubsequently,oheoclearedotheorequisiteo examinationoandojoinedoasoaoFieldoSupervisoro(OfficeroGrade)oono27.08.1989o followedo byo Manager/Officero Sale-Io ono 27.11.1989.o Ono 29.11.2013,o theo GurgaonoGraminoBankoandoHaryanaoGraminoBankomergedowithorespondento No.1-SarvoHaryanaoGraminoBank.oTheopetitionerowasopostedoasoChiefoManagero inoKurukshetraofromoOctober,o2018otooMay,o2020opriorotoobeingopromotedoaso o o CWP-25263-2025o 2o o o AssistantoGeneraloManageroScale-VoinoApril,o2022.oHeowasodueotooretireoono

31.05.2025,ohowever,oaocharge-sheetodatedo26.05.2025o(AnnexureoP-24)owaso issuedotoohim,owhichoheoreceivedothroughoregisteredopostoono02.06.2025oando

03.06.2025.oVideoletterodatedo30.05.2025o(AnnexureoP-26),otheopetitionerowaso advisedotoosubmitohisoreplyobyo16.06.2025.oo

3.o o Furtherostill,otheopetitioneroceasedotoobeoinoserviceofromotheodateoofo hisosuperannuationoi.e.o31.05.2025obutotheodisciplinaryoproceedingsoinitiatedo againstohimowereoorderedotoocontinueovideoimpugnedoorderodatedo30.05.2025o (Annexureo P-27)o passedo respondento No.2-o Disciplinaryo Authorityo i.e.o theo Chairmano ofo theo respondent-Bank.o Theo retiralo benefitso accruedo too theo petitioner,oexceptoforohisoownocontributionotootheoProvidentoFund,owereoalsoo withheldoandoitowasoclarifiedothatonoopayooroallowanceoshallobeopaidotoohimo beyondotheodateoofohisosuperannuation.oo CONTENTIONSo

4.o o Learnedocounseloforotheopetitionerointeroaliaocontendedothatotheo petitioneroretiredoono31.05.2025,ohavingoservedotheorespondent-Bankoforo35o years.oInotheomonthoofoApril,o2024oandoMay,o2024,otheopetitioneroreceivedo questionnaires/noticeso(AnnexureoP-1oandoP-3)owithotheofollowingoallegations:o

(i)o MisuseoofobankovehicleofromoDecember,o2020otooJanuary,o 2021.o o

(ii)o Transactiono ino personalo HUFo accountso fromo theo periodo January,o2020otooDecember,o2023.o o

(iii)o Lapseso ino theo loano accounto fromo theo yearo 2018o i.e.o noto ensuringotheoentryoofotheomortgageoofoaoloaneeoinotheorevenueo record.o o o CWP-25263-2025o 3o o o o o o Ono 26.05.2025o i.e.o justo fewo dayso beforeo retiremento ofo theo petitioner,o theo respondent-Banko issuedo ao charge-sheeto (Annexureo P-24)o byo combiningotwoooldoquestionnaires/noticeso(AnnexureoP-1oandoP-3),owhichoheo receivedoafterohisoretirementoi.e.oono02.06.2025.oTheopetitionerohadosubmittedo detailedo replieso (Annexureo P-2o ando P-4)o ino June,o 2024o addressingo allo theo abovementionedoallegations,owhichowereonotoconsideredobeforeoissuingocharge-o sheeto(AnnexureoP-24).o

5.o o Heofurtherosubmittedothatopreviously,otheopetitionerohadosoughto voluntaryoretirement,otheoclaimowhichowasorejectedoinoNovember,o2024oonotheo untenableogroundsoofo"pendingoinspectionoirregularities."oAsoaomatteroofofact,o theopetitionerowasonotoinformedoofotheostatusoofohisoVRSorequestotilloheosoughto theo sameo undero theo Righto too Informationo Act,o 2005.o Video emailo datedo

11.04.2025(AnnexureoP-19),oheowasoinformedothatotheorejectionoofohisorequesto foroVRSowasoforotheoreasono"actionableoirregularities"othatowasoinadvertentlyo mentionedo aso "inspectiono irregularities."o Aso such,o ito iso evidento thato theo petitionerowasomaliciouslyodeniedoVRSoononon-existingogrounds.o

6.o o Learnedo counselo furthero contendedo thato theo actionso ofo theo respondent-banko areo contraryo too itso owno policieso namelyo ofo Staffo Accountabilityo Policyo datedo 07.11.2012o (hereinaftero 'Policyo ofo 2012')o (Annexureo P-7),o whicho waso ino forceo upo too theo yearo 2021o aso wello aso itso successorso i.e.o Staffo Accountabilityo Policyo datedo 28.07.2022o (hereinaftero 'Policyo ofo 2022')o (Annexureo P-8)o ando Staffo Accountabilityo Policyo datedo

25.04.2024o(hereinaftero'Policyoofo2024')o(AnnexureoP-9),owhichocameointoo forceo w.e.f.o 15.04.2024.o Heo referredo too Clauseo 10.2(c)o ofo theo Policyo ofo o o CWP-25263-2025o 4o o o 2012(AnnexureoP-7),oavailableoatoPage-69oofotheopaperobook,otoosubmitoonceo theocommentso areo calledo foro fromotheo employeeosoughto toobeo charged,o theo competentoauthorityomustodecideouponotheosameowithino06omonthsooforeceiptoofo sucho comments.o Theo saido Clauseo alsoo clarifieso thato failureo too doo theo sameo withinotheostipulatedoperiod,onooactionowouldobeotakenoagainstosuchoemployee.o ThisoprovisionohasobeenoreiteratedoinotheoPolicyoofo2022oandoPolicyoofo2024oaso well.oSinceotheonoticeso(AnnexureoP-1oandoP-3)owereoissuedo5oyearsoando6o yearsoago,orespectively,oandocommentsowereocalledofromotheopetitioner,otheo charge-sheeto (Annexureo P-24)o oughto noto too haveo beeno issuedo aso theo respondent-Bankowasoduty-boundotooconcludeotheoprocessowithino06omonths.oo

7.o o Lastly,olearnedocounseloforotheopetitioneroreferredotooClauseo46oofo theoSarvaoHaryanaoGraminoBanko(Employees')oPensionoandoRegulations,o2018o (hereinaftero 'theo Regulationso ofo 2018').o Heo submittedo thato departmentalo proceedingo cannoto beo initiatedo againsto theo petitioneroino theopresentocaseo aso moreo thano fouro yearso haveo lapsedo sinceo theo evento quao whicho charge-sheeto (Annexureo P-24)o haso beeno filed.o Aso such,o theo acto ando conducto ofo theo respondent-BankoisoarbitraryoandocontraryotootheoRegulationsoofo2018.oRelianceo inothisoregardowasoplacedoonotheojudgmentsorenderedobyothisoCourtoinoParamjito Singhovs.oStateoofoPunjaboandoothers,o2025oNCPHHCo83397oandoVasdevo Singhovs.oStateoofoPunjaboandoothers,o2025oNCPHHCo104706.o

8.o o Ono theo othero hand,o learnedo counselo foro respondent-Banko submittedothatotheocaseoofotheopetitionerocannotobeoconsideredoinotermsoofotheo Regulationso ofo 2018o aso Clauseo 46o pertainso too recoveryo ofo pecuniaryo losso causedotootheoBankoandotheocaseoofotheopetitioneroisorequiredotoobeoconsideredo o o CWP-25263-2025o 5o o o ino theo lighto ofo Clauseo 45o ofo Sarvao Haryanao Gramino Banko (Officerso ando Employees)o Serviceo Regulations,o 2010o (hereinaftero 'Regulations,o 2010)o (AnnexureoP-29).o

9.o o Admittedly,ocharge-sheetowasoissuedoono26.05.2025oandopetitionero retiredoono31.05.2025.oAsosuch,odisciplinaryoproceedingsoinitiatedobeforeotheo superannuation,otheosameowouldocontinueoevenoafterotheoretirementoinoviewoofo Chairman-cum-Managingo Director,o Mahanadio Coalfieldso Limitedo vs.o Srio RabindranathoChoubey,o2020(2)oS.C.T.o554oasoPunjaboNationaloBankoServiceo RulesoareopariomateriaotootheoRegulationsoofo2010oofotheorespondent-bank.o Furthermore,o ito waso contendedo thato theo Clauseo 3.3o ofo theo Policyo ofo 2024o (AnnexureoP-9),oavailableoatopageoNo.103oofotheopaperobook,oasowelloasoClauseo

10.2(d)oofotheoPolicyoofo2012(AnnexureoP-7),ojustifiesotheoactionotakenobyotheo respondent-Banko aso chargeso againsto theo petitionero revolveo aroundo theo allegationoofofraudoandomalaofide.o OBSERVATIONSoANDoANALYSISo

10.o o Havingoheardolearnedocounseloforotheopartiesoandoafteroperusingo theo recordo ofo theo case,o thiso Courto iso ofo theo consideredo opiniono thato theo followingoprovisionsooughtotoobeostudiedoforojustoadjudicationoofotheocase:o Policyoofo2012oo "10.2(c)oBasedoonoIRs/specialoreports/complaintsoonceocommentso ofoconcernedoofficialohasobeenocalledoforoandoreplies/viewsowereo submittedobyohim,otheocompetentoauthorityowillotakeoaoviewoforo droppingoorootherwise,onormallyowithinoaoperiodoofosixomonthso fromo theo date,o wheno views/commentso ofo thato officialo areo received.oIfotheocompetentoauthorityodoesonototakeoanyodecisiono withinotheostipulatedoperiod,otheoconcernedoofficialowillonotobeo o o CWP-25263-2025o 6o o o subje&tedo too staffo sideo a&tion,o ifo )a2seso areo furthero identifiedo throughoanoinvestigationore2ort.oHowever, in such cases, the HO will examine the reasons for delay and if required, will take appropriate action against the officials who are responsible for such delay. "0.2-d. Further, in case of investigation conducted subsequent to two Regular inspections after sanction/disbursement of credit facilities, no fresh "pre sanction lapses" other than those pointed out through Regular Inspection Report be considered for fixing of accountability unless there is element of fraud / malafide etc., within the following stipulations:

(i) If the fraud has been perpetrated by the borrower on the bank, the clause of two successive inspection report shall continue.

(ii) In case of malafide action or collusion of staff with the borrower or fraud is perpetrated on bank by the staff members, then the time line shall not be applicable.

(iii) If a fraud is perpetrated/committed by any staff member, stern action will be taken against such staff member in terms of this policy." .emphasisoaddedtio o T7eoPo34&5oo6o202'o

3.3o7raudo+e2ortedo8&&ounts9o

3.3.1 Reporting of fraud cases will be done as per the provisions of Fraud Risk and Investigation Management Function Policy. Investigation in frauds cases will be carried out irrespective of amount, within the following stipulations –

(i) If the fraud has been perpetrated by the borrower on the bank, the clause of four years shall continue.

(ii) In case of malaſide action or collusion of staff with the borrower or fraud is perpetrated on bank by the staff members, then the time line shall not be applicable. o o CWP-25263-2025o 8o o o

(iii) If a fraud is perpetrated/committed by any staff member, stern action will be taken against such staff member in terms of this policy.

3.3.2. In cases wherein staff accountability was examined & subsequently a fraud (Borrowal or Non2Borrowal) has been reported, after investigation/reinvestigation, the matter shall be placed before HOSAC again to peruse the reasons/ causative factors of fraud based on Forensic Audit/ Fraud Monitoring Report (FMR) or investigation report(s).

T7eoRe9%3:;4o soo6o20"0o 0#5.o (is&i2)inar,o2ro&eedingsoafteroretirement.o

(1)8nooffi&erooroem2)o,eeo1ho isounderosus2ensionoonoao&hargeo ofomis&ondu&toando1hooattainsotheoageoofosu2erannuation,osha))o beodeemedotoobeoinoservi&eoevenoafterotheoageoofosu2erannuationo forotheos2e&ifi&o2ur2oseoofo&ontinuationoando&on&)usionoofotheo dis&i2)inar,o2ro&eedingsoandoissueoofofina)oordersothereon.o

(2)The officer or employee who is under suspension shall not be eligible for any subsistence allowance for the period beyond the date of superannuation.

(3)The officer or employee against whom disciplinary proceeding has been initiated sha))o&easeotoobeoinoservi&eoonotheodateoofo su2erannuation but the disciplinary proceeding shall continue as if he was in service until the proceedings are concluded and final order is passed in respect thereof.

(4)/heo offi&ero oro em2)o,eeo againsto 1homo dis&i2)inar,o 2ro&eedingsohasobeenoinitiatedosha))onotore&eiveoan,o2a,oand4oro a))o1an&esoafterotheo dateo ofosu2erannuationo ando a)soo notobeo entit)edo foro theo 2a,mento ofo retiremento benefitso ti))o theo 2ro&eedingo iso &om2)etedo ando fina)o ordero iso 2assedo thereono e3&e2to hiso o1no &ontributiono too Contributor,o Providento 7undo -CP7..o o o CWP-25263-2025o <o o o Explanation. 2 For the purposes of this regulation, the normal retirement benefits such as encashment of privilege leave and Gratuity may be withheld till the completion of the disciplinary proceeding and passing of final order by the Competent Authority and the release of benefits shall be as per the final order of the Competent Authority."o.emphasisoaddedtio o T7eoRe9%3:;4o soo6o20"<o 0#$.o +e&over,oofo2e&uniar,o)osso&ausedotootheo:an6.%o

(1) The competent authority may withhold or withdraw a pension or a part there of, whether permanently or for a specified period, and order recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank if in any departmental or judicial proceedings the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence or criminal breach of trust or forgery or acts done fraudulently during the period of his service: Provided that before passing any final orders under this sub2regulation, the Board shall be consulted: Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn the amount of pension drawn by a pensioner shall not be less than the minimum pension payable under these regulations: Provided also that departmental proceedings, if instituted while the employee was in service, shall, after the retirement of the employee, be deemed to be the proceedings under these regulations and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the employee had continued service.

(2) Noode2artmenta)o2ro&eedingsosha))obeoinitiatedoinores2e&toofo anoeventoifomoreothanofouro,earsotimeo)a2sed,oafterotheoevent9 Provided that the disciplinary proceedings initiated under this sub2regulation shall be in accordance with the procedure o o CWP-25263-2025o $o o o applicable to disciplinary proceedings in relation to the employee during the period of his service.

(3) Where the competent authority orders recovery of pecuniary loss from the pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of the employee." .emphasisoaddedtio o

11.o o 'lauseo!$oofotheo?e*ulationsoofo -16oclearlyoindicatesothatotheo sameo referso too recoveryo ofo anyo pecuniaryo losso sufferedo 2yo theo respondent, 3an).o 9owever,o theo presento caseo pertainso too continuationo ofo disciplinaryo proceedin*so 2eyondo theo dateo ofo superannuationo ofo theo petitioner,o whicho iso permissi2leo undero 'lauseo !"o ofo theo ?e*ulationso ofo -1-o .Anne/ureo P, 50.o Moreover,oitoisotriteolawothatoanoemployeeocannoto2eoallowedotoo*ooscot,freeo witho respecto too disciplinaryo proceedin*so initiatedo a*ainsto himo durin*o hiso service,omerelyo2ecauseoheohasoretired.o?elianceoinothisore*ardocano2eoplacedoono theo4ud*mentorenderedo2yoaothree,=ud*eo2enchoofotheo9onB2leoSupremeo'ourto ino 'ahanadio Coa)fie)ds-su2ra.o whereino heldo thato whereo disciplinaryo proceedin*soareoinitiatedo2eforeotheosuperannuation,otheosameowouldocontinueo eveno aftero theo retirement,o aso ito musto 2eo ta)eno too itso lo*icalo conclusion.o Spea)in*othrou*ho=usticeoM.?.oShah,otheofollowin*owasoheld:o "10.30 In view of the various decisions, it is apparent that under Rule 34.2 of the CDA Rules inquiry can be held in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service and the appropriate major and minor punishment commensurate to guilt can be imposed including dismissal as provided in Rule 27 of the CDA Rules and apart from that in case pecuniary loss had been caused that can be recovered. Gratuity can be forfeited wholly or o o CWP-25263-2025o "0o o o

10.31 Severa)oservi&eobenefitso1ou)dode2endou2onotheoout&omeo ofo theo in;uir,,o su&ho aso &on&erningo theo 2eriodo duringo 1hi&ho in;uir,oremainedo2ending. 5to1ou)dobeoagainstotheo2ub)i&o2o)i&,o too2ermitoanoem2)o,eeotoogoos&ot%freeoaftero&o))e&tingovariouso servi&eobenefitsotoo1hi&hoheo1ou)donotobeoentit)ed,oandotheoevento ofo su2erannuationo &annoto &omeo too hiso res&ueo ando 1ou)do amounto too &ondonationo ofo gui)t.o Because of the legal fiction provided under the rules, it can be completed in the same manner as if the employee had remained in service after superannuation, and appropriate punishment can be imposed. Various provisions of the Gratuity Act discussed above do not come in the way of departmental inquiry and as provided in Section 4(6) and Rule

34.3 in case of dismissal gratuity can be forfeited wholly or partially, and the loss can also be recovered. An inquiry can be continued as provided under the relevant service rules as it is not provided in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 that inquiry shall come to an end as soon as the employee attains the age of superannuation. We reiterate that the Act does not deal with the matter of disciplinary inquiry, it contemplates recovery from or forfeiture of gratuity wholly or partially as per misconduct committed and does not deal with punishments to be imposed and does not supersede the Rules 34.2 and 34.3 of the CDA Rules. The mandate of Section 4(6) of recovery of loss provided under Section 4(6)(a) and forfeiture of gratuity wholly or partially under Section 4(6)(b) is furthered by the Rules34.2 and 34.3. If there cannot be any dismissal after superannuation, intendment of the provisions of Section 4(6) would be defeated. The provisions of section 4(1) and 4(6) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 have to be given purposive interpretation, and no way interdict holding of the departmental inquiry and punishment to be imposed is not the subject matter dealt with under the Act. o o CWP-25263-2025o ""o o o

10.32 Thus considering the provisions of Rules 34.2 and 34.3 of the CDA Rules, theoin;uir,o&anobeo&ontinuedogivenotheodeemingo fi&tionoinotheosameomanneroasoifotheoem2)o,eeohado&ontinuedoino servi&eoandoa22ro2riateo2unishment,oin&)udingothatoofodismissa)o &anobeoim2osedoa2artofromotheoforteitureoofotheogratuit,o1ho)),o oro2artia)),oin&)udingotheore&over,oofotheo2e&uniar,o)ossoasotheo &aseoma,obe."o o o 7urthero therein,o spea)in*o throu*ho =usticeo A4ayo ?asto*i,o theo followin*owasoopined:o "17. The Scheme of Rules, 1978 with which we are presently concerned was earlier examined by a two Judge Bench of this Court in the case of <as1antoSingho=i))ov.o:haratoCo6ingoCoa)o *td.o>o?rs.o200 -".oSCCo$$3. The view expressed by the two Judge Bench of this Court came up for consideration in the instant case before another two Judge Bench of this Court and this Court was of the view that in Jaswant Singh Gill(supra), the issue of permissibility of penalty of dismissal or removal from service on a retired employee was neither raised nor any direct discussion has been followed thereupon and taking note of the stated parimateria Rule 19(3) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992 examined by the three Judge Bench of this Court in Stateo:an6oofo5ndiaov.o+amo*a)o:has6aroando8nothero 20""-"0.oSCCo2#9 and keeping in view the discussion in the case of Jaswant Singh Gill(supra), the two Judge Bench of this Court was of the view that the question as to whether the disciplinary authority has necessary powers to impose penalty of dismissal or removal to an employee after retirement from service requires to be examined by a larger Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 29th October, 2013 which has been placed before us for consideration. o o CWP-25263-2025o "2o o o

¶22Under the scheme of Rules 1978, apart from the procedure which has to be followed for imposing minor/major penalties after holding a procedure prescribed under Rule 29 or 31 of the scheme of Rules, special procedure has been provided under Rule 34 for meeting out certain exigencies. Rule 34.1 is couched with a non2obstante clause which could be invoked in the special circumstances indicated under clauses (i) to (iii) notwithstanding a procedure for holding a disciplinary inquiry provided under Rule 29 or 31 of the Rules while inflicting penalties specified under Rule 27 of the Rules. At the same time, for the delinquent employee who stood retired from service pending disciplinary enquiry, a special procedure has been provided under Rule 34.2 to continue and conclude such disciplinary proceedings in the same manner as if the delinquent employee had deemed to be continued in service for all practical purposes and with the aid of Rule 31.3 which cannot exist without Rule 34.2, the authority competent may withhold the payment of gratuity during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings and order for recovery from gratuity of the whole or part of the pecuniary loss caused to the company, if the delinquent employee is later held to be guilty of offences/misconduct or it has caused any pecuniary loss to the company by misconduct or negligence during discharge of official duties as a measure of penalty mentioned under Rule 34.3 of the Rules, 1978 or under sub2section (6) of Section 4 of the Act, 1972. At the same time, if the delinquent employee is exonerated in the disciplinary inquiry, he will be entitled for the gratuity in the event of delayed payment in terms of Section 7(3) and 7(3A) of Act, 1972. xxx xxx xxx

¶275toisoa)soo1e))osett)edothatotheo&om2eten&eoofoanoauthorit,otoo ho)do ano en;uir,o oro too &ontinueo en;uir,o againsto ano em2)o,eeo 1hoohasoretiredofromoservi&eode2endsou2onotheos&hemeooforu)eso o o CWP-25263-2025o 13o o o andotheotermsoandoconditionsoofoserviceoofotheoemployeeoareotheo determiningo factorso aso too whethero ando ino whato mannero theo disciplinaryoenquiryocanobeoheldoagainstoanoemployeeowhoostoodo retiredoorosuperannuatedofromoservice."o(emphasisoadded)o o

12.o o Furtherostill,oitoisonototheocaseoofotheopetitionerothatotheoshowocauseo noticeowasoissuedobyotheoconcernedoauthorityosansojurisdiction.oAsosuch,osinceo noo rightso ofo theo petitionero haveo beeno influencedo owingo too anyo punishmento imposedobyotheodisciplinaryoauthority,oitowouldobeoprematureotooconsiderotheo presentowritopetition.oRelianceoinothisoregardocanobeoplacedoonoUnionoofoIndiao vs.oKunisettyoSatyanarayanao2007(1)oSCTo452,owherein,ospeakingothrougho JusticeoMarkandeyoKatju,otheofollowingowasoobserved:o "12.oItoisowellosettledobyoaoseriesoofodecisionsoofothisoCourtothato ordinarilyo noo writo lieso againsto ao chargeo sheeto oro show-causeo noticeovideoExecutiveoEngineer,oBiharoStateoHousingoBoardov.o RamdeshoKumaroSinghoandoothers,oJTo1995(8)oSCo331,oSpecialo Directoroandoanotherov.oMohd.oGhulamoGhouseoandoanother,o 2004(1)o SCTo 671o (SC)o :o AIRo 2004o Supremeo Courto 1467,oUlagappaoandoothersov.oDivisionaloCommissioner,oMysoreo ando others,o 2001(10)o SCCo 639,oStateo ofo U.P.o v.o Brahmo Datto Sharmaoandoanother,oAIRo1987oSupremeoCourto943oetc.o o

13.o Theo reasono whyo ordinarilyo ao writo petitiono shouldo noto beo entertainedoagainstoaomereoshow-causeonoticeoorocharge-sheetoiso thatoatothatostageotheowritopetitionomayobeoheldotoobeopremature.o Aomereocharge-sheetooroshow-causeonoticeodoesonotogiveoriseotoo anyocauseoofoaction,obecauseoitodoesonotoamountotooanoadverseo orderowhichoaffectsotheorightsoofoanyopartyounlessotheosameohaso beenoissuedobyoaopersonohavingonoojurisdictionotoodooso.oItoiso quiteopossibleothatoafteroconsideringotheoreplyotootheoshow-causeo noticeooroafteroholdingoanoenquiryotheoauthorityoconcernedomayo o o CWP-25263-2025o 14o o o dropo theo proceedingso and/oro holdo thato theo chargeso areo noto established.oItoisowellosettledothatoaowritoliesowhenosomeorightoofo anyopartyo isoinfringed.o Ao mereoshow-causeo noticeooro charge-sheetodoesonotoinfringeotheorightoofoanyoone.oItoisoonlyowhenoao finalo ordero imposingo someo punishmento oro otherwiseo adverselyo affectingoaopartyoisopassed,othatotheosaidopartyocanobeosaidotoohaveo anyogrievance.o

14.oWritojurisdictionoisodiscretionaryojurisdictionoandohenceosucho discretionounderoArticleo226oshouldonotoordinarilyobeoexercisedobyo quashingoaoshow-causeonoticeoorochargeosheet.o

15.oNoodoubt,oinosomeoveryorareoandoexceptionalocasesotheoHigho Courto cano quasho ao charge-sheeto oro show-causeo noticeo ifo ito iso foundotoobeowhollyowithoutojurisdictionooroforosomeootheroreasono ifoitoisowhollyoillegal.oHowever,oordinarilyotheoHighoCourtoshouldo notointerfereoinosuchoaomatter."o(emphasisoadded)o o

13.o o Lastly,o ito iso settledo lawo thato thiso Courto mayo onlyo exerciseo itso powerso undero Articleo 226o ofo theo Constitutiono ofo Indiao wheno theo findingso recordedoinolieuoofoaodisciplinaryoaction,oareoarbitrary,otaintedowithoproceduralo illegalityooromanifestoanyoprejudice.oThisoCourtocannotoreappreciateotheomattero onomeritsoandosubstituteotheoconclusionodrawnobyotheoconcernedoauthorityowitho itsoown.oTritely,oaoHighoCourtocannotositoinoappealowithorespectotootheodecisiono arrivedoinopursuanceoofodisciplinaryoproceedings.oAsosuch,othisoCourtomusto confineo itselfo too ensuringo thato theo findingso renderedo areo justifiedo byo theo materialo availableo ono record,o thato theo proceedingso wereo conductedo ino complianceowithotheoprescribedoprocedureoasowelloasotheoprinciplesoofonaturalo justiceoandothatotheopenaltyoimposedoisoproportionalotootheomisconduct.oo o o CWP-25263-2025o "5o o o 1!.o o Aotwo,=ud*eo3enchoofotheo9onB2leoSupremeo'ourtoino@nionoofo 5ndiao vs.o P.o =unase6aran,o -20"5.o 2o SCCo $"0,o spea)in*o throu*ho =usticeo :uriano=oseph,omadeotheofollowin*oo2servationsoinothisore*ard:o "12. Despite the well2settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. 5nodis&i2)inar,o2ro&eedings,otheo Higho Courto iso noto ando &annoto a&to asoao se&ondo &ourtoofo firsto a22ea).o/heoHighoCourt,oinoe3er&iseoofoitso2o1ersoundero8rti&)eso 22$422 o ofo theo Constitutiono ofo 5ndia,o sha))o noto ventureo intoo rea22re&iationo ofo theo eviden&e. The High Court can only see whether:

(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;

(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;

(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;

(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;

(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;

(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;

(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;

(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; o o CWP-25263-2025o "6o o o

(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.

¶13Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:

(i) reappreciate the evidence;

(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;

(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;

(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;

(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.

(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience." .emphasisoaddedtio o ?elianceo ino thiso re*ardo mayo alsoo 2eo madeo too theo 4ud*ementso renderedo ino :.C.o Chaturvedio vs.o @niono ofo 5ndiatio 1"$$52o 6o (CCo 8'$o ando 5ndiano?i)oCor2n.o*td.ovs.o8sho6oAumaro8roratio1"$$82o3o(CCo82#o 1".o o 7urthermore,oaotwo,=ud*eo3enchoofotheo9onB2leoSupremeo'ourto ino S.+.o /e1ario vs.o @niono ofo 5ndia,o -20"3.o $o SCCo $02,o spea)in*o throu*ho =usticeo3.So'hauhan,omadeotheofollowin*oo2servationsoinothisore*ard:o "29. In Union of India v. R.K. Sharma [(2001) 9 SCC 592 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 767 : AIR 2001 SC 3053] , this Court explained the observations made in Ranjit Thakur [Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1987) 5 ATC 113 : AIR 1987 SC 2386] observing that if the charge was ridiculous, the punishment was harsh or strikingly disproportionate it would warrant interference. However, the said observations in Ranjit Thakur [Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1987) 5 ATC 113 : AIR 1987 SC 2386] are not to be taken to mean that a court can, while exercising the power of judicial review, interfere with the punishment merely o o CWP-25263-2025o 17o o o becauseo ito considerso theo punishmento too beo disproportionate.o Ito wasoheldothatoonlyoinoextremeocases,owhichoonotheiroface,oshowo perversityo oro irrationality,o thereo couldo beo judicialo reviewo ando courtsoshouldonotointerfereomerelyoonocompassionateogrounds.o o

30.oTheofindingsoofofactorecordedobyoaocourtocanobeoheldotoobeo perverseo ifo theo findingso haveo beeno arrivedo ato byo ignoringo oro excludingo relevanto materialo oro byo takingo intoo considerationo irrelevant/inadmissibleomaterial.oTheofindingomayoalsoobeosaido toobeoperverseoifoitoiso"againstotheoweightoofoevidence",ooroifotheo findingosoooutrageouslyodefiesologicoasotoosufferofromotheoviceoofo irrationality.o Ifo ao decisiono iso arrivedo ato ono theo basiso ofo noo evidenceoorothoroughlyounreliableoevidenceoandonooreasonableo personowouldoactouponoit,otheoorderowouldobeoperverse.oButoifo thereoisosomeoevidenceoonorecordowhichoisoacceptableoandowhicho couldobeoreliedoupon,otheoconclusionsowouldonotobeotreatedoaso perverseo ando theo findingso wouldo noto beo interferedo with.o (Video Rajindero Kumaro Kindrao v.o Delhio Admn.o [(1984)o 4o SCCo 635o :o 1985oSCCo(L&S)o131o:oAIRo1984oSCo1805]o,oKuldeepoSinghov.o Commr.oofoPoliceo[(1999)o2oSCCo10o:o1999oSCCo(L&S)o429o:oAIRo 1999o SCo 677]o ,o Gaminio Balao Koteswarao Raoo v.o Stateo ofo A.P.o [(2009)o10oSCCo636o:o(2010)o1oSCCo(Cri)o372o:oAIRo2010oSCo 589]oandoBabuov.oStateoofoKeralao[(2010)o9oSCCo189o:o(2010)o3o SCCo(Cri)o1179]o.)o o

31.o Hence,o whereo thereo iso evidenceo ofo malpractice,o grosso irregularityooroillegality,ointerferenceoisopermissible."o(emphasiso added)o o CONCLUSIONo

16.o o Inoviewoofotheodiscussionoabove,otheopresentopetitionoisodismissed.o Needlessotoosay,onothingoobservedohereinoaboveoshallobeoconstruedotoobeoano observationomadeobyothisoCourtowithorespectotootheomeritsoofotheocase,olestoito o o CWP-25263-2025o 18o o o mayo prejudiceo theo proceedings.o Theo concernedo disciplinaryo authorityo iso ato libertyotoocontinueowithotheodisciplinaryoproceedingsoonoitsoownomerits.o

17.o o Nothingoobservedohereinoshallobeoconstruedouponotheomeritsoofotheo presentocase.o

18.o o Pendingo miscellaneouso application(s),o ifo any,o shallo alsoo stando disposedoof.oo o o o o o o oooooo o oooooooo ooo(HARPREEToSINGHoBRAR)o Septembero04,o2025o o o o oooooooooooo JUDGEo manishao o o o o (i)o Whetherospeaking/reasonedo o o Yes/Noo o o o o o (ii)o Whetheroreportableo o o o Yes/Noo