REGIONAL MANAGER, UCO BANK VS KRISHNA KUMAR BHARDWAJ

REGIONAL MANAGER,  UCO BANK VS KRISHNA KUMAR BHARDWAJ

                                              NON­REPORTABLE

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

    CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).      1457    OF    2022

(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 13953 of 2021)

REGIONAL MANAGER, 

UCO BANK AND ANOTHER …..APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

KRISHNA KUMAR BHARDWAJ ….RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Rastogi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order

dated 21st January, 2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High

Court of Allahabad affirming the order of the learned Single Judge

dated 19th October, 2019 pursuant to which the inquiry proceedings

and   consequential   punishment   inflicted   upon   the   respondent

delinquent were quashed and set aside.

1

3. The   respondent   delinquent   was   serving   as   an   Assistant

Manager, Sewla Branch  on  10th/11th  November, 1999 when  the

incident of theft was reported. The respondent delinquent being one

of the joint custodian of cash was responsible for safety of keys of

cash/strong  room and  failed to  take all  precautionary  steps  as

being indicated in the guidelines of the Bank and because of the

alleged   negligence   on   the   part   of   the   respondent   delinquent   in

handling the keys in inappropriate manner resulted into theft/loss

of cash from the cash safe.   For such delinquency committed by

him   in   discharge   of   his   official   duties,   he   was   placed   under

suspension in exercise of power conferred under Regulation 12 of

the UCO Bank Officers Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations

1976(hereinafter being referred to as the “Regulations 1976”) by an

Order dated 29th November, 1999.

4. Later, chargesheet dated 7th December, 1999 along with four

article of charges was served and by a corrigendum dated 13th

March, 2000, additional charge no.5 was served upon him. It may

be appropriate to quote the extract of articles of charges, dated 7th

2

December,   1999   along   with   additional   charge   no.5   by   a

corrigendum dated 13th March, 2000 as under:­

1. Being one of the joint custodians of cash, Mr. K.K. Bhardwaj was

responsible for safety of keys of cash/strong room, he did not keep

the eyes in his person as per guidelines of the Bank, instead left the

keys in the branch premises over­night in an almirah in contravention

to the guidelines for safety of keys of cash safe/strong room.  He was

most negligent and his handling the keys in a perfunctionary manner

resulted into theft/loss of cash of Rs. 12.00 lacs from the cash safe.

2. Mr. K.K. Bhardwaj, being one of the joint custodians of cash, did not

arrange to remit the surplus cash on 10.11.1999 to Currency Chest,

Belanganj Branch, Agra even though there was huge cash balance

much more than the average, anticipated daily requirement.  Thus, he

did not take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the

Bank and did not discharge his duties with utmost devotion and

diligence which is violative of Regulation 3(1) of UCO Bank Officer

Employees(Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as amended.

3. Before leaving the branch on 10.11.1999 after close of cash, Mr. K.K.

Bhardwaj did not check about the closure of one rear gate between

the main hall and passage towards toilet of Sewla Branch, Agra which

was left unlocked/opened on 10.11.99.  Thus, he did not take take all

possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and

failed   to   discharge   his   duties   with   utmost   devotion   and   diligence

which is violative of Regulation 3(1) of UCO Bank Officers Employees

(Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as amended.

4. Mr. Bhardwaj did not maintain the key register for noting the transfer

of keys from one holder to another.   He himself along with Chief

Cashier had not signed the key register on taking over charge of the

keys of cash safe/strong room of the branch.   Thus, he failed to

discharge his duties with devotion and diligence which is violative of

Regulation   3(1)   of   UCO   Bank   Officer   Employees   (Conduct)

Regulations, 1976 as amended.

5. That Mr. K.K. Bhardwaj was in hand and glove with some person with

an ulterior motive in perpetration of theft of cash at Sewla Branch  for

Rs.12.00   lacs   on   10th/11th  November,   1999.     Thus   he   failed   to

3

discharge   his   duties   with   utmost   integrity   and   honesty,   which   is

violative of Regulation­3 of UCO BANK Officers employees (Conduct)

Regulation, 1976 as amended.”

5. The inquiry officer conducted departmental inquiry in terms of

the procedure prescribed under the scheme of Regulations, 1976

and after affording opportunity of hearing and due compliance of

principles of natural justice, held charge nos. 1,3 and 4 proved vide

report dated 31st July, 2001.  However, charge nos. 2 and 5 were

not held proved.

6. It is an admitted fact that the date on which the theft was

committed,   i.e.   10th/11th  November,   1999,   Mr.   Vinod   Kumar

Khanna was the Manager of Sewla, Agra Branch.   During that

period, the present respondent was Assistant Manager and one Mr.

K.L.  Khandelwal  was  the   Assistant  Manager(Cash).    Apart  from

them, four other clerks were posted at Sewla Branch and Mr. Vinod

Kumar Khanna was not on duty on the day when the incident had

taken place.  The signatures of custodian ­ the present respondent

delinquent and Mr. K.L. Khandewal(Assistant Manager(Cash) were

confirmed and in support thereof, document ME­2/1 to ME­2/5

were placed on record.  

4

7. The statement of fact was duly recorded by the Inquiry Officer

in his report that the respondent delinquent was custodian of keys

on   the   day,   i.e.,   10th/11th  November,   1999   when   the   theft   was

committed  and   he  was   one   of  the  joint   custodian   of  cash   and

responsible   for   safety   of   keys/cash.     After   due   appreciation   of

documentary evidence placed on record, the Inquiry Officer found

charge nos. 1, 3 and 4 proved against the respondent delinquent.

After due appreciation of the documentary evidence on record, the

extract   of   the   findings   which   has   been   recorded,   after   detailed

scrutiny of facts, by the Inquiry Officer in his report for arriving to a

conclusion in holding charge nos. 1, 3 and 4 proved against the

respondent delinquent are referred to hereunder:­

Charge No. 1

Findings of the Inquiry Officer :­ 

I have fully examined the contentions of P.O.& DR/C.S.0. and my findings in this

regard are as under:­ 

Considering all the facts and material placed before me during the inquiry proceedings

by the concerned parties, I concur with the arguments advanced and facts established

by the Presenting Officer, who has established the facts relating to charge No. 1 on the

basis of ME­2/ 1 to 5, ME­ 6/1 & 2, ME­10,, ME­10/1&2, ME­11, ME­3, ME­13, ME12, ME­14, ME­15, ME­20, ME­27, DE­30, DE­31/1&2, DE­32, ME­1/5, ME­23, ME24, DE­2/1to15. 

5

I, therefore, hold that charge No. 1 stands proved against Mr. K.K. Bhardwaj, C.S.O. 

Charge No. 3

Findings of the Inquiry Officer :­ 

I have fully examined the contentions of P.O. and DR/CSO and my findings in

this regard are as under:­ 

Considering all the facts and material placed before me during the inquiry

proceedings by the concerned parties, I concur with arguments advanced and

facts   established   by   the   Presenting   Officer,   who   has   established   the   facts

relating to charge No. 3 on the basis of documentary evidence, namely, ME­3,

ME­12, ME­13, ME­14, ME­15, ME­16, ME­17 & ME­18. As per ME­14 the

C.S.O. had left the branch at about 4.45 p.m. on 10.11.99, and as per ME­12

and ME­13 the Manager, Mr. V.K. Khanna had left the branch on 10.11.99 at

about 2.00 p.m. by informing to the Asstt. Manager, Mr. K.K. Bhardwaj. It is

the bounden duty of the Manager to ensure the security of the branch and in

absence of the Manager it automatically passes on to the Asstt. Manager, who

is second­in­command in the branch. As such, the asstt. Manager Mr. K.K.

Bhardwaj while leaving the Sewla branch on 10.11.1999, in absence of the

Manager, must have fully ensured about the safety and security of the branch

in view of alarming/huge cash accumulation (Rs. 27,84,002.17) in the branch

as at the close of business on 10.11.99. Laxity in security is also evident from

ME­15. So, it is well substantiated by P.O. that the Asstt. Manager was lacking

in his duty while leaving the branch on 10.11.99 in absence of the Manager, in

the matter of security and safety of the branch. 

I, therefore, hold that charge No. 3 stands proved against Mr. K.K. Bhardwaj,

C.S.O. 

Charge No. 4

Findings of the Inquiry Officer:

I have fully examined the contentions of P.O. & DR/CSO and my findings in

this regard are as under:­ 

Considering all the facts and material placed before me during the inquiry

proceedings by the concerned parties, I concur with the arguments advanced

6

and facts established by the Presenting Officer, who has established from ME6/1&2 that "A record of custody of all important keys should be carried in a

key Register. All changes in the custody of keys should be promptly made

thereinunder the signatures of the custodians." 

ME­8 & ME­22/ 1&2 confirm the incomplete records of the postings in the Key

Register's relating to Asstt. Manager and Asstt. Manager (Cash) since 1.8.1995

and 2.7.1994 respectively. 

It is established from above records that the Asstt. Manager and the Asstt.

Manager (Cash) who were the joint custodians at Sewla Agra branch, had not

signed the respective key registers on taking over charge of the keys of Cash

Safe/Strong   Room   of   the   branch   and   did   not   maintain  the   Key   Registers

uptodate. 

I, therefore, hold that Charge No. 4, stands proved against Mr. K.K. Bhardwaj,

C.S.O.” 

8. The   disciplinary   authority,   after   affording   opportunity   of

hearing to the respondent delinquent, concurred with the findings

of the Inquiry Officer and after due compliance of principles of

natural justice, inflicted the penalty of dismissal from service vide

Order dated 31st  December, 2001 with disqualification for future

employment.

9. The order of the disciplinary authority came to be challenged

by the respondent in the departmental appeal before the appellate

authority.   The appellate authority, after revisiting the record of

inquiry,   found   justification   in   the   submissions   made   by   the

respondent delinquent with regard to charge no. 3 but so far as the

7

finding   in   reference   to   charge   nos.   1   and   4   is   concerned,   the

appellate   authority   concurred   with   the   finding   recorded   by   the

inquiry   officer   and   confirmed   by   the   disciplinary   authority   in

exercise of power under Regulation 17 of the Regulations, 1976 and

modified the punishment by its Order dated 23rd December, 2002,

the extract of which is as under:­

“I, therefore, in exercise of powers vested in me as Appellate Authority, and in terms of

Regulation 17 of UCO Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations,

1976, as amended, pass the following Order : 

Charge   No.

1 

Proved  Shri K.K. Bhardwaj (PFM No. 23213) shall be

compulsorily retired from Bank's service. 

Charge   No.

2

Not

Proved 

Exonerated 

Charge   No.

3

Not

Proved 

Exonerated 

Charge   No.

4

Proved  The Basic Pay of Shri Bhardwaj be reduced by

two stages in the time scale of pay for a period

of 4 (four) years. It is further directed that he

will earn increments of pay during the period of

reduction and that on expiry of this period the

reduction will have the effect of postponing his

future increments. 

Charge   No.

5

Not

Proved 

Exonerated

8

The   above   punishments   shall   run   concurrently,   However,   since   no   moral

turpitude   is   being   found   against   Shri   Bhardwaj,   he   will   be   paid   with   all

terminal benefits payable to him.” 

10. The   order   passed   by   the   appellate   authority   came   to   be

challenged by the respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The learned Single Judge, after taking note of the record of inquiry,

arrived to the conclusion that Mr. Vinod Kumar Khanna was the

Branch Manager on the date when the incident had occurred, i.e.,

10th/11th  November, 1999 and the joint responsibility was of the

Branch   Manager   and   the   Assistant   Manager(Cash).     Since   the

present respondent delinquent was the Assistant Manager, he could

not be held to be responsible for lapses and set aside the order of

punishment   inflicted   upon   the   respondent   delinquent   under   its

Order dated 19th October 2019.

11. On   Letters   Patent   Appeal   preferred   at   the   instance   of   the

present   appellant,   the   Division   Bench   under   the   impugned

judgment has not taken care to examine the report of inquiry and

has just reproduced the findings recorded by the learned Single

Judge under the order impugned and dismissed the appeal by an

9

Order dated 21st  January, 2021 which is the subject matter of

challenge before us.

12. For completion of facts, it may be relevant to note that the

factual error was committed by the learned Single Judge and the

Division Bench in passing the impugned judgment that Mr. Vinod

Kumar Khanna, who was the Manager of Sewla, Agra Branch at

that time, was also served with the charge­sheet and he too faced

departmental   inquiry   but   the   allegation   against   him   was   that

despite being fully aware that the respondent delinquent was the

custodian of cash(keeping the keys of the cash safe/strong room in

an almirah in the stationery room overnight) and not keeping the

same in his personal custody as per rules of the Bank, he did not

take appropriate steps against the staff who was reportedly keeping

overnight safety of the keys of the chest in the Branch itself which

was a gross negligence which he had committed in discharge of his

duties   as   a   Manager   of   the   Branch   and   for   his   supervisory

negligence, after charge­sheet dated 17th December, 1999 came to

be served, he too was held guilty for his supervisory negligence

10

which   he   had   committed   in   discharge   of   his   duties   and   was

punished by an Order dated 28th February, 2002.

13. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that for the gross

misconduct which the respondent had committed in discharge of

his   duties,   the   inquiry   was   conducted   in   accordance   with   the

procedure prescribed under the Regulations 1976 and it was never

the   case   of   the   respondent   either   before   the   departmental

authorities or before the High Court that the inquiry has not been

conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the

scheme of Regulations, 1976 or the record which was relevant to

the charge, and demanded by him, was not made available to him

and what prejudice has been caused to him on account of nonavailability   of   record   or   the   orders   passed   by   the

disciplinary/appellate   authority   are   in   violation   of   principles   of

natural justice while upholding the findings of the inquiry officer in

reference to charge nos. 1 and 4 and consequential punishment

inflicted upon him.

14. At the same time, learned counsel further submits that the

learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   has   proceeded   on   the

11

premise that it was the Manager and Assistant Manager(Cash) who

were responsible officers and because of their negligence, theft has

been committed on 10th/11th November, 1999 from the cash safe of

the Branch which appears to be factually incorrect.   It was the

respondent delinquent who was the custodian and in­charge of keys

at the relevant point of time along with Assistant Manager(Cash)

and the finding was recorded by the Inquiry Officer supported by

the documentary evidence on record and this was never questioned

by the respondent delinquent at any later stage even when he was

served with the inquiry report or to the disciplinary or appellate

authority while assailing the finding recorded by the inquiry officer

in his report.  This is the manifest error which the Division Bench of

the  High Court  has committed in  interfering with  the domestic

inquiry   conducted   against   the   respondent   delinquent   in   which

charge nos. 1 and 4 were finally held proved against him.  In the

given circumstances, the interference made by the High Court in

the   impugned   judgment   is   not   sustainable   and   deserves   to   be

interfered with by this Court.

12

15. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other

hand, submits that respondent was the Assistant Manager and the

responsibility was of the Manager of the Branch and the Assistant

Manager(Cash)   and   submits   that   the   finding   recorded   by   the

inquiry officer in his report is perverse and not sustainable.

16. Learned counsel further submits that the plea was raised by

him against the inquiry officer being biased but no one has paid

heed   to   his   request   and   further   submits   that   the   documents

demanded by him were not made available despite request and the

orders passed by the disciplinary/appellate authority being nonspeaking and cryptic in nature are otherwise not sustainable in law.

17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record with their assistance.

18. The power of judicial review in the  matters of disciplinary

inquiries,   exercised   by   the   departmental/appellate   authorities

discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or Article 136

of   the   Constitution   of   India   is   well   circumscribed   by   limits   of

correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest

injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not

13

akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority

which has earlier been examined by this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi

Vs.  Union   of   India   and   Others1

;  Himachal   Pradesh   State

Electricity Board Limited Vs. Mahesh Dahiya2

 and recently by a

three­Judge Bench of this Court(of which one of us is a member) in

Deputy  General  Manager(Appellate  Authority)  and  Others  Vs.

Ajay Kumar Srivastava3

 wherein this Court has held as under:­

“24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the

constitutional   courts,   is   an   evaluation   of   the   decision­making

process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure

fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The

court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the

delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of

natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the

mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the

disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or

finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached

or   where   the   conclusions   upon   consideration   of   the   evidence

reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from

patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a

writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial

review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or

reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.

25. When  the  disciplinary  enquiry is conducted  for the alleged

misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and

determine:

(i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority;

(ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with;

1 1995(6) SCC 749

2 2017(1) SCC 768

3 2021(2) SCC 612

14

(iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some

evidence   and   authority   has   power   and   jurisdiction   to   reach

finding of fact or conclusion.

26. It   is   well   settled   that   where   the   enquiry  officer   is   not   the

disciplinary   authority,   on   receiving   the   report   of   enquiry,   the

disciplinary   authority  may  or  may  not   agree   with  the   findings

recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary

authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after

affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record

his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for

such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for

further enquiry.

27. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to

departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement

of   law   is   that   the   allegation   against   the   delinquent   must   be

established   by   such   evidence   acting   upon   which   a   reasonable

person   acting   reasonably   and   with   objectivity   may   arrive   at   a

finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent

employee.   It   is   true   that   mere   conjecture   or   surmises   cannot

sustain   the   finding   of   guilt   even   in   the   departmental   enquiry

proceedings.

28. The   constitutional   court   while   exercising   its   jurisdiction   of

judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution

would   not   interfere   with   the   findings   of   fact   arrived   at   in   the

departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or

perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or

where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with

objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there

is   some   evidence   to   support   the   conclusion   arrived   at   by   the

departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.”

19. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, the Division Bench

has proceeded on the premise that the responsibility was of the

Branch Manager along with the Assistant Manager(Cash).  Hence,

the respondent could not have been held responsible for the lapses

15

of those officers and proceeding on the said foundation, set aside

the penalty inflicted upon the respondent delinquent but the record

of   enquiry   clearly   manifests   that   it   was   a   factual   error   being

committed   by   the   High   Court   while   setting   aside   the   domestic

inquiry   and   the   consequential   punishment   inflicted   upon   the

respondent delinquent.

20. In the course of enquiry, a documentary evidence came on

record that although Mr. Vinod Kumar Khanna was the Manager of

the Branch but the date, i.e., 10th/11th November, 1999 on which

the theft was committed, the custodian of cash were the respondent

along with the Assistant Manager(Cash).   The finding has been

recorded   by   the   inquiry   officer   in   his   report   holding   that   the

respondent delinquent was the custodian of cash in keeping the

keys in cash safe/strong room in the almirah of the stationery room

overnight and not keeping the same in his personal custody as per

rules of the Bank along with Assistant Manager(Cash).  The finding

of fact was confirmed by the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority   in

upholding the guilt of the respondent as he had failed in discharge

of his duties as a custodian when the theft had taken place on

16

10th/11th  November, 1999 but the High  Court  in  the impugned

judgment has not taken pains to examine the finding recorded by

the   inquiry   officer   in   reference   to   the   responsibility   which   the

respondent delinquent failed to discharge as a custodian of cash at

the relevant point of time when the theft was committed.

21. That apart, what has been recorded by the inquiry officer has

been revisited by the disciplinary/appellate authority and after reappreciation of record of inquiry and due application of mind, the

appellate   authority   while   exonerating   the   respondent   delinquent

from charge no. 3 held charge nos. 1 and 4 proved against him and

punished him by an order dated 23rd December, 2002.  Neither the

learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court has

taken pains to look into the finding which was recorded by the

inquiry officer in reference to charge nos. 1 and 4 and appreciated

thereafter by the disciplinary/appellate authority in passing of the

order of penalty inflicted upon the respondent delinquent.

22. In our considered view, the finding which has been recorded

by the High Court in the impugned order is unsustainable and not

supported with the report of inquiry available on record.

17

23. The submission made by learned counsel for the respondent

that the inquiry officer was biased and that caused prejudice to

him, suffice it to say, that merely making allegation that he was

biased is not sufficient unless supported by the material placed by

him   either   during   the   course   of   inquiry   or   before   the

disciplinary/appellate authority.   Even no submission was made

before the High Court also and it deserves no consideration except

rejection.

24. So far as the submission regarding non­supply of document is

concerned, inquiry officer has observed that the record which was

demanded by the respondent delinquent was made available to him

except   the   one   which   was   confidential   in   nature   still   he   was

permitted for inspection.  At the same time, the respondent failed to

show as to what prejudice has been caused to him in reference to

the alleged non­supply of the documents demanded by him.

25. The further submission of learned counsel for the respondent

that the decision of the disciplinary/appellate authority being a

non­speaking and cryptic in nature is concerned, it is a sorry state

of affairs to say so that both the orders of the disciplinary/appellate

18

authority are on record and cogent reasons have been assigned

while concurring with the finding of the inquiry officer in order of

the disciplinary authority.  The appellate authority also, after due

appreciation   of   the   record   of   inquiry   and   confirmed   by   the

disciplinary authority, arrived to the conclusion that the finding

recorded in reference to charge no. 3 is not proved and held charge

nos. 1 and 4 proved on the basis of which he was persuaded to

modify   the   punishment   under   the   Order   dated   23rd  December,

2002.

26. In our considered view, the High Court has exceeded in its

jurisdiction   while   interfering   with   the   disciplinary   proceedings

initiated   against   the   respondent   delinquent   and   being

unsustainable deserves to be set aside.

27. Consequently,   the   appeal   succeeds   and   is   allowed.     The

judgment   of   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   dated   21st

January, 2021 is accordingly quashed and set aside.  No costs.

28. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

  

………………………J.

(AJAY RASTOGI)

19

       ……………………….J.

(ABHAY S. OKA)

NEW DELHI

FEBRUARY 18, 2022

20

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले