Case Background
The case arises from a serious allegation of theft from the safe locker of a branch of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank. The petitioner was working in the branch and was assigned one key of the double-locking safe, while the Branch Manager held the other key.
According to the bank, a sum of Rs. 15,20,849.35 was found missing from the safe locker. The petitioner was accused of involvement in the loss and of violating the bank’s service rules. On this basis, a departmental proceeding was started against him.
A charge memo dated 29.12.2007 was issued to the petitioner. After completion of the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 04.04.2009 removing him from service. His departmental appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 12.05.2010.
The petitioner then approached the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10725 of 2010. He sought quashing of the removal order dated 04.04.2009 and the appellate order dated 12.05.2010, and asked for reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
During the long pendency of the writ case, on 19.10.2023 the Court noted that the matter was pending since 2010 and that the respondents’ counsel had failed to place before the Court the relevant statutory rules that were applicable at the time of the charge memo. The Court observed that it was the bounden duty of the counsel to assist the Court by producing the applicable regulations. For this lapse and the inconvenience caused, the Court directed the respondents to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee.
The matter was then relisted, and on the final hearing date, 12.01.2024, the Court proceeded to examine the legality of the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner.
What the Court Examined and Decided
Justice P. B. Bajanthri, sitting singly, delivered the oral judgment. The Court focused on two main aspects: whether the charges against the petitioner were proved through legally acceptable evidence, and whether the bank had followed its own service regulations while conducting the inquiry.
First, the Court recorded the fair submission of the learned counsel for the Bank that none of the witnesses were cited or examined in support of the alleged charges. This meant that the bank itself accepted that no oral evidence had been led to prove the misconduct.
The charges, reproduced in the judgment in Hindi, essentially alleged two things. One, that after the safe was properly locked on 20.10.2004, the petitioner, along with others handling the safe and strong-room keys, was responsible for the theft of the total amount of Rs. 15,20,849.35 from the branch safe. Two, that the petitioner violated the bank rules regarding handling of safe keys and custody of the safe and caused serious financial loss to the bank and loss of public confidence, thereby breaching specified provisions of the Bihar Regional Rural Bank Officers and Employees Service Rules, 2006, namely Rules 17, 18 and 19.
The Court then noted that the charge memo dated 29.12.2007 did not contain a list of documents or a list of witnesses. For a departmental proceeding involving such a serious allegation of theft of over fifteen lakh rupees from a bank safe, the absence of these basic components in the charge memo was treated as a major procedural defect.
Next, the Court looked at how the safe locker was operated. The safe had a double-locking system. One key was with the petitioner and the other with the Branch Manager. There was no allegation or finding that the safe had been broken open. In such a situation, the Court reasoned that both the petitioner and the Branch Manager were, in effect, connected to the alleged incident because both held keys to the safe.
This led the Court to examine the relevant service regulations of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank. The Court specifically referred to the “Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2008”. Regulation 41 of these Regulations deals with common enquiry.
Regulation 41, as reproduced in the judgment, provides that when two officers in different grades, or an officer and an employee, are jointly involved in an incident and disciplinary proceedings are proposed against both, the Chairman can direct that a common competent authority will deal with them and that a common enquiry shall be held into the charges against both. The same enquiry officer is to conduct the enquiry for both, with the same procedure applying.
The Court observed that in the present case, both the petitioner and the Branch Manager were allegedly involved in the same incident of theft from the safe locker. Despite this, the bank had not resorted to Regulation 41. Instead of holding a common enquiry as contemplated by the Service Regulations, the bank proceeded with an individual inquiry only against the petitioner.
This failure to apply Regulation 41 was one important infirmity in the disciplinary process. It indicated that the bank had not followed its own rules while taking action on an incident that concerned the joint custody of the safe.
On the evidentiary side, the Court took note of the fact that the records did not show how the petitioner was supposed to have managed to obtain the Branch Manager’s key or how the Branch Manager could have obtained the petitioner’s key, given that there was no break open of the safe. There was simply no explanation for how the theft was linked to the petitioner.
As the judgment puts it, this meant that “it is a case of no evidence.” In disciplinary law, a “no evidence” case means that there is no material at all which a reasonable person could rely upon to hold the charges proved. The Court found that not only were there no witnesses examined, but the basic supporting material – list of documents, list of witnesses, and detailed statement of imputations – was missing from the charge memo itself.
To underline the legal position, the Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kuldeep Singh versus Commissioner of Police and Others, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 10. In that case, the Supreme Court held that courts usually do not interfere with findings in departmental inquiries, but they can and should intervene when there is violation of rules or when it is a case of “no evidence”.
Applying this principle, the Patna High Court held that the petitioner’s case fell squarely within the “no evidence” category, coupled with violation of the bank’s own regulations. The disciplinary process lacked the basic legal framework required to sustain such a serious punishment as removal from service.
In light of these findings, the Court concluded that the petitioner had “made out a case” for interference. It therefore set aside the Disciplinary Authority’s order dated 04.04.2009 (Annexure-17) and the Appellate Authority’s order dated 12.05.2010 (Annexure-19).
Finally, the Court allowed the writ petition. It directed the concerned respondent to “regulate the service of the petitioner from the date of removal from service” and to extend service and monetary benefits within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the judgment. This effectively means that the removal stands cancelled and the petitioner’s service is to be restored with associated financial benefits, subject to regulation by the bank in line with the Court’s directions.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for bank employees and other workers facing departmental proceedings, especially in Bihar and within regional rural banks.
First, it confirms that even in serious cases like alleged theft of large amounts from a bank, an employee cannot be removed from service without proper evidence. Mere suspicion or the fact that an employee had access to a safe or system is not enough.
Second, it emphasises that employers must follow their own service regulations. In this case, the Patna High Court highlighted Regulation 41, which required a common enquiry where both an officer and an employee are involved in the same incident. Ignoring such a rule can make the entire proceeding vulnerable.
Third, the case shows that a defective charge memo – without list of documents, list of witnesses and clear statement of imputations – is not a small technical issue. It goes to the root of natural justice. An employee must know the exact evidence and witnesses against him to defend himself properly.
Finally, the decision reassures workers that courts can intervene even in departmental matters when there is “no evidence” or when procedures are plainly violated. It sends a message that long delays in justice will not prevent the Court from giving effective relief, as seen here where the matter was pending from 2010 and yet full relief has been granted.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the petitioner’s removal from service based on the departmental inquiry into the alleged theft from the bank safe was legally sustainable.
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that there was a total absence of evidence, the charge memo lacked basic details such as list of documents and witnesses, and the bank failed to conduct a common enquiry as required by Regulation 41. Therefore, the removal and the appellate order were set aside. - Issue: Whether the High Court could interfere in departmental proceedings in this case.
Answer: Yes. Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Kuldeep Singh versus Commissioner of Police and Others (1999) 2 SCC 10, the Court held that interference is justified where there is violation of rules and where the case is one of “no evidence”. Both conditions were found to exist here. - Issue: What consequential relief the petitioner was entitled to after quashing of the orders of removal and dismissal of appeal.
Answer: The Court directed the respondents to regulate the service of the petitioner from the date of removal and to extend service and monetary benefits within four months from receipt of the judgment.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Kuldeep Singh versus Commissioner of Police and Others, (1999) 2 SCC 10 – relied upon to hold that courts may interfere in departmental inquiries where there is violation of rules or when it is a case of no evidence.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10725 of 2010
Case Title: Bhavendra Jha v. The Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank and Others
Citation: 2024 (2) PLJR 159
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Bench/Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
Date of Judgment: 12.01.2024
Advocates: For the Petitioner – Mr. Kripa Nand Jha, Advocate. For the Bank – Mr. Prabhakar Jha, Advocate; Mr. Amitesh Jha, Advocate.
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging departmental removal order and appellate order, seeking reinstatement and consequential benefits.
Statutory/Regulatory Provisions Referred: Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2008 – Regulation 41 (Common Enquiry); Bihar Regional Rural Bank Officers and Employees Service Rules, 2006 – Rules 17, 18 and 19 (as mentioned in the charge).
Link to Full Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
