JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Shri H.R. Misra, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri K.M. Misra for the petitioner. Sri K.N. Misra appears for respondent-bank. 2. Shri Vishwa Bharti Arya, the petitioner was appointed as District Manager/ Senior Manager by direct recruitment in U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. on 11.4.1994. He was promoted as Asstt. General Manager/Regional Manager on 3.3.2000. In the relevant period between 16.4.1996 to 1.7.1998 he was posted as Senior Manager at Branch & District Pilibhit. 3. The departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 23.1.1999 by serving upon him a charge-sheet in respect of irregularities in disbursement of loans during his tenure of posting at Pilibhit. In the enquiry report dated 23.1.1999 he was found guilty of only one out of 15 charges and partially guilty of two charges. He was punished with withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect by order dated 29.1.2000. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board. The appeal was allowed on 5.7.2000 and the punishment order was quashed. 4. After seven years once again the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for disbursing loans during his tenure at Pilibhit. He was placed under suspension on 2.8.2005. In Writ Petition No. 1390 (S/B) of 2005 the Lucknow Bench of the High Court disposed of the writ petition on 22.8.2005 directing the disciplinary enquiry to be completed within stipulated time, failing which the suspension order shall stand revoked. 5. A charge sheet dated 29.8.2005 was served upon the petitioner with seven charges. The charge No. 1 related to the disbursement of loan to 80 persons on the security of leased lands under the Government Grants Act, 1980, of which borrowers were not in possession. The charge No. 2 related to 111 out of 418 cases of loans disbursed under the Government Grants Act in which no recovery could be made. The charge No. 3 was in relation to disbursing loans to 158 persons, who were defaulters of the bank, in violation of bank norms and loaning procedure. The charge No. 4 was to the effect that loans were disbursed to 44 defaulters in the interval of less than six months by violating bank norms. The charge No. 5 related to three more loans granted to persons in violation of bank norms. The charge No. 4 was to the effect that loans were disbursed to 44 defaulters in the interval of less than six months by violating bank norms. The charge No. 5 related to three more loans granted to persons in violation of bank norms. Charge No. 6 charged the petitioner with failing to assess the asset creation, the loan repaying capacity and financial position of the lessees under the Government Grants Act and the last charge No. 7 related to disbursing the loan to those borrowers, who had an old history of not repaying the loan. 6. The petitioner requested by his letter dated 5/6.9.2005 to the enquiry officer to supply the proposed evidence. He was given photo copies of the documents containing 52 pages including the enquiry report of Regional Senior Manager, Pilibhit and verification report of Senior Manager, Pilibhit in nine pages. The remaining pages did not describe and explain any of the charges. The petitioner again requested for furnishing the material on 6.9.2005 to which he received the reply on 9.9.2005 that he was aware of all these documents. It is alleged that inspite of repeated requests, the required documents were not given to him. On 22.10.2005 the petitioner received a letter from the enquiry officer to appear before him along with supportive evidence on 28.10.2005. The petitioner requested for affording reasonable opportunity to defend himself by supplying the material to be relied upon for proving the charges against him. His letter dated 24.10.2005 was received by the enquiry officer. The petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer on 28.10.2005. It is stated that no enquiry was held on that date, nor any evidence was led from the side of the bank, nor the petitioner was allowed to present his case. The petitioner submitted a representation to the enquiry officer alleging that the charges are vague and that he has not been given adequate opportunity to defend himself. The application was received by the enquiry officer. The petitioner gave reminder to furnish evidence/materials proposed for proving the charges. These reminders dated 9.11.2005 and 11.11.2005 were also received by the enquiry officer. Instead of supplying the material and holding a proper enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 14.11.2005, which was placed before the Committee of Management, the appointing authority on 3.12.2005. The petitioner gave reminder to furnish evidence/materials proposed for proving the charges. These reminders dated 9.11.2005 and 11.11.2005 were also received by the enquiry officer. Instead of supplying the material and holding a proper enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 14.11.2005, which was placed before the Committee of Management, the appointing authority on 3.12.2005. The Managing Director held the charges to be proved and that by his order dated 6.12.2005, punished the petitioner with dismissal from service with recovery of Rs. 2 crores and odd with updated interest from the petitioner. It is alleged that after the Managing Director accepted the report a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner annexing incomplete enquiry report on 14.12.2005. The petitioner submitted a comprehensive reply alleging that charges were vague. The material in support of the charges were not given to the petitioner and that no enquiry whatsoever was made at all to prove the charges. It was also alleged that the findings on the charges were perverse and were based on surmises and conjectures. 7. The Managing Director of the bank by impugned order dated 30.12.2005 found that charges were proved against the petitioner and that negligence of the petitioner in granting loans without scrutinizing the applications and following the procedure of the bank has resulted into doubtful recoveries of Rs. 2,34,74,978/-. It was found that the petitioner was personally interested in these loans, and that entire procedure of grant of loan was without following due procedure and which also makes the petitioner’s integrity doubtful. It was found that bank suffered losses of the aforesaid amount on account of wrong practice adopted by the petitioner. The Managing Director punished the petitioner with dismissal of service and for recovery of Rs. 2,34,74,978/-. It was also decided that the petitioner shall not be paid any amount other than suspension allowance during the period of his suspension. 8. Shri H.R. Misra submits that the charges were entirely vague. No particulars were given nor the documents relating to the charges were furnished to the petitioner. The bank did not specify as to which safeguards were not followed and as to how the loans became doubtful in recovery. The petitioner was not given the requisite documents nor allowed to inspect them and that no enquiry whatsoever was held to prove the charges. Only one date was fixed by the enquiry officer. The bank did not specify as to which safeguards were not followed and as to how the loans became doubtful in recovery. The petitioner was not given the requisite documents nor allowed to inspect them and that no enquiry whatsoever was held to prove the charges. Only one date was fixed by the enquiry officer. On 9.9.2005 the petitioner was informed that if he needs any document, he may go to the Pilibhit branch of the bank and obtain the copies. With regard to procedure for grant of loan, the enquiry officer by the same letter informed the petitioner that since he was Senior Manager, Regional Manager and thereafter Asstt. General Manager, he knows the entire procedure for grant of loan and even then if he requires any document, he may approach the branch. It is contended that on 28th October, 2005 no steps were taken to proceed with the enquiry. It is stated in paras 51, 52 and 53 of the writ petition : “51. That petitioner feeling aggrieved by the non-cooperative attitude of the Enquiry Officer and finding no other way out, filed a comprehensive representation dated 28.10.2005 before the Enquiry Officer requesting him to provide the relevant evidences/materials and further bringing to his notice that in absence of any step being taken for proving the charges, petitioner stood denied the opportunity to look into the evidences, to set up his adequate defence and to examine and cross-examine the witnesses. 52. That again this fact was also brought to the notice of the Managing Director by means of letter dated 11.11.2005 stating therein that in spite of the petitioner being present on 28.10.2005, the Enquiry Officer did nothing regarding holding of the enquiry. Neither anything was asked from the petitioner nor any kind of opportunity was given to furnish his evidence. 53. That it is stated categorically that the entire enquiry procedure adopted against the petitioner is farce and cannot be termed as an enquiry in the eyes of law being evident from the fact that the Enquiry Officer after receiving reply to the charge-sheet from the petitioner has never held any sort of enquiry in presence of the petitioner by placing evidences, calling upon the witnesses to prove the documents and the charges, recording oral statements of the witnesses and by giving petitioner opportunity to examine and cross-examine the witnesses from the side of the bank.” 9. In reply to paragraphs 51 to 55 Shri Udai Bir Saxena, General Manager (Gratuity) of the bank has stated as follows : “That, the contents of paras 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55 of the writ petition are irrelevant. Inspite of fact that petitioner has been given all the required documents in support of charge-sheet, finding himself in a very awkward position and not in a position to defend the charges, he was interested in lingering on the enquiry and as such Enquiry Officer after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, has concluded the enquiry and submitted the enquiry report against him. It is wrong to say that enquiry report suffers from any illegality in law. Rather, looking into the serious misconduct and financial loss, caused by the petitioner to the bank, he has rightly been punished by the impugned order, after the charges were held to be proved against him, considering the enquiry report which has been submitted after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.” 10. Shri H.R. Misra would submit that no enquiry as contemplated under the rules were held. The petitioner was not given material in support of the charges. The officer, who held preliminary enquiries or any other person was not examined in support of the charges. Only one date i.e. 28.10.2005 was fixed by the enquiry officer and that nothing transpired on that date. The enquiry report does not mention, as to how charges were proved. He would submit that no enquiry was held against the petitioner and that the report of the enquiry officer, show cause notice and the order of punishment are violative of the rules of natural justice, illegal, arbitrary and are liable to be set aside. 11. Shri K.N. Misra, learned Counsel for the bank submits that the petitioner was senior officer of the bank. He fully understood the charges. He was given relevant documents and was asked to go to Pilibhit branch of the bank and obtain all the documents, which he desires. The enquiry was held in accordance with law. The petitioner wanted to delay and avoid the enquiry. Since the petitioner did not give any effective reply, the report was not required to be proved and in any case he did not ask for any other evidence in defence on 28.10.2005. The enquiry was held in accordance with law. The petitioner wanted to delay and avoid the enquiry. Since the petitioner did not give any effective reply, the report was not required to be proved and in any case he did not ask for any other evidence in defence on 28.10.2005. The enquiry report was based on records of the bank, which made the recovery of more than Rs. 2 crores doubtful and that the Court should not interfere in the matters of financial irregularities. 12. A perusal of the records and the consideration of submission would show that no specific charges were framed against the petitioner. The petitioner’s request to supply the documents relating to the subject loans and the procedure, which was sought to be violated was not provided to him. The bank took no steps to prove the charges. The enquiry officer did not conduct any enquiry at all. There is nothing to show that anything transpired on the only date fixed in the enquiry by the enquiry officer on 28.10.2005. The enquiry report is based only on the preliminary enquiry report, which was not proved and that the petitioner was not given opportunity to cross-examine the Field Officer, who conducted the survey, and the author of the preliminary enquiry report. Further we find that there is no material to show that the recoveries actually became doubtful and that the amount was not recovered. The enquiry officer and the punishing authority have not recorded the findings that any loss was caused to the bank. 13. In State of U.P. v. Satrughan Lal, 1998 (3) AWC 2373 (SC) the Supreme Court relying upon Chandrama Tiwari v. Union of India, JT 1987 (4) SC 398 has held that the delinquent officer must be supplied copies of the document relied upon in support of the charges. If the documents are voluminous and copies cannot be supplied, then the such officer must be given an opportunity to inspect the same or else the principles of natural justice would be violated. In Sher Bahadur v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 3030 it was held by the Supreme Court that expression “sufficiency of evidence” postulates existence of some evidence, which links the charged officer with the misconduct alleged against him. In Sher Bahadur v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 3030 it was held by the Supreme Court that expression “sufficiency of evidence” postulates existence of some evidence, which links the charged officer with the misconduct alleged against him. Evidence, however, voluminous it may be, which is neither relevant in a broad sense nor establishes any nexus between the alleged misconduct and the charged officer, is no evidence in law. The mere fact that the enquiry officer has noted in his report “in view of oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence as adduced in the enquiry”, would not in principle satisfy the rule of sufficiency of evidence. In Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab and others, (2001) 6 SCC 260 the Supreme Court held that the expression “abuse of powers” in the context and setting in which it has been used cannot mean use of power which may appear to be simply unreasonable or inappropriate. It implies a wilful abuse or an intentional wrong. In Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1986 SC 995 the Supreme Court held that where charges framed against the delinquent officer were vague and no allegations regarding it have been made by him before the enquiry officer or before the High Court, the fact that he participated in the enquiry would not allow the department to bring home the charges. The enquiry based on such charges would stand vitiated being not fair. 14. In the case at hand, we do not express any opinion on the vagueness of the charges at this stage. There was a preliminary enquiry in which it was reported that the petitioner failed to consider at the time of grant of loan that all the applicants were not in possession of the lease land. There are also allegations that the petitioner has not verified whether the norms of the bank in grant of loan were followed. These are the matters, which were to be proved in the enquiry by relevant evidence. We are also concerned hear in this case about the manner and method in which disciplinary enquiry was conducted. The petitioner was not given the copies of all the documents in support of the charges and was not allowed inspection of these documents as well, however, voluminous they may be. We are also concerned hear in this case about the manner and method in which disciplinary enquiry was conducted. The petitioner was not given the copies of all the documents in support of the charges and was not allowed inspection of these documents as well, however, voluminous they may be. We find that when an officer has been charged with failing to adhere to the practices and norms and procedure of the bank in granting the loans, it was necessary to give copies of such norms and practices to the officer. It was not sufficient to say that as senior officer of the bank, he was aware of these norms. 15. We further find that no enquiry whatsoever was held. The enquiry officer fixed only one date in the entire proceedings. He did not examine the field officer, the author of the preliminary enquiry report or any other officer of the bank to prove the allegations. There was nothing to show that the petitioner had admitted these charges and thus it was necessary to prove the charges against the petitioner. The petitioner protested on the same day on 28.10.2005 that he was not given the entire documents and that nothing has transpired on 28.10.2005. The Managing Director as such should not have accepted the enquiry report. 16. In case of disciplinary authority, the competent authority is under duty to ensure that rules have been followed and that the delinquent officer has been given sufficient opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry proceedings. He has to, thereafter, find out whether the charges are proved by the relevant evidence to which the petitioner was given both opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and to lead his evidence in defence. It is only then notice for accepting the enquiry report and proposed punishment can be given. In this case the procedure was not followed. The charges, which are alleged to be vague was not proved and thus we cannot sustain the acceptance of the enquiry report and the order by which the petitioner was awarded punishment. 17. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of punishment dated 30.12.2005 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. Sahkari Gramin Vikas Bank, Lucknow as well as the enquiry report are set aside. The disciplinary enquiry will be relegated to the stage of submission of charge-sheet. 17. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of punishment dated 30.12.2005 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. Sahkari Gramin Vikas Bank, Lucknow as well as the enquiry report are set aside. The disciplinary enquiry will be relegated to the stage of submission of charge-sheet. The respondents shall also follow the procedure laid down under the rules for holding the enquiry and observe principle of natural justice in which the petitioner would be given adequate opportunity of hearing. The petitioner was suspended during the pendency of enquiry and therefore, he shall be treated under suspension. The petitioner shall be paid entire suspension allowance admissible under the rules with effect from the date the suspension allowance was stopped. It will be open to the respondents to attach the petitioner on a convenient place from where he may be able to defend himself. The entire arrears of suspension allowance shall be paid within a period of month from the date the petitioner furnishes a certified copy of the order before the Managing Director of the bank. 18. The petitioner will also be entitled to payment of Rs. 15,000/- as costs of the proceedings from the bank, which shall also be paid to him along with arrears of suspension allowance. ————