Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 33 (ALL)

RAJEEV SAXENA v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

2018-01-05

SIDDHARTH

body2018
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Heard Sri Vishnu Sahai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjai Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has filed the above noted writ petition, praying for the quashing of the dismissal order dated 29.02.2000 passed by respondent no.2 and the appeal rejection order dated 03.08.2000, passed by respondent no.3. The brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working as clerk-cum- cashier at Shyamganj Branch of Punjab National Bank at Bareilly, a co-employee, Shri Vikas Kudesia embezzled several lakhs of Rupees in different transactions and this was detected on 15.02.1996. Police investigation proceeded and on 19.02.1996, Sri Vikas Kudesia admitted in writing that all the frauds have been committed by him. On enquiry it was found that he has committed fraud to the extent of Rs.17,63,626/-. The modus operandi of Sri Vikas Kudesia was to make fictitious credit entries in different accounts of his own and of his friends and relatives, without depositing any amount. In the Police enquiry it was found that 17 employees of the Bank, including Senior Manager and other Officers were responsible for the acts of Sri Kudesia of committing fraud of Rs.17,63,626/-. In the Police enquiry report, the name of the petitioner was at Sl.No.17 and two sums of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.8,000/- were also mentioned against fraudulent entries made by Sri Vikas Kudesia in favour of petitioner. Two Charge Sheets were issued to the petitioner. One Charge Sheet dated 12.02.1997 which was in respect of an amount of Rs.8,000/- which was fictitiously adjusted by Sri Vikas Kudesia against the L.F.C. T Bill of the petitioner. An enquiry was conducted and the minor punishment of withholding 2 increments of the petitioner was awarded to him. However, in respect of the amount of Rs.10,000/- which was shown as fictitious credit into mutual fund account of the Punjab National Bank in the name of PNB RIPS-94, the petitioner was charge sheeted on 21.01.1998. First charge was of defrauding the Bank of the aforesaid amount in connivance with Shri Vikas Kudesia and has purchased mutual fund units without depositing the amount. The Second charge was that the petitioner on the basis of certificate of mutual fund has got over draft facility limit of his account raised in the Bank. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 11.02.1998 to the charge-sheet stating that his wife, Mrs. The Second charge was that the petitioner on the basis of certificate of mutual fund has got over draft facility limit of his account raised in the Bank. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 11.02.1998 to the charge-sheet stating that his wife, Mrs. Neeru Saxena, knew Sri Vikas Kudesia, being co-employee of the petitioner and also distant relative and his wife, Smt. Ruchi Kudesia, was an agent of mutual fund of the Bank. Mrs. Neeru Saxena invested Rs.10,000/- in cash in PNB RIPS-94, through Smt. Ruchi Kudesia and when the allotment letter of mutual fund and certificate were received by her, the petitioner deposited them in the Bank and obtained over draft facility enhanced against them. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to investigate into the charges against the petitioner. Bank submitted 85 documents and list of 4 witnesses but later only one witness, Sri H.K. Lunial, was produced in the enquiry. All the documents filed in the enquiry were in the handwriting of Sri Vikas Kudesia. On behalf of the petitioner, his wife Smt. Neeru Saxena, was examined and cross examined by the Bank and she clearly stated that the Application Form of the PNB RIPS-04 were filled by Sri Vikas Kudesia and it was also mentioned therein that Rs.10,000/- is being deposited in cash. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 08.11.1999 holding both the charges proved against the petitioner. The petitioner, on the second Show Cause Notice dated 20.11.1999, submitted his representation against the findings of the Enquiry Officer and vide order dated 19.01.2000, the disciplinary authority proposed punishment of "dismissal without notice". Finally after reply dated 10.02.2000 of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of dismissal without notice dated 29.02.2000 against the petitioner. The respondents have filed their Counter Affidavit stating that after full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, he was punished. The departmental witness, Sri H.K.Luniyal, was cross examined by the petitioner and his witness, Smt. Neeru Saxena also deposed before the Enquiry Officer and was cross examined and thereafter, the charges against the petitioner were found proved. The petitioner has filed Supplementary Affidavit bringing on record, the copy of the Enquiry Report dated 08.11.1999 and also a Rejoinder Affidavit denying averments made in the Counter Affidavit and reiterating the averments in the writ petition. The petitioner has filed Supplementary Affidavit bringing on record, the copy of the Enquiry Report dated 08.11.1999 and also a Rejoinder Affidavit denying averments made in the Counter Affidavit and reiterating the averments in the writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that initially the Bank gave the List of 4 witnesses, namely Sri V.K. Gupta, Assistant Manager, Patel Chowk Branch; Sri H.K. Luniyal, Assistant Manager, Regional Office, Bareilly; Sri Narendra Saxena, Manager Shahjahanpur Branch, the officer, who detected the fraud on 15.02.1996 and Sri V.K. Agrawal, the Senior Inspector, who investigated the fraudulent deeds of Sri Vikas Kudesia. However, only one witness, Sri H.K.Luniyal, who was Assistant Manager in the Regional Office of the Bank at Bareilly was produced as witness in the enquiry against the petitioner. It has been argued that on account of non production of Sri V.K. Agrawal, the Senior Inspector, who investigated the fraud or Sri Narendra Saxena, who discovered the fraud committed by Sri Vikas Kudesia, grave prejudice has been caused to be rights of the petitioner since Sri Luniyal was not conversant with the correct facts and was posted at Regional Office of the Bank at Bareilly. The witnesses, who were relevant, were kept away from enquiry by the Bank. The learned Counsel for the respondents has replied that no prejudice has been caused to the rights of the petitioner by non production of all the witnesses initially mentioned in the list. Rather the petitioner has been benefited by their non production. The second argument of the petitioner is that the punishment order has been passed without fully considering the reply dated 10.02.2000 of the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 19.01.2000 issued by the Bank against the proposed punishment of dismissal without notice. The Counsel for the respondents have stated that the punishment order dated 29.02.2000 has been passed after considering the reply made by the petitioner and therefore, it is legally sound order. The third argument raised by the petitioner is that he has raised six detailed grounds in his appeal made to the appellate authority and at the time of personal hearing also submitted his detailed submissions in writing. The third argument raised by the petitioner is that he has raised six detailed grounds in his appeal made to the appellate authority and at the time of personal hearing also submitted his detailed submissions in writing. But the appellate order does not shows consideration of any of the grounds raised by the petitioner and it has been passed after considering the entire case history of the petitioner and has thereafter recorded the finding:- "In view of the series of identical transactions against the fraudulent entries through the account (s) of Shri Vikas Kudesia, the benefits of which have gone to the appellant by way of the credits in the borrowal a/cs sanding in his name, I do not find any merit in his plea that he was not a wrongful beneficiary under the transaction pertaining to purchase of the RIPS. Accordingly, I am not convinced with his explanations justifying availment of the overdraft limits against the questioned securities i.e., RIPS-94. In view of such factual position emerging from the records of the case, the other arguments raised in the appeal as also during the personal hearing are devoid of merit. The same are therefore, not acceptable to me. Having stated and observed as above, the appeal of the appellant is rejected and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 29.02.2000 is confirmed." Referring to the above findings of the Appellate Authority, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the enquiry was conducted on only one fictitious entry of Rs.10,000/- made by Sri Vikas Kudesia, whereof, beneficiary was alleged to be the petitioner. However, the finding of the appellate authority is that the benefit of series of fraudulent entries through the Accounts of Sri Vikas Kudesia has gone to the appellant. It shows complete non application of mind by the Appellate Authority to the grounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal since he has made very sweeping observations regarding series of fraudulent entries made by Sri Vikas Kudesia, benefiting the petitioner, when the dispute was regarding only one entry of Rs.10,000/-. The learned Counsel for the respondents has replied that the appellate authority after going through all the grounds raised in the appeal by the petitioner has recorded conclusive and consolidated finding which is in accordance with the requirements of the law and there is nothing wrong therein. The learned Counsel for the respondents has replied that the appellate authority after going through all the grounds raised in the appeal by the petitioner has recorded conclusive and consolidated finding which is in accordance with the requirements of the law and there is nothing wrong therein. The fourth argument submitted by the petitioner is that in the enquiry conducted against the petitioner, there was no document forged or fabricated by him for any undue gain. The Application Form of PNB RIPS-94 was admittedly filled by Sri Vikas Kudesia in his own handwriting and it shows receipt of Rs.10,000/- in cash from his wife, Smt. Neeru Saxena. Therefore, once there was documentary evidence to prove the receipt of Rs.10,000/- by Sri Vikas Kudesia or his wife Smt. Ruchi Kudesia, who was agent of PNB RIPS-94, there was no occasion to draw inference that Rs.10,000/- was not paid to Sri Kudesia, when the fraudulent credit entry of Rs.10,000/- was admittedly made by Sri Kudesia in the Account of the Mutual Fund in the name of the petitioner. It was self evident that Sri Kudesia took the money from Smt.Neeru Saxena, but did not deposited the same in the Mutual Fund Account and on the basis of fraudulent credit entry in the Mutual Fund Account of the Bank showed the deposit of Rs. 10,000/-. Alleging that because the petitioner was beneficiary of the amount of Rs.10,000/-, he was proceeded against departmentally and punished. Sri Vikas Kudesia was, in fact, the beneficiary of Rs.10,000/- since he took the amount from Smt. Neeru Saxena but never deposited the same in the Mutual Fund Account of the Bank and instead of deposit of the amount posted a fraudulent entry of credit of Rs.10,000/- on behalf of the petitioner from his Account. The learned Counsel for the respondents has argued that the petitioner not only got benefited from the fraudulent credit entry of Rs.10,000/- but he also got benefited from the Certificate of Mutual Fund received in lieu of allotment of Mutual Fund Units and he deposited the same in the Bank against enhancement of overdraft limit. Therefore, it can not be said that the petitioner was innocent. Therefore, it can not be said that the petitioner was innocent. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has finally argued that the finding of the punishing authority that he did not produced any documentary evidence to prove payment of Rs.10,000/- to Smt. Ruchi Kudesia nor any witness to counter the charges and had the amount been deposited by the petitioner himself in the Bank, no fraud would have taken place is incorrect. He has stated that the receipt of Rs.10,000/- is mentioned in the Application itself. The initial burden of proving the charge was upon the Bank and there was no negative burden of disproving the charge on the petitioner. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution and never on the defence. Further, the petitioner was neither the agent of the Bank like, Ruchi Kudesia, nor he himself ever applied for allotment of any Unit of Mutual Fund of the Bank. His wife, Smt. Neeru Saxena, knew Sri Vikas Kudesia and his wife Ruchi Kudesia and therefore, she trusted them and paid the amount in cash towards the purchase money of the Mutual Fund. The learned Counsel for the respondents has argued that the petitioner has been given full opportunity of hearing before the Enquiry Officer and thereafter, he has found that the petitioner in connivance with Sri Vikas Kudesia posted the fraudulent entry and therefore, the finding of fact have been recorded against him, which can not be assailed before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have considered the material on record and arguments made on behalf of both the parties. It is well settled that High Court can interfere with the orders passed in departmental proceedings to correct the errors of law or fundamental procedural requirement, which may lead to manifest injustice and can interfere with the impugned orders in "exceptional circumstances" as held in Union of India Vs. Parma Nanda, AIR 1989 SC 1185 ;State Bank of India Vs. Samarendra Kishore Endow (1994) 2 SCC 537 ; Transport Commissioner, Madras Vs. A. Radha Krishana Moorthy (1995) 1 SCC 332 ;State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh, AIR 1996 SC 736 ; Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Bhola Nath Singh, AIR 1997 SC1908;Union of India Vs. Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava (2002)1 SCC,188; Lalit Popli Vs. Canara Bank (2003) SCC583. In State of Tamil Nadu Vs. A. Radha Krishana Moorthy (1995) 1 SCC 332 ;State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh, AIR 1996 SC 736 ; Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Bhola Nath Singh, AIR 1997 SC1908;Union of India Vs. Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava (2002)1 SCC,188; Lalit Popli Vs. Canara Bank (2003) SCC583. In State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S. Subramaniam, AIR 1996 SC 1232 , the Apex Court has held that as the High Court has power of judicial review of the administrative action on complaint relating to service conditions of the employee, it is within the exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority to consider the evidence on record and to record findings whether the charge stood proved or not. It is equally settled law that technical rules of evidence have no application in the disciplinary proceedings and the authority is to consider the material on record. In judicial review, the court has no power to trench on the material on the jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence and to arrive on its own conclusion. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It is meant to ensure that the delinquent receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion, which the authority reaches, is necessarily correct in the view of the Court or the tribunal. When the conclusion reached by the authority is based on evidence, the court or the tribunal is devoid of power to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the proved charges.The only consideration the court/tribunal has in its judicial review, is to consider weather the conclusion is based on the evidence on record that support the finding or whether the conclusion is based on no evidence. Proceeding with the examination of the rival submissions, it is observed that initially list of 4 witnesses were submitted by the Bank but thereafter, all the witnesses who were conversant with the correct facts of the case, were detained and one witness who was posted at Regional Office of the Bank was produced in enquiry. High Court of Delhi in the case of Rajeshwar Singh Vs. Union of India in Civil Writ No. 2516 of 1996,SLR 1990 Vol. High Court of Delhi in the case of Rajeshwar Singh Vs. Union of India in Civil Writ No. 2516 of 1996,SLR 1990 Vol. 1, page 24 wherein paragraph-6 it has been held as under:- "(6) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the department had initially proposed to examine only five witnesses in support of the charge but in actuality as many as "even witnesses were examined. In this behalf, my attention has been drawn by the. learned counsel for the petitioner to Annexures 'A' and 'B'. Annexure 'A' is the charge-sheet and there are four annexures to this Annexure 'A' and perusal of Annexure Iv thereto shows that the department proposed to examine five witnesses namely. Inspector Dharbha Vishwanath (Coy. Commdr.). Si Karam Singh, Hcf R. L. Sawant, Hco N. A. Shinde. and SGN animate Sathe in support of the charge-sheet. However, perusal of Annexure 'B' which is the enquiry report shows that seven witnesses were examined and on comparison of these witnesses in the two annexure (I further find that of the five witnesses mentioned in Annexure A, Hcg N.A. Shinde was not examined at all and further that three more witnesses. namely. Sg Gulab Singh, Sg Manukhthi and Sg Abekar were examined. This certainly would act to the prejudice of the case of the petitioner and principles of natural justice would be deemed to have been violated by adoption of such a course by the enquiry officer. This course tends to prejudice the defense even. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to explain the circumstances in which this departure had taken place in the examination of witnesses and consequently also it would be difficult to sustain the enquiry report and the termination orders in the face of such a situation and I hold accordingly." It is very essential that in the disciplinary inquiry, the list of the witnesses submitted by the prosecution should not be allowed to be disturbed by prosecution. The delinquent employee, after coming to know the names of the witness, prepares his case accordingly and he is fully aware, on what aspects of the case, he has to cross-examine the witnesses. The delinquent employee, after coming to know the names of the witness, prepares his case accordingly and he is fully aware, on what aspects of the case, he has to cross-examine the witnesses. In case, the best witnesses are withheld by the prosecution from examination and cross-examination, the defence of the delinquent employee gets prejudiced since the delinquent employee is not always in possession of the entire departmental records, but on the basis of the knowledge of the facts, he gets the opportunity of extracting out the truth from the witnesses in oral inquiry by cross-examining them. If the department, without giving any reason before the inquiry officer, withholds the relevant witnesses from the inquiry proceedings, adverse inference is required to be drawn against the department like it is drawn when the material evidence is kept away from the inquiry proceeding by the department, only to prevent the inquiry officer and the delinquent employee from going into the contents of the documents, which are against the interest of the prosecution. In the present case, the witnesses, who conducted preliminary inquiry into the allegations against the petitioner, were initially detailed in the list of the witnesses, but later none of them were produced and the witness, who was produced, was not conversant with the events, which took place at the branch level of the bank since he was posted in the regional office of the bank and, therefore, the petitioner could not ask questions from him regarding the incidents, which took place in the branch of the bank, where he was posted. Mr. Luniyal, who was such a witness, was not aware of the chain of events and the persons involved in those events in the branch of the Bank, therefore, the prosecution succeeded in hiding the correct facts from the inquiry proceedings by withholding the relevant witnesses. Therefore, the argument of the counsel for the respondents that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner by non-production of other witnesses is not correct and in accordance with law. Next argument of the petitioner that the punishment order has been passed without fully considering the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice also merits consideration. Therefore, the argument of the counsel for the respondents that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner by non-production of other witnesses is not correct and in accordance with law. Next argument of the petitioner that the punishment order has been passed without fully considering the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice also merits consideration. In reply to the show cause notice dated 19.01.2000 issued by the disciplinary authority, respondent No.2, the petitioner submitted his detailed objections dated 10.2.2000 before the disciplinary authority, which runs into seven pages in the writ petition but the punishment order dated 29.2.2000 shows that the disciplinary authority has not considered points raised by the petitioner in his objection and has passed the order repeating the contents of the show cause notice. It is settled law that the disciplinary authority is required to apply his mind to the objections raised by the delinquent employee to the second show cause notice given to him and if the punishment order is passed mechanically without application of mind by the disciplinary authority, it cannot be accepted to be an order in accordance with law. The disciplinary authority has to see that the findings recorded by the inquiry officer are correct, after considering the objection raised by the delinquent employee against the finding of the inquiry office recorded in the inquiry report. Regarding the argument that the appellate authority has not considered any of the grounds raised by the petitioner in his memorandum of appeal and has recorded perverse finding "that series of identical transaction were made by Shri Vikas Kudesia benefits of which went to the appellant" is perverse since the benefit of only one transaction of Rs.10,000/- was the subject matter of inquiry and the question of series of transaction was not involved. The Apex Court in the case of "Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem and others Vs. Madhusudhan Rao, (2008) 3 SCC 469 ", has held as under (paragraphs 19 and 20 of the said SCC): "19. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and also having regard to the detailed manner in which the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had dealt with the matter, including the explanation given regarding the disbursement of the money received by the respondent, we see no reason to differ with the view taken by the Administrative Tribunal and endorsed by the High Court. No doubt, the Divisional Forest Officer dealt with the matter in detail, but it was also the duty of the appellate authority to give at least some reasons for rejecting the appeal preferred by the respondent. A similar duty was cast on the revisional authority being the highest authority in the Department of Forests in the State. Unfortunately, even the revisional authority has merely indicated that the decision of the Divisional Forest Officer had been examined by the Conservator of Forests, Khammam wherein the charge of misappropriation was clearly proved. He too did not consider the defence case as made out by the respondent herein and simply endorsed the punishment of dismissal though reducing it to removal from service. 20. It is no doubt also true that an appellate or revisional authority is not required to give detailed reasons for agreeing and confirming an order passed by the lower forum but, in our view, in the interests of justice, the delinquent officer is entitled to know at least the mind of the appellate or revisional authority in dismissing his appeal and/or revision. It is true that no detailed reasons are required to be given, but some brief reasons should be indicated even in an order affirming the views of the lower forum." (Emphasis supplied). In the Judgement in Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Laksmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney & Others, (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 240, the Apex Court has held as under:- "5.In our opinion, an order of affirmation need not contain as elaborate reasons as an order of reversal, but that does not mean that the order of affirmation need not contain any reasons whatsoever. In fact, the said decision in Prabhu Dayal Grover's case [(1995) 6 SSC 279)] has itself stated that the appellate order should disclose application of mind. Whether there was an application of mind or not can only be disclosed by some reasons, at least in brief, mentioned in the order of the appellate authority. Hence, we cannot accept the proposition that an order of affirmation need not contain any reasons at all. Whether there was an application of mind or not can only be disclosed by some reasons, at least in brief, mentioned in the order of the appellate authority. Hence, we cannot accept the proposition that an order of affirmation need not contain any reasons at all. That order must contain some reasons, at least in brief, so that one can know whether the appellate authority has applied its mind while affirming the order of the disciplinary authority." (Emphasis supplied)." It is, thus, evident that even if the Appellate Authority agrees with the order of the Disciplinary Authority, it (Appellate Authority) is required to give its reasons, though brief reasons, so that the delinquent officer may know that the Appellate Authority has applied its mind in dismissing his Appeal and in affirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority. In the present case, we find that the Appellate Authority has rejected the Appeal filed by the petitioner and has upheld the order of the Disciplinary Authority, but has not given any reason for agreeing with the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate Authority has also not dealt with the various grounds raised in the Appeal submitted by the petitioner. The next argument of the petitioner that there was no document forged and fabricated by him for any undue gain and, therefore, the findings recorded against him that he was the beneficiary of the fraudulent credit facility made by Shri Vikas Kudesia is not correct. It is on record that on 19.2.1996, Shri Vikas Kudesia admitted that he has committed the fraud of misusing money of the bank by unauthorizedly making credit entries from the accounts. He also admitted that he has committed fraud and stated that the bank may recover its loss from his bank account. In view of the admission of Shri Vikas Kudesia regarding the guilt, there was no question of framing the petitioner in the entire dispute. There was no allegation that the petitioner was ever involved into any contract with Shri Vikas Kudesia or his wife Smt. Ruchi Kudesia for purchasing the mutual funds of the bank. It was admitted to the parties that it was Smt. Neeru Saxena, wife of the petitioner, who purchased the mutual funds from the wife of Shri Vikas Kudesia, Smt. Ruchi Kudesia, who was the agent of the bank. It was admitted to the parties that it was Smt. Neeru Saxena, wife of the petitioner, who purchased the mutual funds from the wife of Shri Vikas Kudesia, Smt. Ruchi Kudesia, who was the agent of the bank. It was also proved that Smt. Neeru Saxena, by deposit before the inquiry officer proved that she paid Rs.10,000/- to Smt. Ruchi Kudesia for purchasing mutual fund. Only because Shri Vikas Kudesia did not deposited Rs. 10,000/- in the mutual fund account of the bank and posted fraudulent entry of deposit in the mutual fund account of the bank, the petitioner was charge-sheeted by the respondent No.2 on the ground that he is the beneficiary of Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner was not the beneficiary of the account aforesaid, but it was Shri Vikas Kudesia, who embezzled of Rs.10,000/- by posting fraudulent entry in the account of the bank, who was the beneficiary. Therefore, the argument of the petitioner on this account is correct, since no reasonable person will approve such a finding on the basis of the facts on record. The final argument of the petitioner that the findings of the inquiry officer that he did not produce any documentary evidence to prove payment of Rs.10,000/- to Ruchi Kudesia and had the amount been deposited by him in the mutual account of the bank, this fraud would not have taken place, is not legally correct. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the burden of proof of the charge was on the bank and not upon him, however, he never purchased any mutual fund from Smt. Ruchi Kudesia. The evidence of payment of Rs.10,000/- was proved from the application form for purchasing mutual fund itself, which was filled by Shri Vikas Kudesia on his own handwriting and the receipt of Rs.10,000/- in cash was mentioned therein. Therefore, the argument of the counsel for the respondents that there was connivance between the petitioner and Shri Vikas Kudesia cannot be accepted to be correct. The counsel for the respondents could not give any convincing reply to this argument. It is amply clear that the petitioner's defence was not properly considered by the Inquiry Officer, disciplinary authority and also the appellate authority. The punishment of dismissal from service without notice was awarded to him on the basis of defective inquiry, by withholding prime witnesses from the inquiry proceedings. It is amply clear that the petitioner's defence was not properly considered by the Inquiry Officer, disciplinary authority and also the appellate authority. The punishment of dismissal from service without notice was awarded to him on the basis of defective inquiry, by withholding prime witnesses from the inquiry proceedings. The burden of proof of disproving the charge was wrongly shifted towards the petitioner. It was proved from documentary evidence that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was received by Shri Vikas Kudesia in cash, but the finding is that this payment to Shri Vikas Kudesia was not proved. The misconduct of posting fraudulent entries was accepted by Shri Vikas Kudesia in writing even then it was attributed to the petitioner. Neither the disciplinary nor the appellate authority considered the defence and evidence of the petitioner is correct perspective. Hence their findings are perverse and deserve to be set aside. The punishment awarded to the petitioner is unwarranted. This is one of such "exceptional case" as held by the Apex Court above. In view of the facts and legal position emerging from the record of the case, the the order of dismissal without notice dated 29.02.2000, passed by respondent no.2 and the appeal rejection order dated 03.08.2000, passed by respondent no.3. are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service, if he has not reached the age of superannuation with all consequential benefits of continuity in service. He shall also be paid 50 per cent of his arrears of salary. In case, he has superannuated, he shall be paid all his post retirement dues alongwith 50 per cent of his arrears of salary treating him in continuous service. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.