Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1357 (GAU)

Hem Chandra Baruah v. State Bank of India

2017-10-24

A.K.GOSWAMI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. Heard Dr. R. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Barua, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. The petitioner was serving as Deputy Manager (Accounts) in the State Bank of India (SBI), Tura Branch. Pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding, by an order dated 04.01.2006 (Annexure-Q), issued by the General Manager-II, SBI, the petitioner was imposed a penalty of "removal from service" in terms of Rule 67(i) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules (for short, "SBIOS Rules"), along with recovery in the form of forfeiture of the gratuity amount of Rs. 3.5 Lakhs under Rule 4(6)(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, for the loss of Rs. 10 Lakhs caused to the Bank and recovery of 50% of Rs. 27,879/- under Rule 67(d) of the SBIOS Rules for the loss caused to the Bank on account of penal interest paid to RBI due to cash shortage. The suspension period was treated to be not on duty. By a letter dated 12.01.2006 (Annexure-R), the petitioner was informed that he may prefer appeal to the appellate authority within 45 (forty-five) days from the date of receipt of the said letter as provided under Rule 69(2) of the SBIOS Rules. 2. The petitioner preferred an appeal on 03.03.2006 (Annexure-S). 3. In the writ petition, averments are made by the petitioner that the appeal was not disposed of and the outcome of the appeal was not communicated to him. The appeal was, in fact, disposed of by the Chief General Manager, SBI, vide his order dated 18.5.2006 (Annexure-A to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents). 4. On 06.01.2004, an explanation was sought for from the petitioner pertaining to cash shortage of Rs. 10 Lakhs in the Currency Chest, which had been detected on 27.12.03. The petitioner was asked to submit his explanation within a period of 3(three) days. It is pleaded by the petitioner that he had furnished his explanation, but without considering the same, in exercise of powers under Rule 68A (1) of SBIOS Rules, he was suspended with immediate effect. The petitioner had filed an appeal dated 14.02.2004 against the order of suspension. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the Deputy General Manager vide his order dated 22.07.2004. The petitioner had filed an appeal dated 14.02.2004 against the order of suspension. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the Deputy General Manager vide his order dated 22.07.2004. Thereafter, a letter dated 10.08.2004 was issued by the respondent Bank intimating the petitioner that it had been decided to initiate departmental proceeding against him in terms of Rules 67 and 68 of the SBIOS Rules in respect of the charges framed therein. The charges referred to therein are as follows: "Charge No. 1: On 13.12.2001, while you were looking after the Government Section of Tura Branch, you have allegedly passed for payment a fake pension bill for Rs. 24,764/- drawn by one Shri K. Marak, although the same bill was paid at the branch to Smt. G Marak on 07.12.2001. The Treasury Officer, Tura informed the branch that they did not send the bill for Rs. 24,764/- dated 13.12.2001 and they struck off the amount from the Value Dated Monthly Statement for the month of December 2001 submitted by the Branch. You did not exercise any caution and failed to detect that the original bill was paid at the branch on 07.12.2001. Being the In-charge of Government Section, it was your duty and responsibility to check the contents of the locked boxes received from the Treasury, but you failed to notice whether the impugned bill was in the box or not. Had you been a little more vigilant, the payment of the fake bill could have been stopped and the culprit could have been apprehended. Charge No. II: On 28.02.2002, a sum of Rs. 24,764/- was refunded to the Bank by Shri Swapan Ghosh, Messenger, government Section at the branch, being the amount of the defrauded pension bill paid at the branch on 13.12.2001 to one Shri K. Marak. It is alleged against you that you have contributed a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to Shri Swapan Ghosh to enable him to make good the loss caused to the Bank in this regard, thereby allowing an irregular and unauthorized deposit to the Government Account to take place." 5. It is alleged against you that you have contributed a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to Shri Swapan Ghosh to enable him to make good the loss caused to the Bank in this regard, thereby allowing an irregular and unauthorized deposit to the Government Account to take place." 5. By a letter dated 10.08.2004, in terms of Rule 68(4) of the SBIOS Rules, the petitioner was directed to submit written statement of defence in regard to the charges levelled against him within a period of 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of the letter failing which, it was indicated therein that it would be construed that he had nothing to say in defence and, in such eventuality, the Bank would be free to take such action against him as may be deemed fit. 6. On the very next day, i.e. 11.08.2004, another letter was issued to the petitioner enclosing thereto the Article of Charge framed against him and the Statement of Imputation of Lapses/Misconduct alleged against the petitioner, as Annexures-II and III, respectively. It was stated in the letter that the petitioner may submit his written statement of defence in terms of Rule 68(2)(iii) of the SBIOS Rules within 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of the said letter. In Annexure-III Statement of Imputation of Lapses/Misconduct alleged against the petitioner, 7(seven) allegations were listed. The said Article of Charge reads as follows: "Charge While you were posted as Deputy Manager (Accounts) at State Bank of India, Tura Branch, you indulged in various irregular practices such as leaving the keys of strong room in a casual and irresponsible manner, leaving headquarter without sanction of leave by the appropriate authority, not properly maintaining the required books/registers relating to cash held in the vault, etc. These have resulted in the Bank being put to a financial loss of Rs. 10 lacs by way of cash shortage in the currency chest. Thus, you have violated Rule 50(4) of State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules which are applicable to you. The imputation of lapses on the basis of which the above charge is leveled against you is given in Annexure-II, along with the list of documents/witnesses in Annexure-III." 7. Subsequently, by a letter dated 2.9.2004, one more allegation, being Allegation No. V in, was added against the petitioner and the petitioner was again called upon to respond to the said allegation. Subsequently, by a letter dated 2.9.2004, one more allegation, being Allegation No. V in, was added against the petitioner and the petitioner was again called upon to respond to the said allegation. The 8(eight) allegations are as follows:- "Allegation-I It is observed that while you were functioning as Accountant at State Bank of India, Tura Branch during the period October, 2001 to January, 2004, you had committed gross irregularities in management of cash at the Currency Chest thereat. As a result there was a cash shortage of Rs. 10 lacs (Rupees ten lacs) in the chest balance at the Branch on 23-12-2003. Due to your deliberate negligence the Bank was exposed to a financial loss to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs. Thus you did not discharge your duties with utmost devotion and diligence and failed to protect the interest of the Bank. Allegation - II It is alleged that the 10 (ten) Bin books were not maintained properly under due authentication by joint custodians to depict the correct date wise cash withdrawal/deposits. Due to your improper and perfunctory maintenance the purpose for maintenance of the bin books were frustrated. The said irregularity was pointed out by the RBI Inspecting Officials when they conducted RBI Currency Chest inspection of Tura Branch on 13-10-2003. You also misled the Branch Manager into giving a false confirmation to the controllers in replying to the RBI inspection report that the Bin Books were being maintained as required. Further, it was observed that the actual cash did not agree with the balance shown in the respective Bin Books. A few of such examples are given below:- Date Almirah Denomination PCs cash as per Bin Book PCs actual cash Difference 27.12.03 1 50 103000 1,06,000 +3000 20 27000 31,000 +4000 10 103000 59,000 -44,000 2 1000 300 300 - 500 33000 34,000 +1000 100 112000 1,05,000 +7000 Allegation - III It is alleged that on 23-12-2003, you had left your safe keys (containing the joint custodians strong/vault room set of keys) in the cabinet of the Branch System Administrator (Shri Romen Das): In this way you have violated instructions contained in Bank's Book of Instructions Volume I, chapter 3, para 42, 43 & 46 (old); chapter 7, para 2.12, 2.15, 5.1 & 5.5, page 257, 258, 260 (revised). Allegation - IV It is alleged that you have not completed the formalities of branding over/taking over charge of cash, securities and other valuables and filing necessary certificate when you proceeded on unauthorized leave. Allegation - V It is alleged that you availed yourself unauthorized leave on 27th December, 2003 and left your head quarter on 24.12.2003 without permission of your controller even though you had the added responsibility as the officiating Branch Manager vide office order dated 23.12.2003. You had thus displayed utter disregard to Bank's extant guidelines, especially in a very sensitive/responsible position. You have thus violated instructions contained in Bank's Book of Instructions, Vol. I, chapter 1, para 11 (old), chapter 7, para 1.3, page 254 (revised). Allegation - VI It is alleged that the vault register was not written for consecutive 2 days, i.e. 22nd & 23rd December, 2003. Further, you did not maintain vault register properly. A number of mistakes were observed in the vault register on 3.11.2003, 24.12.2003 and 19.12.2003. You had thus violated instructions contained in Bank's Book of Instructions Vol. I, chapter 3, para 23 & 25 (old), chapter 6, para 16.4, 16.7, 16.8, page 238, 239 (revised). Allegation - VII It is alleged that all your above omissions and commissions while you were holding charge of Accountant at Tura Branch led to a cash shortage of Rs. 10 lacs in the Currency Chest detected on 23.12.2003. You are, therefore, accountable and responsible for the aforesaid loss of Rs. 10 lacs in the chest on the aforesaid date. Had you been cautious in discharging your duties properly, the loss could have been avoided. In this way, you have violated the instructions contained in chapter 6, para 16.8 (page 239), vol. I of Bank's Book of Instructions (revised). Allegation-VIII The books and records relating to transactions in Currency Chest at Tura branch were maintained by you in a very perfunctory manner. As a result of this, the actual date of shortage of cash could not be ascertained. In the absence of any clear date as to when the actual cash shortage of Rs. 10,00,000/- took place the Reserve Bank of India has charged Rs. 22,603/- as penal interest since the date of their last inspection, i.e. 13.10.2003 upto 26.12.2003 and Rs. 5,276/- for the period from 27.12.2003 to 14.01.2004. Thus, the Bank had to pay an aggregate amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- took place the Reserve Bank of India has charged Rs. 22,603/- as penal interest since the date of their last inspection, i.e. 13.10.2003 upto 26.12.2003 and Rs. 5,276/- for the period from 27.12.2003 to 14.01.2004. Thus, the Bank had to pay an aggregate amount of Rs. 27,879/- as penal interest due to the cash shortage. Therefore, your acts have caused a financial loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs. 27,879/-, in addition to the less of Rs. 10,00,000/- due to the cash shortage." 8. Thereafter, by another letter dated 02.12.2004, some corrections with regard to the dates in the allegation No. VI was brought to the notice of the petitioner and his response to the same was sought for. The amended allegation No. 6 reads as follows; "Allegation No. VI It is alleged that the vault register was not written for consecutive 2 days, i.e. 22nd and 23rd December, 2003. Further, you did not maintain vault register properly. A number of mistakes were observed in the vault register on 03.11.2003, 24.11.2003 and 19.12.2003, you had thus violated instructions contained in Bank's Book of Instructions Vol. I, Chapter 3, para 23 & 26 (old), Chapter 6, para 16.4, 16.7, 16.8, page 238, 239 (revised)." 9. The petitioner did not submit any reply to the show cause notice. During enquiry, 4(four) witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The petitioner did not examine any witness. However, the petitioner participated in the departmental proceeding and had also engaged a defence representative to espouse his cause. 10. The letter dated 04.11.2004 (Annexure-I of the writ petition) goes to show that the charges framed against the petitioner vide letter dated 10.08.2004 (Annexure-F of the writ petition) were abandoned and an Enquiry Officer was appointed only to enquire into the charges framed by letters dated 11.8.2004 and 02.09.2004. The Enquiry Officer, on conclusion of enquiry, submitted a report dated 20.06.2005 holding that (i) allegation No. I is partly proved, (ii) allegation No. VII is not conclusively proved, and (iii) rest of the allegations are proved. The Deputy General Manager, however, disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer with regard to the allegation Nos. The Enquiry Officer, on conclusion of enquiry, submitted a report dated 20.06.2005 holding that (i) allegation No. I is partly proved, (ii) allegation No. VII is not conclusively proved, and (iii) rest of the allegations are proved. The Deputy General Manager, however, disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer with regard to the allegation Nos. I and VII and held that both the allegations were proved and, accordingly, a letter dated 07.07.2005 (Annexure-0 of the writ petition) was issued to the petitioner asking him to submit his representation, if any, within a period of 10(ten) days. Along with the said letter dated 07.07.2005, a copy of the enquiry report dated 20.06.2005 was also enclosed. 11. The petitioner submitted his response vide his letter dated 16.08.2005 (Annexure-P of the writ petition). As noticed earlier, after consideration of the same, the order dated 04.01.2006 was passed. 12. Dr. Sarma has submitted that the disciplinary proceeding itself was void ab initio as the Deputy General Manager was not the authority under the SBIOS Rules to initiate the proceeding and that the Deputy General Manager had usurped the authority and jurisdiction of the General Manager, who, in terms of the SBIOS Rules, is the appropriate authority to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, who is an officer in the rank of MMGS-II. By producing before the Court a Circular dated 19.07.2005, Dr. Sarma has submitted that, no doubt, by the aforesaid Circular certain changes had been incorporated in the SBIOS Rules, by which the Deputy General Manager is conferred with the authority and jurisdiction to initiate departmental proceeding, but the same cannot relate back retrospectively to the charge-sheet issued against the petitioner. In this connection, learned counsel has referred to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of N.T. Devin Katti & Ors. v. Karnataka Public Service Commission, reported in (1990) 3 SCC 157 with particular reference to paragraphs 13 and 14 thereof to contend that a statutory rule or Government order is prospective in nature unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. v. Karnataka Public Service Commission, reported in (1990) 3 SCC 157 with particular reference to paragraphs 13 and 14 thereof to contend that a statutory rule or Government order is prospective in nature unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. When the disciplinary proceeding was initiated in the year 2004 in terms of the extant Rules, it was the General Manager who was the competent authority to issue charge-sheet against an officer in the rank of MMGS-II, and the same having not been done, the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner is a nullity, he submits. 13. Further submission of Dr. Sarma is that the materials on record will demonstrate that no finding was recorded with regard to the actual date on which the shortage of money had taken place and in absence of such finding, to hold the petitioner responsible for the loss of Rs. 10 Lakhs cannot be sustained. It is submitted by him that leading questions were asked by the Enquiry Officer and the proceeding was conducted by him in a question and answer form and, therefore, the petitioner was seriously prejudiced. It is also the contention of Dr. Sarma that charges as mentioned in the Statement of Imputation of Lapses/Misconduct alleged against the petitioner were not decipherable and were vague and, therefore, the petitioner was denied the opportunity of filing an effective written statement 14. In support of his submissions, Dr. Sarma has relied upon the following judgments: Moni Shankar v. Union of India & Anr., reported in (2008) 3 SCC 484 , Union of India v. K.A. Kittu & Ors., reported in (2001) 1 SCC 65 and Llekhraj Rana & Ors. v. Inspector General of Police, Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar & Ors., reported in 1997 (2) GLT 398. 15. On the other hand, Mr. Barua has submitted that the submission of Dr. Sarma that SBIOS Rules were changed only in the year 2005 by Circular dated 19.07.2005 is absolutely incorrect. Mr. Barua has submitted that on 14.02.1997, a Circular was issued notifying the change of authority structure which had been approved by the Executive Committee of the Central Board in its meeting held on 04.02.1997. He contends that once the resolution of the Executive Committee of the Central Board is circulated, it takes effect. Mr. Barua has submitted that on 14.02.1997, a Circular was issued notifying the change of authority structure which had been approved by the Executive Committee of the Central Board in its meeting held on 04.02.1997. He contends that once the resolution of the Executive Committee of the Central Board is circulated, it takes effect. Drawing attention of the Court to Annexure-1 of the Circular dated 14.02.1997, he submits that by the said Circular the Deputy General Manager was conferred with the authority to initiate disciplinary proceeding and, therefore, there is no merit in the contention of Dr. Sarma that the Deputy General Manager was not the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceeding against an officer in the rank of MMGS-II to which the petitioner belongs. Referring to the Circular dated 19.07.2005, he submits that, no doubt, additional changes were effected, but so far as the petitioner is concerned, authority was conferred upon the Deputy General Manager by the Circular dated 14.02.1997. 16. With regard to the departmental proceeding, it is submitted by Mr. Barua that the submission of Dr. Sarma that the Enquiry Officer had posed questions to the witnesses is not correct because it was not the Enquiry Officer but the Presenting Officer who had asked questions to the witnesses to elicit what actually had transpired. He submits that the reliance placed upon by Dr. Sarma on Moni Shankar (supra) is misconceived inasmuch as, in the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court had dealt with a situation where the Enquiry Officer had taken the role of the Presenting Officer. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court had held that the roles cannot be interchanged and it was not within the ambit and scope of the Enquiry Officer to ask questions to the witnesses. 17. Drawing attention to the Memorandum of Appeal filed by the petitioner, Mr. Barua has submitted that in such appeal the petitioner had not even remotely adverted to any shortcomings in the disciplinary proceeding and the thrust of contention in the appeal had veered around penalty imposed, which the petitioner contended to be disproportionate. Therefore, this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ought not to embark upon a journey to find out the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence to arrive at an independent finding as to whether the charges framed against the petitioner was proved. Therefore, this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ought not to embark upon a journey to find out the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence to arrive at an independent finding as to whether the charges framed against the petitioner was proved. With regard to the submission of Dr. Sarma that Bank failed to establish the date on which shortage had occurred, it is submitted that the same was due to the fact that the petitioner, who was to maintain the books and records relating to the transactions in currency chest, had maintained the same in a very perfunctory manner. 18. Mr. Barua has placed reliance on the following judgments: State Bank of India v. Ram Lal Bhaskar &Anr., reported in (2011) 10 SCC 249 and Bharati Boro v. State Bank of India & Ors., reported in 2011 (4) GIT 999. 19. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 20. As noticed earlier, the petitioner did not submit any reply to the charge-sheet and the allegations levelled against him. It will be appropriate to quote the relevant portion of the statements made by the petitioner in the appeal presented (Annexure-P of the writ petition): "03. In this connection, I feel deeply shocked and aggrieved with the decision of the Appointing Authority for such a harsh punishment being sought to be inflicted on me which, if materializes, will be wholly disproportionate to the nature of charge that is said to have been established against me in the case. The departmental enquiry has held me accountable for committing certain acts of negligence although to the best of my knowledge and belief, I never indulged in any kind of negligent acts deliberately during my tenure at Tura branch or for that matter during my entire service period in the Bank so far. Even if the conclusion drawn by the Inquiring Authority and the Disciplinary Authority of my having been negligent is accepted, the proposed penalty of 'Removal from Service' and forfeiture of the gratuity amount of Rs. 3.50 lacs is too harsh vis-à-vis the nature of guilt on my part. Even if the conclusion drawn by the Inquiring Authority and the Disciplinary Authority of my having been negligent is accepted, the proposed penalty of 'Removal from Service' and forfeiture of the gratuity amount of Rs. 3.50 lacs is too harsh vis-à-vis the nature of guilt on my part. The proposed punishment is going to cause great hardships to me financially apart from the fact that I alongwith my family members would be exposed to unbearable social stigma for the rest of our lives. 04. In addition to the above, financial loss to me on account of this punishment would be: (a) Forfeiture of gratuity Rs.3.50 lacs (b) Salary for 2 years @ Rs.3.00 lacs per years Rs.6.00 lacs (c) Salary during suspension period not paid to me Rs.3.00 lacs Total Rs.12.50 lacs The Bank has inflicted same punishment on Mr. W.G Momin another officer in the same case. It is, therefore, pertinent to note that the Bank shall make a savings of Rs. 25.00 lacs (12.50 X 2) in this case against alleged loss of Rs. 10.00 lacs. Sir, this is highly disproportionate and the Bank in order to ensure providing natural justice shall not attempt to make a profit out of punishing Officers. 05. In view of the foregoing and also keeping in view my service in the Bank for a long period of over 33 years, I make this fervent appeal to your good self in terms of Rule 69(2) of State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules to review my case in a dispassionate manner and condone the lapses on my part, which I might have committed unintentionally while serving at Tura Branch. While I assure you to be more careful in discharging my duties in the Bank in future I make an earnest appeal to your good self to be gracious enough to set aside the proposed penalty or at least reduce the penalty to a reasonable extent for the shake of rendering justice to me." 21. The sheet anchor of the argument of Dr. Sarma rests on the premise that the Deputy General Manager was incompetent to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner and it was the General Manager alone, who had the authority and jurisdiction under the SBIOS Rules to initiate departmental proceeding. The submission advanced is found to be without any merit. It is not correct as submitted by Dr. Sarma rests on the premise that the Deputy General Manager was incompetent to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner and it was the General Manager alone, who had the authority and jurisdiction under the SBIOS Rules to initiate departmental proceeding. The submission advanced is found to be without any merit. It is not correct as submitted by Dr. Sarma that the authority was vested with the Deputy General Manager to initiate departmental proceeding only on issuance of Circular dated 19.07.2005. The Appendix-H pertains to delegation of administrative powers under the SBIOS Rules. No doubt, the SBIOS Rules, as on 01.01.1992, conferred power of disciplinary authority upon the General Manager in respect of JMGC Scale-I and MMGC-II Officers serving in the Circle. The operative portion of the Circular dated 14.02.1997, which is on the subject of delegation of administrative powers under SBIOS Rules reads as follows:- "Delegation of Administrative Powers SBI Officers Service Rules (SBIOSR) Please refer to our Circular letter No. PA/CIR' 63 dated the 15th July, 1992, in terms of which we have circulated a list of Competent Authorities under various provisions of the SBI Officers' Service Rules (SBIOSR) for exercising administrative powers for implementation of the relevant rules/paragraphs. Consequent upon the implementation of the recommendations of M/s. Mckinsay & Co., it has become necessary to review the whole gamut of the authority structure with a view to making changes/delegations wherever necessary. 2. We have accordingly computed a comprehensive list of Competent Authorities under SBI Officers' Service Rules covering the following Service Rules. 2.2(1), 2.3(11), 3(1)h, 7(1), 8,14(1), 16(1)& (2), 19(1), 19(1) 4th Proviso, 19(3), 20(1), 25, 37, 41(4)(g), 44(5) & 59. The list was placed before the Executive Committee of the Central Board at its meeting held on the 4th February, 1997 and approved by them. A copy of the comprehensive authority structure designating Competent Authorities under the above rules annexed as Annexure I will be effective from the date of approval given by ECCB, i.e. the 4th February, 1997. We send herewith a copy of the memorandum for the ECCB together with a copy of the resolution passed by them. 3. We shall be glad if you will please go through the Annexure carefully and be guided accordingly. Please also issue a circular to all branches/offices on the lines of the draft enclosed. Yours faithfully, For Dy. Managing Director & Corporate Development Officer" 22. 3. We shall be glad if you will please go through the Annexure carefully and be guided accordingly. Please also issue a circular to all branches/offices on the lines of the draft enclosed. Yours faithfully, For Dy. Managing Director & Corporate Development Officer" 22. A perusal of the Circular goes to show that the comprehensive authority structure designating competent authorities annexed as Annexure-I was to be effective from 4.2.1997. Perusal of Annexure-I of the Circular goes to show that in respect of both minor as well as major penalty, disciplinary authority has been changed from General Manager to Deputy General Manager. Correspondingly, changes were also made in respect of the authority to impose penalty, appellate authority and reviewing authority. While earlier, authority to impose penalty in respect of minor penalty and major penalty were General Manager and Chief General Manager, respectively, they were changed to Deputy General Manager and General Manager. The appellate authority had been changed in respect of minor penalty from Chief General Manager to General Manager and in respect of major penalty from Deputy Managing Director and Corporate Development Officer to Chief General Manager. Similarly, changes had also been effected in respect of reviewing authority. By Circular dated 19.07.2005, as rightly submitted by Mr. Baruah, some further changes had been effected in the authority structure. So far as MMGS-II Officers are concerned, there was no change in the authority structure for deciding the disciplinary cases. 23. I have examined the minutes of the departmental proceeding and I do not find that air/questions were asked by the Enquiry Officer to the charge-sheeted officer (the petitioner). Neither in the writ petition nor in the appeal preferred, the petitioner had alleged violation of principles of natural justice during the course of the disciplinary proceeding. Perusal of the appeal memo also goes to show that findings recorded during the enquiry proceeding had not been assailed. The petitioner himself had admitted that there had been some omissions on his part, which he sought to attribute to lack of knowledge and previous experience. No plea was taken in the appeal that charges and allegations were vague because of which the petitioner could not file written statement/show cause. 24. The petitioner himself had admitted that there had been some omissions on his part, which he sought to attribute to lack of knowledge and previous experience. No plea was taken in the appeal that charges and allegations were vague because of which the petitioner could not file written statement/show cause. 24. In Ram Lal Bhaskar (supra), the Supreme Court had held that in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the disciplinary authority and so long as the findings of the disciplinary authority are supported by some evidence, the High Court does not re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different and independent finding on the evidence. 25. In a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thus, the High Court does not function as a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against the public servant In such a proceeding, it is to be determined whether the enquiry is held by a competent authority by following the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice had been complied with. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry had accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court to scan and review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding. The decision cited by Dr. Sarma in K.A. Rittu (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court had held that the Enquiry Officer is duty bound to consider the evidence of all witnesses examined by the delinquent officer. It was rendered on the backdrop of the factual events in the said case where the Enquiry Officer had not considered the evidence of 2(two) other witnesses while placing reliance on only 1 (one) witness. Llekhraj Rana (supra) was pressed into service by Dr. Sarma to emphasize that if a person fails to attain the highest standard of efficiency in performance of duty, in such a case, an inference of negligence would not constitute misconduct and it can also not be said to be a case of lack of devotion to duty. Llekhraj Rana (supra) was pressed into service by Dr. Sarma to emphasize that if a person fails to attain the highest standard of efficiency in performance of duty, in such a case, an inference of negligence would not constitute misconduct and it can also not be said to be a case of lack of devotion to duty. A mere look at the allegations would go to show that it is not a question of failure on the part of the petitioner to attain highest standards of efficiency. These were elementary requirements of a person holding a responsible position in a Branch of a Nationalised Bank dealing with public funds. In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference with the penalty imposed. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.