Patna High Court
Avinash Kumar Soni (PF Code-A17821)versusPunjab and Sind Bank
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The enquiry report was fatally defective for not recording the petitioner’s defence and for failing to consider evidence, violating bank regulations and natural‑justice principles, and therefore the disciplinary, appellate and review orders were set aside.
Summary
Avinash Kumar Soni, a probationary officer of Punjab & Sind Bank, was suspended and later dismissed following a departmental enquiry that alleged 17 charges of misconduct. He contended that the enquiry was conducted during the COVID‑19 lockdown without proper video‑conferencing facilities, that the bank failed to produce the full charge‑sheet documents, and that his defence was not recorded in the enquiry report. The Court examined the bank’s Discipline & Appeal Regulations 1981, particularly Reg. 6(3) and 6(21)(i), and held that the enquiry report omitted a gist of the petitioner’s defence and did not examine any witnesses, violating both the regulations and the principles of natural justice as articulated by the Supreme Court. Relying on the precedents of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, the Court declared the enquiry report “absolutely bad in law.” Consequently, the disciplinary order of dismissal, the appellate order and the review order were set aside, and the writ petition was allowed, directing the bank to consider reinstatement and back‑wages in accordance with law.
Issues considered
- Did the departmental enquiry comply with Regulation 6(3) and 6(21)(i) of the Punjab & Sind Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations 1981?
- Was the petitioner’s right to a fair hearing and natural justice violated by the failure to record a gist of his defence and to examine evidence?
- Should the disciplinary, appellate and review orders based on the defective enquiry report be set aside?
- Is the petitioner entitled to reinstatement with back wages and consequential benefits?
Subjects
- departmental enquiry
- natural justice
- quasi‑judicial proceeding
- bank regulations
- dismissal
- reinstatement
- writ petition
- certiorari
- COVID‑19
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7289 of 2022
======================================================
Avinash Kumar Soni (PF Code-A17821) son of Jay Kumar Soni, resident of
Flat No. A/1, Brijbhumi Apartment, K. G. Road, Nawada, P.S.-Ara Town,
District-Bhojpur at Ara.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Punjab and Sind Bank through its Chief General Manager having his office
at 5th Floor, Bank House, 21, Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008.
2. The General Manager (HRD), Punjab and Sind Bank, 5th Floor, Bank
House, 21, Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008.
3. The Deputy General Manager (HRD), Punjab and Sind Bank, 5th Floor,
Bank House, 21, Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008.
4. The Zonal Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Jalandhar, having
its office at 1st Flor, PSB House, Model Town, Jalandhar, Punjab-144003.
5. The Zonal Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Kolkata having its
office at Old Court House Street, Kolkata-700001.
6. The Branch Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Branch Office, Ward No. 10,
Old Police Line More, P.O.-Ara, District-Bhojpur (Bihar)-802301.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prashant Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Bhola Shankar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-01-2026
I.A. No.01 of 2025
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is
not pressing the present I.A. as it becomes infructuous.
2. As such, the present I.A. No.01 of 2025 is hereby
dismissed as not pressed.
Re:-C.W.J.C. No.7289 of 2022
3. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and
Learned Counsel for the State.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7289 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
2/16
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:-
(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing of the order contained in Ref.:
HO/HRD/DAC/2734/2022 dated 25-03-2022 passed by the
General Manager (HRD)- Cum-Reviewing Authority
whereby the review application preferred by the petitioner
has been rejected.
(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing of order contained in
Ref.:HO/HRD/DAC/1673/2021 dated 27-09-2021 passed by
the Deputy General Manager (HRD- Cum-Appellate
Authority whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner
has been rejected.
(iii) For issuance of writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing of order contained in Ref.: E/DAC/
CHACHOKI/ AVINASHSONI/1048 dated 08-03-2021
whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service by
the orders of the Zonal Manager, Jalandhar-Cum-
Disciplinary Authority.
(iv) For issuance of writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing of the inquiry report dated 14-01-
2021 prepared by the Inquiring Authority without
considering the defence/ submissions of the petitioner.
(v) For issuance of writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing of the memo of charge as contained
in Ref.:E/RDA/ CHACHOKI dated 13-01-2020 issued by
the Zonal Manager, Jalandhar.
(vi) For necessary direction upon the
respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner with full
back wages and all consequential benefits as the petitioner
has not remained in any gainful employment during the
period of his dismissal.
(vii) For necessary direction upon the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7289 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
3/16
respondent authorities to pay full salary and allowances to
him for the period he remained under suspension.
5. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner had joined the Punjab and Sind Bank as Probationary
Officer on 19.11.2012 in the Branch Office, R.C. Phagwara,
Punjab. He further submits that during his service, he was
transferred to Chachoki Branch in Phagwara on 12.05.2014 and
subsequently, transferred to Laxmipur Branch, Katihar on
11.09.2017. He further submits that on 31.08.2018, he was
transferred to Ara Branch, Bihar and joined there. He further
submits that vide order dated 30.08.2019, he was put under
suspension by the order of the General Zonal Manager, Kolkata
on the basis of an inspection report of the headquarter,
Inspection Department. He further submits that Kolkata is the
zonal headquarter for the Punjab & Sind Bank. He further
submits that show-cause notice was issued to him for initiation
of departmental proceeding on 21.10.2019. In response of the
same, he has submitted his explanation dated 28.11.2019. He
submits that memo of charge has been submitted on 13.01.2020
with allegation of unauthorized/ fraudulent financial and non-
financial transactions with a specific direction to submit his
written statement within 10 days.
6. Counsel further submits that there were 17 charges
Patna High Court CWJC No.7289 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
4/16
alleged in the charge memo. He further submits that the
petitioner has submitted his written statement of defence on
19.01.2020, then the Zonal Manager, Jalandhar vide its letter
dated 28.05.2020 issued a memorandum intimating that the
explanation was not satisfactory and with further intimation to
hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. It has also
been intimated about the appointment of Enquiry Authority and
presenting Officer.
7. Counsel for the petitioner put emphasis that it is
well known to all that in India, a Lock-down was imposed since
22.03.2020 and the said departmental proceeding was initiated
during this period, but the petitioner has requested to the
enquiry authority for conduction / holding enquiry through
video conferencing/virtual mode vide his letter dated
02.07.2020. He further submits that after granting permission to
hold enquiry through video conferencing/virtual mode, the
petitioner had submitted a letter demanding all relevant
documents by virtue of which allegation was to be proved
against him. In this regard, he has made specific pleading in
paragraph 15 of the writ petition vide his letter dated
27.07.2020, which is Annexure-8 of the writ petition also.
8. Counsel further submits that the only few
Patna High Court CWJC No.7289 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
5/16
documents were provided to the petitioner at the instance of the
Presiding Officer. The petitioner further demanded more
documents in connection with all the 17 charges levelled against
him. He further submits that the documents were not provided
to the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner had made
complaint before the Presiding Officer vide his letter dated
02.12.2020 and upon his complaint about non-production of
documents to him, the Presiding Officer intimated him vide E-
mail that if petitioner wants those documents, he will have to
visit the Branch of the Bank.
9. Counsel further submits that it was the era of Covid
and Lock-down was going on in different phases, but on
08.12.2020, the Presiding Officer has instructed him to submit
his comment within a period of 7 days. He further submits that
in response of the letter dated 08.12.2020, petitioner submitted
his reply to the Presiding Officer wherein he denied the alleged
charges and also pleaded specifically about non-supply of
documents as requested by him. He further submits that the
Enquiry Authority has submitted his report dated 14.01.2021 by
which all 17 charges were proved against the petitioner without
discussing defence of the petitioner, which he has taken in his
reply.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7289 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
6/16
10. Counsel further submits that the Enquiry
Authority thereafter submitted his report before the Disciplinary
Authority and he agreed on the finding of the enquiry report as
demanded a show-cause from him vide his letter dated
20.01.2021. It has been submitted further that the petitioner has
submitted his reply upon finding of the enquiry authority on
27.01.2021. In result, the Disciplinary Authority has issued an
order of dismissal on 08.03.2021. The petitioner thereafter
preferred memorandum of appeal according to the service rule
of Bank before the Appellate Authority (Deputy General
Manager, HRD). The said appeal was rejected vide order dated
27.09.2021, then the petitioner preferred review petition against
the said order before the General Manager, HRD -cum-
Reviewing Authority but his review petition was also rejected
vide order dated 25.03.2022.
11. Counsel further submits that in the background of
factual matrix of the case, he submits that departmental
proceeding was conducted in complete violation of the rule laid
down by the Bank, namely, the Punjab & Sind Bank Officer
Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations 1981. He further
submits that specifically Regulation No.6(3) of the Bank has
been completely violated as it is very much clear that the gist of
Patna High Court CWJC No.7289 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
7/16
documents mentioned in the memo of charge has to be served
upon the CSO (Charge- Sheeted Officer), but only few
documents have been provided to the petitioner and in this
regard, he had raised objection time to time before the Enquiry
Authority as well as Disciplinary Authority.
12. Counsel further submits that in the said rule, the
requirement of gist of witnesses and statement of witnesses are
necessary, but it has not been taken place. He further submits
that upon perusal of the enquiry report, it is apparent on the face
of the record that none of the point of the CSO has either been
placed in the enquiry report or has been discussed, save and
except, one phrase has been added in the column as per the
enquiry officer. He further submits that without considering the
factual matrix of the reply of the CSO, the finding of the
Enquiry Authority is absolutely bad in law. He further submits
that Enquiry Authority has taken decision completely in
violation of the regulation framed for conduction of
departmental proceeding against the officials like petitioner. He
further submits that the specific violation of Regulation 6(21)(i)
of 1981 of the Bank has been made. He further submits that
since the said regulation has been violated, then any further
action i.e., issuance of show-cause, passing order by
Patna High Court CWJC No.7289 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
8/16
departmental proceeding, passing order by the Appellate
Authority or passing order by Reviewing Authority, shall not be
sustainable in the eye of law.
13. Counsel further submits that in the present
departmental proceeding, not only the relevant regulation of
Bank has been violated but also the ratio laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in conduction of departmental
proceeding has been violated. In support of his argument, he has
relied upon the judgements of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab
National Bank & Ors. reported in 2009 (2) SCC 570 and the
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha
reported in 2010 SCC 772.
14. Counsel further submits that in those judgments,
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has categorically held that
departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding and
enquiry officer is duty bound to arrive at the finding upon taking
into consideration, the material brought on record by the parties,
here in the present case, the CSO and the Bank.
15. Counsel further submits that from the enquiry
report, it transpires that the document of the Bank has only been
considered and document of the CSO has not been considered at
all. Moreover, not a single witnesses has been examined. It is
Patna High Court CWJC No.7289 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
9/16
due to this reason, he submits that either on the basis of the
violation of law or violation of the judgment, this departmental
proceeding is not sustainable in the eye of law and hence, the
enquiry report, second show-cause, disciplinary order, appellate
order and revisional order all may be set aside.
16. Learned counsel for the Bank, on the other hand,
vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that
there is a specific allegation against the petitioner for which 17
charges were framed against him. He relied on annexure-3 of
the writ petition, which is the explanation submitted by the
petitioner. From the explanation, it transpires that the petitioner
has accepted his guilt. He further submits that in the enquiry
report, the Presenting Officer has categorical stated and
considered the reply of the CSO. He further submits that it is
due to this reason, enquiry officer has made special column for
consideration of the CSO reply and categorically written in that
column as per enclosure. He further submits that the
Disciplinary Authority at the time of passing final order, have
considered each and every point raised by the petitioner in his
reply of the second show-cause. He submits that those points
have also been considered by the Appellate Authority and
Revisional Authority therefore, according to him, there is
Patna High Court CWJC No.7289 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
10/16
absolutely no violation of either any regulation or ratio laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. He further
submits that in the departmental proceeding, there is very
narrow scope for interference. The interference can be made
only when there is violation of rule/regulation or the violation of
natural justice or punishment is exorbitant. He further submits
that there are no violation of any one and hence, the present writ
petition is fit to be dismissed.
17. Upon hearing the parties for the purpose of
deciding this case, it is necessary to quote the relevant
paragraphs of the regulation which are quoted below:-
Regulation 6(3) of Punjab and Sind Bank Officer
Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations 1981 states as
follows:-
Procedure for imposing major penalties:
6(3). Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry,
the Disciplinary Authority shall, frame definite and distinct
charges on the basis of the allegations against the officer
employee and the articles of charge, together with a
statement of allegations, list of documents relied on along
with copy of such documents and list of witnesses along
with copy of statement of witnesses, if any, on which they
are based, shall be communicated in writing to the officer
employee, who shall be required to submit, within such time
as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority (not
exceeding 15 days), or within such extended time as may be
granted by the said Authority, a written statement of his
Patna High Court CWJC No.7289 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
11/16
defence. "Provided that wherever it is not possible to
furnish the copies of documents, disciplinary authority shall
allow the officer employee inspection of such documents
within a time specified in this behalf."
Further Rule 6(21) of the same states as follows:-
6(21)(i). On the conclusion of the inquiry the
inquiring authority shall prepare a report which shall
contain the following:
(a) a gist of the articles of charge and the
statement of the imputations of misconduct or
misbehaviour;
(b) a gist of the defence of the officer employee
in respect of each articles of charge;
(c) an assessment of the evidence in respect of
each articles of charge;
(d) the findings on each article of charge and
the reasons therefor.
Similarly, this Court also feels it necessary to quote
paragraph 14 of the judgment rendered in the case of Roop
Singh Negi (supra) as under :-
“Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a
quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a
quasi-judicial function. The 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.7289 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
12/16
officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as
evidence.”
Similarly the judgment of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs.
Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) whose paragraphs 27 to 30 states as
follows:-
27. A bare perusal of the aforesaid sub-rule
shows that when the respondent had failed to submit the
explanation to the charge-sheet it was incumbent upon the
inquiry officer to fix a date for his appearance in the
inquiry. It is only in a case when the government servant
despite notice of the date fixed failed to appear that the
inquiry officer can proceed with the inquiry ex parte. Even
in such circumstances it is incumbent on the inquiry officer
to record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the
charge-sheet. Since the government servant is absent, he
would clearly lose the benefit of cross-examination of the
witnesses. But nonetheless in order to establish the charges
the Department is required to produce the necessary
evidence before the inquiry officer. This is so as to avoid the
charge that the inquiry officer has acted as a prosecutor as
well as a judge.
28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial
authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator.
He is not supposed to be a representative of the
department/disciplinary authority/Government. His
function is to examine the evidence presented by the
Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official
to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to
hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the
aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral
evidence has been examined the documents have not been
proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to
conclude that the charges have been proved against the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7289 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
13/16
respondents.
29. Apart from the above, by virtue of Article
311(2) of the Constitution of India the departmental enquiry
had to be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural
justice. It is a basic requirement of the rules of natural
justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity
of being heard in any proceedings which may culminate in
punishment being imposed on the employee.
30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted
against the government servant it cannot be treated as a
casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be
conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be
wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to
be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is
manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural
justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated
fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of
punishment including dismissal/removal from service.
18. Upon perusal of the enquiry report, which is
annexure 14(A) begins from page 244 to 279 of the writ
petition, it transpires to this Court that from page 246 that the
enquiry report has been prepared in 5 columns. The 1st column
indicates serial number, 2nd column is allegation, 3rd column is
comment of the Presiding Officer, 4th column is comment of the
CSO, 5th column is the Enquiring Authority observation. It
further transpires to this Court that in the 4 th column, where
CSO comment has to be acknowledged only term, “as per the
enclosure”, it has been written at one place.
19. In the last page of the enquiry report, the CSO
Patna High Court CWJC No.7289 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
14/16
comment is not the enclosure. This Court upon going through
the Regulation 6(21)(i)(b) of the Bank, where it is indicated that
the Enquiring Authority shall prepare a report which shall
contain a gist of defence of the Officer employee in respect of
each articles of charge.
20. This Court finds that the Enquiry Officer has
committed a blunder and basically violated the above said
regulation by not referring any gist of defence. He has written
only one term “as per the enclosure” and upon perusal of the
enclosure, the CSO comment is not attached. It is due to this
reason, this Court is of the firm view that there is a gross
violation of the said regulation in preparation of the enquiry
report. It is made clear that any judicial or quasi judicial order
must contain the reasoning and the judicial reasoning shall
always contain the appreciation of the material of both the sides
and only thereafter, the Enquiry Officer has to reach on his own
conclusion. But here in the present enquiry report, no whisper as
to what defence has been taken by the CSO discussed. It is due
to this reason, this Court is of the firm view that the enquiry
report dated 14.01.2021 annexed in 14(A) is absolutely bad in
law and not sustainable.
21. In result, any action taken by the authorities based
Patna High Court CWJC No.7289 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
15/16
on a defective enquiry report, shall also not sustainable in the
eye of law.
22. This Court hereby put emphasis on the judgments
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, where it has
been categorically held that the Departmental proceeding is
quasi judicial proceeding and Enquiry Officer has to perform
the quasi judicial function. It is the abundant duty of the
Enquiry Officer that before reaching on any finding, he has to
consider all the materials brought on record by the parties. But
here, in the present case, by the Bank, there is complete failure
of the same. Not a single witnesses has been examined in the
present case which is apparent from the record. Hence, It is also
due to this reason, this Court finds that enquiry report is
absolutely defective, in result, the order dated 08-03-2021
passed by the Zonal Manager, Jalandhar-Cum-Disciplinary
Authority, the order dated 27-09-2021 passed by the Deputy
General Manager (HRD- Cum-Appellate Authority and the
order dated 25-03-2022 passed by the General Manager (HRD)-
Cum-Reviewing Authority are hereby set aside and hence, the
present writ petition is hereby allowed.
23. Since the departmental proceeding has been
quashed, the employer is at liberty to conclude the proceedings
Patna High Court CWJC No.7289 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
16/16
begins from Enquiry Officer within 6 months of stipulated
period of time, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
24. It is made clear that Disciplinary Authority shall
also take a decision on the point of admissible back wages of the
petitioner in accordance with law.
25. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the
present writ application stands allowed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Prakashmani/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…