Raj Kumari vs. The Chairman,Bank Of Maharashtra And Others

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005857
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Reserved on : 13 September, 2022
rd
Pronounced on: 23 December, 2022

+ W.P.(C) 4213/2011 & CM APPL. 19728/2022
RAJ KUMARI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Mr. Digvijay
Rai, Mr. Divyank Rana, Mr. Archit
Mishra and Mr. Akash Sahraya,
Advocates

versus

THE CHAIRMAN, BANK OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Soumitra Chatterjee and Ms.
Sriparna Chatterjee, Advocates

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
1. The instant civil writ petition has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking setting
aside of order of dismissal from service and dismissal of the appeal
th
thereof. The petitioner is assailing the order dated 24 December 2010
passed by the General Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Regional Office,
New Delhi (hereinafter “Disciplinary Authority”) whereby the services of
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4213/2011 Page 1 of 28
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:41:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005857
the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner has also moved this Court
th
to challenge the order dated 7 April 2011 passed by the Executive
Director, Bank of Maharashtra, Pune (hereinafter “Appellate Authority”)
passed in the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the
Disciplinary Authority.
BACKGROUND
2. The perusal of the record reveals that the following course of
events have culminated into the dispute between the present parties and
filing of the instant petition:-
a) The petitioner was working at the post of Economist at the
Regional Office of the Bank of Maharashtra, New Delhi under the
subordination of Senior Manager, Swapan Saha in the Planning
Section of the Regional Office.
th
b) On 17 May 2010, the Senior Manager made a complaint
against the petitioner alleging that she had removed his credit
card, made purchases of a gold chain and a ring, valuing
₹34,622/-, and returned the same amount of cash, which was
found lying on the table of the Manager on the next day alongwith
an anonymous letter.
c) Thereafter, upon the complaint of the Senior Manager, a
th
Show Cause Notice dated 9 March 2010 was served upon the
petitioner intimating her about the complaint made against her,
that she failed to maintain good conduct and discipline and that
the acts alleged against her were in violation of Regulation No. 3
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4213/2011 Page 2 of 28
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:41:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005857
(1) and 3 (2) of the Bank of Maharashtra Officer Employees
(Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter “Employees
Regulations”).
d) The petitioner replied to the Show Cause Notice vide her
th
communication dated 27 March 2010, stating therein that the
Senior Manager had himself given her the credit card to purchase
the aforesaid gold chain and ring as a favour, which she purchased
and immediately handed over to him.

e) Pursuant to the Show Cause Notice and the reply thereto, a
disciplinary inquiry was conducted whereupon the Disciplinary
th
Authority, upon making its findings vide order dated 24
December 2010, imposed the penalty of dismissal from service
upon the petitioner with disqualification from future employment.
f) The petitioner approached the Appellate Authority, i.e., the
Executive Director, Pune, aggrieved by the order of the
Disciplinary Authority.
th
g) On 7 April 2011, the Appellate Authority passed the order
upholding and confirming the findings of the Disciplinary
Authority.
h) Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by way
of the instant petition assailing the order of dismissal from service
th
dated 24 December 2010 and order passed by the Appellate
th
Authority dated 7 April 2011. The petitioner also prays for
reinstatement to the post and position she held at the time of
dismissal from service.

Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4213/2011 Page 3 of 28
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:41:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005857
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES
3. This Court shall now proceed to elaborate upon the submissions
made on behalf of the parties in their pleadings as well as those made
during the course of hearing.
On behalf of the Petitioner
a) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that on the day of the incident for which the complaint
against the petitioner was filed, the Senior Manager, Swapan Saha,
approached the petitioner and persuaded her to purchase some
ornaments for his wife and himself entrusted her with his credit
card. The petitioner, on instructions of the Senior Manager,
purchased a gold chain worth ₹26,000/- and a gold ring worth
₹8,622/-, which were handed over to the him along with his credit
card. However, the Senior Manager coined a story about the theft
of his credit card and also, lodged a complaint with the Police. It is
submitted that the complainant, at any stage, did not make any
statement to suggest that the gold articles purchased were not in his
possession.
b) As per the Senior Manager his credit card was stolen,
however, it is submitted that the petitioner could not have used the
same without knowing the PIN to the card. Moreover, none of the
shop-keepers/dealers were inquired or called upon during inquiry
to cross-examine the petitioner and neither there is any written
statement of these dealers relied upon while drawing the conclusion
that the petitioner had stolen the credit cards to make the purchases.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4213/2011 Page 4 of 28
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:41:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005857
rd
c) On 23 February 2010, the petitioner was detained in the
office by the Senior Manager and other male colleagues, where she
was made to sign a confessional statement on the extreme threats
and mental torture at late hours, whereafter she was placed under
rd
suspension with immediate effect vide order dated 23 February
2010 of the General Manager, Delhi, passed in the late night of the
same day. It is submitted that the urgency of serving the notice of
suspension in the middle of the night after the petitioner was
detained in the office and made to sign a confessional statement
was in no manner whatsoever justified and was with ulterior
motives.
th
d) It is submitted that Chargesheet dated 17 May 2010 was
issued upon the complaint of the Senior Manager, Swapan Saha,
who had also made a complaint to the Police, and eventually he
rd
made the communication dated 23 February 2010, to the SHO
Police Station R.K. Puram stating therein that he did not want any
police action against the petitioner since his credit card was
th
received back by him on 20 February 2010 but departmental
inquiry be initiated against her.
e) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner while
assailing the impugned orders of dismissal from service and
dismissal of appeal by the Appellate Authority submitted that the
inquiry against the petitioner was impartial and unfair and was also
influenced by the Senior Manager. It is submitted that opportunity
of personal hearing was not given to the petitioner by the Appellate
th
Authority before passing the order dated 7 April 2011 and the
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4213/2011 Page 5 of 28
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:41:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005857
order was passed mechanically, arbitrarily and was discriminatory.
Reliance has been placed upon the judgement passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Ram Chander vs.
Union of India, (1986) 3 SCC 103, to submit that the Appellate
Authority was bound to provide an opportunity of personal hearing
to the petitioner before passing the impugned order and thereafter,
pass a detailed and reasoned order.
f) It is further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority
th
completely failed to consider the bill dated 19 February 2010 for
₹26,000/- issued by M/s Ashwini Kumar’s Mehrasons Jewelers
which was issued in the name of the Senior Manager Swapan Saha.
Neither the employees of the shop were called as witness nor was
Swapan Saha inquired on this point.
g) Moreover, no material or witness had been produced by the
Inquiry Officer or even the Presiding Officer to establish that the
petitioner had stolen the credit card of the Senior Manager or that
they had seen her writing any letter to the Senior Manager or had
seen her keeping the letter on his desk.
h) It has also been submitted that the concerned Senior
Manager, Swapan Saha in his personal vendetta had filed the false
complaint, since the petitioner rejected the advances made by him.
It is submitted that the husband of the petitioner, who is posted
with the Railways at Mumbai, lives away from the petitioner and
therefore, the Senior Manager, with the intent of getting close to
the petitioner started visiting her residence at odd hours. The Senior
Manager attempted to form illicit relations with the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4213/2011 Page 6 of 28
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:41:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005857
i) The petitioner had made complaints regarding the advances
made by the Senior Manager, however, at the time of inquiry, the
Presenting Officer and the Inquiry Officer removed the documents
th
dated 27 August 2010 from the purview of inquiry pertaining to
sexual harassment.
j) The learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly urged that
the inquiry held against the petitioner was in violation of the
guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of
Vishaka & Ors vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors, (1997) 6 SCC 241 .
The directions necessitate that cases of sexual harassment should
be headed by a woman and not less than half of its member should
be women. The departmental inquiry conducted against the
petitioner did not meet the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
k) It is, therefore, prayed that the instant petition be allowed
and the reliefs sought therein are granted to the petitioner.

On behalf of the Respondents
a) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
submitted that the reply to the Show Cause Notice also showed that
the petitioner had used the credit card of the Senior Manager and to
rd
that effect, she had also signed a confessional statement on 23
February 2010 before the bank authorities wherein she admitted
that she had taken away the credit card in question and made
purchases thereon and only after that she was put under suspension
rd
vide office memo dated 23 February 2010. During the inquiry
proceedings, it was proved beyond doubt that the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4213/2011 Page 7 of 28
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:41:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005857
unauthorizedly took away and used the credit card of her Senior
Manager. It is submitted that the petitioner misrepresented herself
to be the wife of Swapan Saha and unauthorizedly used his credit
card.
b) The Inquiry Authority investigated into the matter and
th
placed its report dated 9 November 2010 before the Disciplinary
Authority, which upon consideration of all the material, after
affording a hearing to the petitioner and hearing her concluded that
the charges levelled against her were proved. Thereafter, the
penalty was imposed and the petitioner was dismissed from
services by way of passing a detailed order.
c) It is further submitted that the Presenting Officer produced a
set of 20 documents and examined 6 witnesses in support of the
charges whereas, the petitioner, even after being given due and
reasonable opportunity for being heard, did not prefer to produce
any witness in her favour.
d) Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
petitioner attempted to wriggle out from her confessional statement
rd
signed on 23 February 2010 on the pretext that she was detained
in the office till 9 pm, whereas in reality she left the office in the
evening and came back on her on where she wrote the confessional
statement in the presence of others officers. This stance was
supported by three witnesses of the respondents who were not
confronted or disproved in cross-examination.
e) It is submitted that the acts of the petitioner were
unbecoming of a Bank Officer and hence, covered under the Clause
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4213/2011 Page 8 of 28
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:41:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005857
3 of the Employees Regulation. It is submitted in this regard that
the petitioner is a bank official and for the Bank the integrity of its
official is its primary concern. Thus, a bank official indulging in
activities like misuse of other persons credit card was liable to be
penalized by way of a major penalty and as such called for a
disciplinary action under Regulation 4 of the Bank of Maharashtra
Officer Employee (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976.
Reliance has been placed upon the case of K. Raj Arora v. State
Bank of India, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 1044, wherein it was held
that in banking business the dedication, diligence, integrity and
honesty are required to be preserved by every bank employee and
most importantly the bank officer so that the confidence of the
public in the bank is not impaired and therefore, any officer
committing misconduct for his personal needs and against the bank
and the depositors deserves to be dealt with iron hands and not
leniently.
f) It is submitted that the petitioner had taken the allegations of
sexual harassment after the conclusion of evidence and had raised
it only while pressing the instant petition before this Court to take
advantage of the guidelines issued under Vishaka vs. State of
Rajasthan (Supra) . The said allegations were raised by the
petitioner only at the time of filing of the written statement before
th
the Inquiry Authority on 27 August 2010 and were not even
th
raised at the time of issuing reply to the Show Cause Notice on 27
March 2010. Moreover, the petitioner wrongly suggested that the
letters pertaining to the allegations were not considered by the
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4213/2011 Page 9 of 28
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:41:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005857
Inquiry Authority.
g) Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the
judgment of Union of India vs. Parmananda, (1989) 2 SCC 177,
B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, Pravin
Kumar vs. Union of India, (2020) 9 SCC 471 and State Bank of
India vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 612 to give force
to his arguments that the powers of judicial review may not be
exercised as those of an Appellate Court.

h) It is, therefore, submitted that the instant petition may be
dismissed for being devoid of any merit.

Rejoinder on behalf of the petitioner
a) It is submitted that the Presenting Officer’s note to the
Inquiry Officer and the AGM, which is appended as Annexure P-
13 to the petition, clearly indicates that the Presenting Officer
declared the allegations of the petitioner submitted vide
communications/complaints as false without even conducting any
inquiry upon the same.
b) It is submitted that the Senior Manager/complainant was
accompanied by the petitioner to the jewellery shops and offered
the articles bought to the petitioner, however, she refused the
advancements made by him, which led him to file the complaint
and concoct the entire story about his credit card being stolen.
c) It is stated by the petitioner that in fulfilment of ulterior
motives, the Senior Manager managed to get the suspension letter
rd
against the petitioner at late night of 23 February 2010, which was
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4213/2011 Page 10 of 28
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:41:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005857
served upon her without even affording her an opportunity of being
heard and without the issuance of any Show Cause Notice.
Thereafter, after having served upon the petitioner the suspension
order, the Senior Manager, Swapan Saha approached the Police
Station at late night hours of the same day to withdraw his
th
complaint stating that he had received his credit card on 20
February 2010 and he also communicated that he only wanted
disciplinary action against the petitioner.

d) It is submitted that, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be
reinstated to her position.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have
perused the entire record.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
5. The petitioner, by way of filing of the instant petition, has assailed
the order for dismissal from services and the appellate order, which have
been perused by this Court. The parties present two contradictory position
of facts by way of their pleadings and oral submissions, however, at this
stage in the writ jurisdiction, this Court shall not conduct a roving inquiry
into the facts of the case. The extent of powers which this Court may
exercise has been elaborated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
6. In B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court made an observation qua the power of review of
inquiry:-
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4213/2011 Page 11 of 28
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:41:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005857
“ 12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a
review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of
judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives
fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the
authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the
court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of
misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is
concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a
competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are
complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based
on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to
hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a
finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based
on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act
nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to
disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that
evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the
disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent
officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its
power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority
to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own
independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal
may interfere where the authority held the proceedings
against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with
the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules
prescribing the mode of inquiry 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, the
Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the
finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to
the facts of each case.”
7. Therefore, it is for this Court to see whether the order imposing
major penalty upon the petitioner was passed by the competent authority
following the due procedure, while observing the principles of natural
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4213/2011 Page 12 of 28
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:41:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005857
justice, affording fair treatment to her and drawing the observations,
findings and conclusion based on evidence.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. P.
Gunasekaran , (2015) 2 SCC 610 has settled the law with respect to the
extent of powers which a High Court may exercise while adjudicating a
matter pertaining to disciplinary action and has held as under:-
“ 12 . …. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not
and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High
Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of
the evidence. 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;

Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4213/2011 Page 13 of 28
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:41:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005857
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted
inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;

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

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India vs. Ajai
Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 612 had held as under:-
“26. 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;
(iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on
some evidence and authority has power and
jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.”
10. Upon a conjoint reading of the precedents of the issue, there is no
doubt to the effect that while exercising powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, this Court will limit itself to the questions whether
the principles of natural justice were observed, the findings given and
conclusion drawn were based on evidence before the competent authority
and not influenced by extraneous considerations and also whether such
findings and conclusion were arbitrary and/or capricious. The guidelines
and directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court need to be given effect
while adjudicating upon the instant case.
11. Moving towards the peculiar and specific circumstances of the
instant case, it is pertinent to see that soon after the complaint was made
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4213/2011 Page 14 of 28
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:41:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005857
by the Senior Manager, a suspension order was served upon the
rd
petitioner, on 23 February 2010. The suspension order as well as the
order of dismissal from services were passed on the ground that the act of
stealing the credit card by the petitioner portrayed conduct which was
unbecoming of a bank official and was in violation of Clause 3 of the
Bank of Maharashtra Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976
which reads as follows:-
“3. (1) Every officer employee shall, at all times take all
possible steps to ensure & protect the interests of the bank
and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty,
devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming
of a bank officer.
(2) Every officer employee shall maintain good conduct
and discipline and show courtesy and attention to all persons
in all transactions and negotiations.
(3) No officer employee shall, in the performance of his
official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him,
act otherwise than in his best judgement except when he is
acting under the direction of his official superior.
(4) Every officer employee shall take all possible steps to
ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all persons for
the time being under his control and authority.”
12. Soon after the complaint was filed, the petitioner was served with
suspension order which noted as under:-
“It has been reported to the undersigned that Dr. Ms.
Rajkumari Manager Regional Office Delhi removed the
credit card belonging to Mr. Swapan Saha Senior Manager
Regional Office Delhi on 19.02.2010 and misused the same
for making purchases worth Rs. 34622/- from Merchant
Establishments in South Extension Delhi.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4213/2011 Page 15 of 28
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:41:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005857

The above act of commission on her part amounts to
violation of Bank of Maharashtra Officer Employees
(Conduct) Regulations 1976 as under

a) Every officer employee shall do nothing which is
unbecoming of a bank officer.

b) Every officer employee shall maintain good conduct and
discipline and show courtesy and attention to all persons in
all transactions and negotiations.

Bank intends to conduct departmental enquiry as per the
provisions of Bank of Maharashtra Officer Employees
(Discipline & Appeal) Regulations against her. Pending the
said enquiry, she is placed under suspension with immediate
effect.”

th
13. A Show Cause Notice was then served upon the petitioner on 9
March 2010, the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder:-
“It has been reported to the undersigned as under –

• On 19.02.2010, you unauthorisedly took away Credit
Card No. 4006 6610 3641 3826 from the wallet of Mr.
Swapan Saha, Senior Manager of our office while he
was attending a meeting in the afternoon.

• On 19.02.2010, you made purchases as under on the
above mentioned credit card of Mr. Saha

o Gold Chain 22kt (12.44 gms) worth Rs. 26,000
from M/S Ashwini Kumar's.
o
Gold finger ring 22kt (4.18 gms) worth Rs.
8,622 from M/S Titan Industries Ltd.

• On 20.02.2010, currency notes for the said
transaction amount wrapped in an anonymous letter
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4213/2011 Page 16 of 28
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:41:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005857
were found by Mr. Saha on his table.

The above act is unbecoming of a Bank Officer. You have
also failed to maintain good conduct and discipline and show
courtesy and attention to all persons in all transactions. Your
above acts amount to violation of the Regulation No.3 (1)
and 3(2) of Bank of Maharashtra Officer Employees’
(Conduct) Regulations, 1976.

You are hereby called upon to show cause as to why
disciplinary action should not be taken against you. Your
reply must reach the undersigned within 15 days of the
receipt of this letter failing which necessary steps will be
taken in accordance with the above mentioned regulations.”

14. It is evident from record that it was only after the suspension order
was passed that the Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner and
prior to the said suspension, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner
to make even a statement on the allegations levelled against her, let alone
defend her case. Although, a suspension is only a precautionary action
and not a punitive action, yet the petitioner was not formally intimated
about the complaint against her until the suspension order was passed
against her.
15. After the Show Cause Notice was issued, a reply was made by the
th
petitioner on 27 March 2010. The relevant portion of the reply is
reproduced hereinunder:-
“1. I deny that I had unauthorizedly took away the Credit
Card bearing No. 4006 6610 3641 3826 from the wallet of
Mr. Swapan Saha, Sr. Manager, Planning Deptt., Regional
Office Delhi.

2. It is true that I have visited the shops mentioned in the
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4213/2011 Page 17 of 28
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:41:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005857
letter at the instance of Mr. Swapan Saha on 19-02-2010. Mr.
Swapan Saha gave me his Credit Card and asked me for a
favor to purchase the Gold Chain and Finger Ring for his
use. When I asked that how can I purchase on his Credit
Card as it requires the signatures of the Card Holder. He
told me these shopkeepers are well known to him and he will
communicate them about my visit. Accordingly I went to shop
and make purchases for him and Articles were handed over
to him.
I don't know how he plotted the things. Sir, it may be treated
as SIMPLE TRAP for the Reasons Best Known to him only.

3. I am not aware of any such Anonymous Letter which is
reported to be found by Mr. Swapan Saha.”
16. After consideration of the reply to the Show Cause Notice, the
disciplinary action was sought against the petitioner and statement of
charges were framed as under:-
“Dr. Mrs Rajkumari while working as Manager at Delhi
Regional Office during the period from 12.09.2009 to
23.02.2010 committed following misconducts:

01. On 19.02.2010 she had taken away the credit card of Mr.
Swapan Saha, Senior Manager, Regional Office Delhi, when
he was away from his seat for attending a meeting at
Regional Office, Delhi.

02. She used the above mentioned credit card of Mr. Swapan
Saha for making purchases worth Rs. 34,622 from Merchant
Establishments – M/S Ashwini Kumar's Mehrasons Jewellers
and M/S Titan Industries Ltd.”

17. An Inquiry Report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority
th
and ultimately, the order of dismissal dated 24 December 2010 was
passed.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4213/2011 Page 18 of 28
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:41:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005857
18. The charges as have been levelled against the petitioner were that
she had stolen the credit card of the Senior Manager, Swapan Saha and
had purchased gold jewellery items using the same without his consent
and knowledge.
19. A perusal of the record, including the evidence by way of witness
statements highlighted in the Inquiry Report, the order of the Disciplinary
Authority and the Appellate Authority order, shows that the same were
passed on the primary ground that the petitioner had signed a
rd
confessional statement on the 23 of February 2010 admitting to the
effect that she had stolen the credit card in question. The said statement
had been vehemently disputed and strongly opposed by the petitioner on
the ground that she was detained in the office premises and made to sign
the statement under the threat of being handed over to the police on
accounts of theft.
20. This disputed position of fact, although cannot be investigated into
by this Court, however, is extremely pertinent to be examined which was
not adequately considered during the inquiry proceedings. The possibility
and likelihood of the alleged detention, threat and influence was not
sufficiently considered and was decided based on the witness statements
of officials present at the office and parties to the alleged detention and
threat at the odd hours. The allegations of detention and threat by certain
officials by the petitioner were serious enough to cast a shadow of doubt
on the credibility of the statement signed by the petitioner admitting to
taking the card away from the possession of the Senior Manager.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4213/2011 Page 19 of 28
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:41:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005857
21. Pursuant to the signing of the alleged confessional statement, the
petitioner was served with the suspension order. The said suspension
order signed at the late hours of the same night also raised a suspicion as
to the genuinity, impartiality and non-biasness of the allegations levelled
and action taken against the petitioner. It is difficult to accept the
contention that a suspension order, which was drafted and issued
immediately upon signing of the confessional statement at the late-night
hours, i.e., 10 pm, engaging the administrative side of the Bank, only to
suspend the petitioner for her unbecoming conduct was not to give effect
to an ulterior motive. There is no reason apparent for which the
suspension of the petitioner was rushed.
22. After the suspension, and other formal proceedings the impugned
order was passed, the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:-
“[7] From the record the DA/undersigned find that the
inquiry is properly conducted, adequate opportunity to
defend was granted to the CSOE and conclusions drawn by
the Inquiring Authority are based on the evidence brought
before him. The undersigned has examined all the
submissions made by the CSOE on the findings of the
Inquiring Authority and has not found anything substantive
in her submissions. Having carefully gone through the entire
record of the case and having examined all the submissions
of the CSOE the DA/undersigned find that the findings are
based on adequate evidence and are rational. Therefore, the
undersigned accept the findings of the Inquiring Authority
that both the charges levelled against her are proved.

[8] Having examined the nature and gravity of the charges
the undersigned impose the following punishments upon Dr.
(Mrs.) Raj Kumari (PF No.24913), Manager (under
suspension), Regional Office, Delhi.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4213/2011 Page 20 of 28
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:41:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005857

Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4213/2011 Page 21 of 28
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:41:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005857

23. The aforesaid impugned order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority, was thereafter, confirmed by the Appellate Authority.
th
24. A perusal of the impugned order dated 24 December 2010 shows
that the Disciplinary Authority, while passing the order, had only
reiterated inquiry proceedings held before the concerned Inquiry Officer,
and the evidence considered while passing the Inquiry Report. It noted
that the Inquiry Report had been made upon considering all the evidence
that was before the Inquiry Officer and thereby, agreeing to the findings,
it upheld the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority
has not even made a passing observation on the facts, evidence or
findings pertaining to the matter. The Disciplinary Authority while
imposing the major penalty has failed to give any reason for decision to
dismiss the petitioner from services. While imposing the major
punishment, the Disciplinary Authority ought to have applied its mind
and recorded the reasons for imposing the same dismissing the petitioner
from services alongwith the disqualification from future employment.
The Appellate Authority also failed to consider that in case the
Disciplinary Authority was upholding the Inquiry Report, it still required
to give, if not comprehensive, a reasoned order especially when the
punishment awarded was that of dismissal.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4213/2011 Page 22 of 28
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:41:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005857
25. Moreover, the Appellate Authority as well noted that the inquiry
and proceedings thereto were in accordance with the procedure, however,
failed to consider and appreciate the lapse in inquiry with respect to the
evidence, and the lack thereof as, was also erroneously overlooked by the
Disciplinary Authority. The order of the Appellate Authority is hence,
erroneous for the want of reasoning for confirming the order of the
th
Disciplinary Authority. The lapse found in the impugned order dated 24
th
December 2010 persisted in the impugned order dated 7 April 2011 as
well.
26. Another extremely significant point to be considered while
evaluating the impugned orders is the fact that the petitioner addressed
her complaints against the Senior Manager, Swapan Saha, pertaining to
unwelcoming advances which she had time and again faced. The
petitioner wrote the communications explaining the advances of
unwelcoming and sexual nature made by the Senior Manager towards her
however, at no point any inquiry was ever conducted into these
communications/complaints and instead, in the Inquiry Report, it was
found that the Presenting Officer had blatantly rejected the allegations
and dismissed them as being fraud, false and baseless without even
conducting a single hearing on the same and without even making a
preliminary inquiry into it.
27. The Appellate Authority to this aspect, without giving any reasons
for the same, made the observations as reproduced under:-
“[7] The observations of the Appellate Authority (AA) on
the relevant submissions of the appellant are as follows:
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4213/2011 Page 23 of 28
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:41:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005857
(a) Observations of the AA on the general submissions:
i. The appellant has made unfounded allegations (mentioned
under para 6.A above) against Mr. Saha. She has mentioned
about her so-called personal relations with Mr. Saha. These
allegations of the appellant are totally imaginary, unfounded,
frivolous and slanderous and are obviously afterthought.”

28. The issue of sexual harassment at workplace is not limited to the
four walls of an office premises but also extends to the officials outside
the premises who are abusing their power and capacity as a superior to
influence a junior and a newcomer by making unwelcoming advances,
requesting sexual favours, making physical contact or other sexually
determined behavior. These issues are of extremely critical nature which
have to be addressed and resolved by the concerned officials who have
the authority to adjudicate upon them. An unheard claim of a woman
against sexual harassment at workplace can mute others in the future.
29. The Noting of the Presenting Officer is reproduced hereunder:-
“Mrs. Raj Kumari, Manager, Delhi, regional Office,
submitted 2 letters dt. 27.08.2010 of one page and 3 pages
each, she has levelled· false and baseless charges without
any evidence or witness. The contents of these letters show
that these are written out of frustration by Mrs. Raj Kumari.
My submission is that these letters should be ignored and
removed from Inquiry". That acting on such notice of the
Presenting Officer, the Inquiry Officer; removed such letters
of the petitioner pertaining to her prolonged Sexual
Harassment by Mr. Salta from the purview of the Inquiry.”

30. This Court finds that the noting of the Presenting Officer made on
the Inquiry Report was not an abomination and outrageous conduct which
could not have been at any cost pardoned and allowed to sustain. Whether
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4213/2011 Page 24 of 28
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:41:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005857
the said noting was made under influence or not is not for this Court to
decide, however, the very fact that the statement was made without
consideration of the claims raised, was in itself arbitrary and
condemnable.
31. It is also found that in this entire matter there was no evidence or
material on record to conclusively establish beyond doubt that the
allegations levelled against the petitioner were proved. From the very
beginning the complaint, recourse and action taken as well as the
conclusions drawn were influenced by authorities and prejudiced against
the petitioner.
CONCLUSION
32. The principles guiding the judicial review of order passed in
matters of service, especially in matters of disciplinary inquiry, have
already been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and have been
delineated earlier. In the background of the said guidelines/directions of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court has reached the following
conclusion upon perusing the record, hearing the contentions and
submissions and considering the analysis as made in the foregoing
paragraphs.
I. The conclusion drawn by the Inquiry Officer, the
Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, on
the very face of it, was wholly arbitrary and capricious that
no reasonable person could have arrived at in the absence of
any incriminating evidence except for the alleged
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4213/2011 Page 25 of 28
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:41:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005857
confessional statement signed by the petitioner, which also
was disputed, considering that the petitioner had made a
categorical statement that she had been threatened to sign the
same. Moreover, the probability and likelihood of
intimidation and threat cannot be entirely overruled since the
petitioner was not given any opportunity to defend herself at
this stage and also, considering the fact that the said
statement was signed beyond the official hours in the office
premises in the presence of only male witnesses. No inquiry
was made to this aspect to ensure that the confessional
statement was signed by the free will of the petitioner.
II. A primary consideration for this Court to evaluate was
whether the findings of the Disciplinary and Appellate
Authorities impugned by the petitioner were based on no
evidence, and this Court finds that there was in fact nothing
to show at the first instant that the petitioner had taken away
the credit card in question from the possession Swapan Saha
without his knowledge and made the purchases of the
ornaments by herself without the consent of the Senior
Manager. It is difficult to accept the contention that the
petitioner was able to secure the credit card from the wallet
of the Senior Manager, take it to two differently located
shops, select two separate jewellery articles and make the
payment with the said credit card using the PIN etc. all
without the knowledge of the Senior Manager.
III. The Inquiry Authority and the Disciplinary Authority had
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4213/2011 Page 26 of 28
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:41:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005857
erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material
evidence which were the letters/communications made by
the petitioner against the sexual harassment by the concerned
Senior Manager, Swapan Saha, which were not even given a
preliminary consideration by the authority concerned and
was completely dismissed by the Presenting Officer, on her
own will without investigation or inquiry into the same, by
her noting made on the Inquiry Report. The inquiry had
completely contravened the directions issued by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra).
IV. The power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the
individual receives fair treatment and in the instant matter, it
is evident that from beginning to end the inquiry against the
petitioner was prejudiced and treatment towards her was
neither fair nor reasonable nor equitable.
33. Keeping in view the aforesaid conclusions, this Court finds
strength in the case of the petitioner and force in the arguments advanced
by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner as well as those raised
in the pleadings, and therefore, the instant petition is allowed.
th
Accordingly, the order dated 24 December 2010 passed by the General
Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Regional Office, New Delhi and the
th
order dated 7 April 2011 passed by the Executive Director, Bank of
Maharashtra, Pune are set aside.
34. In the totality of the circumstances as laid down, the respondents,
who are the officials concerned of the employer Bank, are accordingly,
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4213/2011 Page 27 of 28
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:41:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005857
directed to take all necessary steps to reinstate the petitioner with all
consequential benefits. It is, however, made clear that in accordance with
the principle of “no work, no wages”, no back wages/arrears are required
to be paid to the petitioner for the period during which she has not
rendered her services i.e., from the date of her dismissal until the date of
reinstatement.
35. Also, since the petitioner has been put through the rigours of
prejudiced inquiry, investigation, and dismissal, and has only been able to
have her grievances redressed and get the relief she had sought after over
10 years of pending litigation, to secure the ends of justice the
respondents are also directed to pay a compensation of an amount of
₹1,00,000/- to the petitioner within a period of three months, failing
which 9% p.a. interest shall be payable.
36. With the aforesaid discussion and directions, the instant petition is
allowed.
37. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
38. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.



(CHANDRA DHARI SINGH)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 23, 2022
gs/ms

Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4213/2011 Page 28 of 28
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:41:20