ORDER : 1. Heard Shri Abhishek Tandon, learned counsel for the appellant-bank and Shri O.P. Singh, learned senior counsel and Shri R.C. Pandey for the delinquent-respondent. 2. This intra-court appeal has been filed by the Central Bank of India-the contesting respondent, in Writ-A No. 14246 of 1984 (Ramesh Chandra Pandey Vs. Union of India & Ors.). It arises from the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30 March 2018, by which the punishment order dated 02.01.1982, passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 16.04.1984 passed by the appellate authority (dismissing the appeal of the delinquent/petitioner), have been quashed. Further, a direction has been issued for payment of 50 percent of the arrears of salary, to the delinquent-respondent. 3. Briefly, the delinquent/petitioner was working on the post of Clerk-cum-Assistant Cashier with the appellant bank at its Ramkola Branch, Deoria. On 05.01.1981, he was served with a charge sheet containing five charges. Relevant to the decision in the present appeal, charge nos. 2, 3 and 5 are quoted below: 2. That Sri R.C. Pandey working as temporary special Asstt. at Ramkola Branch on 21.07.80 closed the HS A/c No. 1951 of Sri Baij Nath Mishra after applying interest thereon and passed the withdrawal for the entire balance i.e. Rs. 607.88 which though signed by the son of the account holder but purported to have been signed by Sri Baij Nath Misra himself. It was in the knowledge of Sri Pandey that Sri Baij Nath Misra had already died later when this wrongful act of Mr. Pandey was discovered the father of Sri Baij Nath Misra was forced by him to refund of Sri Baij Nath Misra was forced by him to refund the amount to the Bank and such amount i.e. Rs. 607.80 as refunded by him is held in sundry creditors a/c of C/D Misc. Ledger of the Bank since 16.09.80. Sri Pandey is charged with cross misconduct for the above act under para 19.5.(j) of the second Bipartite settlement dated 10.10.66. 3. That Sri R.C. Pandey while making payment of withdrawal for Rs. 607.88 described under charged No. 2 hereof further got alteration done in the original signature card of HSS A/c No. 1951 if Sri Baij Nath Misra so that it could tally with the forged signatures of his father The act of Mr. 3. That Sri R.C. Pandey while making payment of withdrawal for Rs. 607.88 described under charged No. 2 hereof further got alteration done in the original signature card of HSS A/c No. 1951 if Sri Baij Nath Misra so that it could tally with the forged signatures of his father The act of Mr. Pandey is charged with gross misconduct under para 19.5 (j) of the Second Bipartite settlement dated 19.10.66. 5. That Mr. S.C. Pandey while working as a temporary special Asstt. At Ramkola Branch on 06.07.79 transferred to his own account a sum of Rs. 531.48 from the RSS A/c of Sri H.D. Sharma (Staff) without any debit authority or written request of Mr. Sharma. The act of Mr. Pandey is charged with gross misconduct under 19.5(j) of the Second Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966." 4. The appellant-bank conducted a domestic enquiry. It resulted in an enquiry report being submitted by the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, vide a communication dated 21.11.1981 issued by Shri J.K.N. Singh, Disciplinary Authority/Chief Internal Auditor, Ahmedabad, punishment was proposed to be imposed. With respect to each of the charge nos. 2 and 3, it was proposed to impose punishment of stoppage of two increments permanently, in time scale while with respect to charge no. 5, a warning was proposed to be issued. In response to the aforesaid notice a written reply dated 16.12.1981 was submitted by the delinquent/petitioner wherein with respect to charge nos. 2, 3 and 5, it was stated: "(2) Sir, Regarding charge no. 2 and 3 beg to submit that Sri Badri Prasad Misra is an account holder of our Branch. He owns good reputation, in the area. No only this he maintains a good account. Sri Badri Prasad Misra came with his son. The withdrawals and pass-book of a/c no. 1951 was presented by the party. Sri Badri Prasad is well known to me also. Once I insisted him to continue the account but on his request I allowed the payment of withdrawal in question closing the account. Since, his son was along with him there was no question to doubt anything as otherwise in the normal course. It was perchance that that the son accompanying Sri. Misra was not the real account holder and the genuine account holder was deceased. Since, his son was along with him there was no question to doubt anything as otherwise in the normal course. It was perchance that that the son accompanying Sri. Misra was not the real account holder and the genuine account holder was deceased. The disputed money was brought to the Bank by Sri Misra on pursuance and the entire money is in the custody is of the Bank. Sir, there was no idea of any otherwise position and the payment was made in due course. It was simply an over confidence upon the customer Sri Badri Prasad Misra and I could not access the reality in the busy of Bank. (3) Sri, Regarding Charge No. 5 I beg to say that transaction of Rs. 1500/- was a clear cut loan to Sri H.D. Sharma. the loan was liquidated for confirmation of Mr. Sharma. It was done in good faith. Although, the transactions were genuine yet formalities left by me in good faith. It is further requested that till now no complaint has been lodged by any of the above parties challenging my integrity it is simply because all the transactions were made either on humanitarian ground or of in good faith but with confidence that the bank's money and interest shall be saved in all the conditions." (emphasis supplied) 5. Since some submissions have been advanced by learned senior counsel for the delinquent/petitioner in that regard, it may be useful to note here itself, by another communication dated 15.12.1981, the delinquent/petitioner claimed to have made a complaint against the conduct of the disciplinary authority wherein he alleged, a written reply dated 15.12.1981 had been obtained under threat and coercion. 6. In such circumstances, the punishment order dated 02.01.1982 was passed by the disciplinary authority awarding punishment of stoppage of four annual increments. The departmental appeal filed by the delinquent/petitioner against the aforesaid penalty order was also rejected vide order dated 16.04.1984. 7. The aforesaid two orders were challenged by the delinquent/petitioner in Writ-A No. 14624 of 1984 wherein, upon exchange of affidavits, the following three questions were framed by the learned Single Judge, for his decision: "After hearing the rival submissions the following questions have come up for consideration and decision, (1). Whether the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the delinquent by the respondent no. 4 was in accordance with law? (2). Whether the disciplinary authority, respondent no. Whether the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the delinquent by the respondent no. 4 was in accordance with law? (2). Whether the disciplinary authority, respondent no. 4, was competent to pass punishment order against the delinquent after being transferred from Gorakhpur to Ahmedabad? And, (3) Whether the order passed by the appellate authority is in accordance with the requirements of law?" 8. However, by the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has returned a finding only on the first issue thus framed. It has been concluded, the domestic enquiry conducted by the appellant-bank was vitiated. No finding has been returned on issue nos. 2 and 3 on the reasoning-in view of the domestic enquiry being vitiated, the entire proceedings must fall. Accordingly, the punishment order has been quashed. While granting relief, the learned Single Judge has confined the relief to 50 percent of the difference of salary. 9. In the present intra-court appeal, the delinquent/petitioner has filed a counter affidavit. The matter is being decided finally, at the fresh stage itself, with the consent of parties. 10. Shri Abhishek Tandon, learned counsel for the appellant-bank submits, though the bank does not resist the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that the domestic enquiry proceedings were vitiated, however, the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the writ petition and in granting the relief to the extent of 50 percent of arrears of salary. He submits, before the learned Single Judge, the appellant-bank had raised a plea - even if the domestic enquiry proceedings were vitiated still, in view of the subsequent conduct of the delinquent/petitioner in having admitted the substance of charge nos. 2, 3 and 5 contained in the charge sheet dated 05.01.1981, the domestic enquiry lost its relevance and in view of the admission thus made, no relief could ever be granted. 11. Thus, it has been submitted, though there may have occurred a breach of rules of natural justice, at the stage of domestic enquiry however, in view of the clear admission made by the delinquent/petitioner at the later stage -as to his guilt with respect to charge nos. 2, 3 and 5, strict adherence or insistence for compliance of the rules of natural justice would be a useless formality, in the facts of the present case. No real prejudice survived after the admission made by the delinquent-respondent. 2, 3 and 5, strict adherence or insistence for compliance of the rules of natural justice would be a useless formality, in the facts of the present case. No real prejudice survived after the admission made by the delinquent-respondent. In that regard, reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Biecco Lawrie Limited & Am. Vs. State of West Bengal & Am., (2009) 10 SCC 32 . 12. Alternatively, it has also been submitted, in any case, on such finding being returned by the learned Single Judge, the matter could only have been remitted, but the learned Single Judge has erred in granting final relief. 13. Also with respect to the challenge raised to the jurisdiction and authority of the disciplinary authority on ground of his transfer to Ahmedabad, though that issue had not been decided by the learned Single Judge, however, in this appeal, reliance has been placed on an internal circular of the bank dated 03.01.1984. It provides, in cases of a transfer made pending a domestic enquiry proceeding, the disciplinary authority (who may have been transferred out), may not lose jurisdiction or authority to deal with or consider the findings of the inquiry officer and to arrive at a decision or to pass a final order with respect to a matter that may have come before such disciplinary authority. 14. Refuting to the above submissions, Sri O.P. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the delinquent/petitioner submits, in the present case, the appellant-bank did not lead any evidence to prove any of the charges. Consequently, the proceedings were wholly vitiated as held by the learned Single Judge. In absence of any challenge being laid to that finding, there is no error on part of the learned Single Judge, in granting the limited relief of 50% of arrears of salary. 15. Also, it has been submitted, the entire action taken against the delinquent/petitioner, beginning from issuance of the charge-sheet was wholly malafide. In that regard, reference has been made to various documents and averments. 16. As to the self-admission of the delinquent/petitioner contained in the communication dated 16.12.1981 (noted above), it has been submitted, the same had been obtained under threat and coercion and, therefore, no reliance could ever be placed on such a document. In that regard, reference has been made to various documents and averments. 16. As to the self-admission of the delinquent/petitioner contained in the communication dated 16.12.1981 (noted above), it has been submitted, the same had been obtained under threat and coercion and, therefore, no reliance could ever be placed on such a document. In any case, it has been submitted, the burden to prove the guilt of the delinquent/petitioner was always on the appellant-bank. No evidence having been led to prove the guilt of the delinquent/petitioner, the appellant-bank could not rely on such a document written by the delinquent/petitioner, to defeat the writ petition. 17. Further, it has been submitted, once Sri J.K.N. Singh had been transferred to Ahmedabad, it was wholly illegal and improper on his part to have passed the punishment order. Reference has also been made to certain complaints made by the delinquent/petitioner to various bank authorities complaining against the conduct of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority. 18. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record of the writ petition, in the first place, the opinion of the learned Single Judge is based entirely on the principle, in absence of evidence being led by the appellant-bank in the domestic enquiry proceedings, those proceedings were vitiated from inception and grave miscarriage of justice had resulted there from. Consequently, the punishment order was held to be ipso facto illegal. 19. There can be no denial to the proposition that the burden to prove the guilt of the delinquent/petitioner, in the domestic enquiry proceedings rested solely on the management/appellant-bank; the burden cast on the latter was not discharged during the inquiry proceedings and; the rules of natural justice ought to have been adhered to in the domestic enquiry proceedings. To that extent, the learned Single Judge has held the domestic enquiry proceedings to be vitiated on account of complete lack of evidence being led in the domestic enquiry proceedings to prove the charges. We are in complete agreement with the learned Single Judge and thar finding does not call for any interference. 20. However, the matter cannot rest here. To that extent, the learned Single Judge has held the domestic enquiry proceedings to be vitiated on account of complete lack of evidence being led in the domestic enquiry proceedings to prove the charges. We are in complete agreement with the learned Single Judge and thar finding does not call for any interference. 20. However, the matter cannot rest here. It remains to be examined whether in face of the admission, if any, made by the delinquent/petitioner, made in his reply to the second show cause notice i.e. the notice issued by the disciplinary authority proposing to impose the punishment, and in the context of the minor penalty awarded, there survived any occasion for the writ court to have entertained the writ petition or to have granted any relief. 21. Though the delinquent/petitioner had complained against the conduct of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority and he had alleged, his reply dated 16.12.1981 had been obtained under threat and coercion, at the same time, perusal of that reply as has been extracted in part, in the earlier part of this order, does not, on the face of it, suggest that the same had been obtained under any threat or coercion. The reply is quite elaborate and full of factual details. The delinquent/petitioner had given a detailed account of each and every charge levelled against him. He stated the facts with reference to the transactions that could have been known only to him and which facts were not narrated in the charge-sheet. Thus, he had specifically admitted (with respect to the charge nos. 2 and 3), that he allowed the withdrawal to be made presuming that the person accompanying Badri Prasad Mishra was his son though that person was already dead. Clearly, the delinquent/petitioner allowed the money to be withdrawn without even making basic verification that are routine and also necessary in such bank operations. Again with respect to charge no. 5 wherein the delinquent/petitioner was alleged to have transferred certain amount to his own account, he only submitted that the same was done in good faith. 22. In the context of the admitted fact that the delinquent/petitioner was a bank employee bound by regulations governing the bank operations, the above explanations clearly amounted to admission of guilt. 5 wherein the delinquent/petitioner was alleged to have transferred certain amount to his own account, he only submitted that the same was done in good faith. 22. In the context of the admitted fact that the delinquent/petitioner was a bank employee bound by regulations governing the bank operations, the above explanations clearly amounted to admission of guilt. No bona fide conduct could be claimed by the delinquent/petitioner with respect to such illegalities committed by him while dealing with the funds/money/bank accounts of the customers. Money may never have been debited from any bank account except by due authority and or by following the due procedure. These transactions by very nature were not personal and they did not permit any personal relationship to interfere or influence the conduct of the bank towards its customers which must at all times conform to the highest level of confidence and integrity. 23. Once the delinquent/petitioner had thus impliedly admitted his guilt, though with respect to charge nos. 2, 3 and 5 only, however, since all these charges involved financial misdemeanor on his part involving bank funds withdrawn from accounts of its customers, it may never be said, merely because the appellant-bank had not led any evidence to prove the charges in the domestic enquiry proceedings, the entire proceedings must fall. 24. The present is not even a case of dismissal of the delinquent/petitioner or of any major punishment awarded. The delinquent/petitioner was allowed to continue in service with comparatively nill punishment of stoppage of four increments. 25. The Supreme Court in the case of Biecco Lawrie Limited & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. (supra) had arisen in facts similar to those of the present case. In that case also, though the domestic enquiry was found to be vitiated, the admission made by the delinquent after submission of the enquiry report was considered by the Supreme Court to be sufficient material as may render compliance of principles of natural justice a useless formality. It may be useful for our purpose to take note of the discussion made and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, in the aforesaid case, as contained in paragraph nos. 41 to 44. "41. It may be useful for our purpose to take note of the discussion made and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, in the aforesaid case, as contained in paragraph nos. 41 to 44. "41. Assuming but not admitting that there has been a denial of the principles of natural justice to the respondent to the extent that he did not know the specifications of the charges levelled, was denied a right to engage a lawyer and not furnished with the copies of the documents and list of witnesses to be relied upon by the management, even then, we are of the firm opinion that observance of the principles of natural justice to the respondent would be a useless formality which is an exception to the rationale underlying the principles of natural justice. 42. In S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, [ (1980) 4 SCC 379 ] this Court under similar circumstances dealing with the denial of the principles of natural justice held that: It is yet another exception to the application of the principles of natural justice. Where on the admitted or undisputed facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the court may not insist on the observance of the principles of natural justice because it would be futile to order its observance. (SCC pp. 394-95, para 24) 43. In Karnataka SRTC v. S.G. Kotturappa, [ (2005) 3 SCC 409 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 484] this Court again observed as follows: Where the respondent had committed repeated acts of misconduct and had also accepted minor punishment he is not entitled to the (sic benefit of) principles of natural justice as it would be a mere formality, that too misconduct in the case of a daily wager. The question as to what extent principles of natural justice are required to be complied within a particular case would depend upon the factual situation obtained in each case and the principles cannot be applied in a vacuum. They cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. (SCC pp. 419-20, para 24) 44. In the present case, in the letter dated 22-11-1985, the respondent had admitted all the charges and had stated unequivocally that his behaviour was due to mental sickness and prayed for sympathy and mercy. They cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. (SCC pp. 419-20, para 24) 44. In the present case, in the letter dated 22-11-1985, the respondent had admitted all the charges and had stated unequivocally that his behaviour was due to mental sickness and prayed for sympathy and mercy. This along with the fact that the respondent was earlier charged on similar grounds and dismissed but, on his request, was exonerated and given a chance to amend his conduct also goes a long way to project the fact that observance of the principles of natural justice would be merely a useless formality since he had admitted the charges against him." 26. Similarly, in the present case, once the delinquent/petitioner had admitted his guilt with respect to charge nos. 2, 3 and 5, as has been noted and discussed above, then, in the context of minor punishment having been awarded of stoppage of four increments, no insistence may be made to ensure strict compliance of the principles of natural justice and no fatal flaw arises in the punishment order passed by the appellant-bank. 27. In the facts of the present case, it is not even considered proper to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority, since against the admitted guilt of the delinquent/petitioner, he has only been awarded a minor punishment. Also, much time has gone by to even consider that course open. To that extent also, the approach of the learned Single Judge may not be faulted. 28. The other objection being raised by the learned counsel for the delinquent/petitioner, as to the lack of jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority, the same has to be noted to be rejected. In view of the specific stipulation in the bank circular dated 03.01.1984 enabling the disciplinary authority (who may have been transferred out), to consider and pass appropriate orders in the disciplinary proceedings subsequent to his transfer, that challenge must fail. It is accordingly rejected. 29. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and our conclusions noted above, we are of the opinion, this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought to have declined to entertain the writ petition and to interfere with the penalty order and the appellate order passed by the authorities of the appellant-bank as the delinquent/petitioner had substantially admitted his guilt on charge nos. 2, 3 and 5. Those charges involved direct allegations of financial misdemeanor committed by the delinquent/petitioner. Therefore, in the light of such admission notwithstanding the fact that the domestic enquiry proceedings were vitiated, there was no occasion for interfering in writ jurisdiction, the special appeal must succeed. 30. We find and conclude the punishment awarded was based on the candid admission made by Sri R.C. Pandey, at the stage of second show cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, in our opinion, the writ Court ought not to have interfered with the punishment awarded. The defects, if any, as have been claimed by the delinquent did not give him an unimpeachable or absolute right to claim interference by this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 31. The matter was heard in the afternoon session and since no time was left for dictating the order in Court, we disclosed to the counsel for the parties that the order would be passed in Chambers. Once the order was dictated in Chambers, Sri R.C. Pandey (now Advocate of the Court) appeared and submitted summary of the oral arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents. The summary of the arguments tided 'written arguments' was taken on record. 32. A bare perusal of the said documents discloses that by means of the same, Sri R.C. Pandey now seeks to raise fresh and new grounds which were not even referred to in any manner during the oral hearing wherein submissions were advanced not only by Senior Counsel Sri O.P. Singh but also by Sri R.C. Pandey appearing in person. We never expected the counsel to submit synopsis of the oral argument containing points which were not advanced. This practice is not appreciated. The submissions which were advanced have been correctly noted and dealt with by us in the judgment. 33. In any case, written arguments referred as Limb Nos. 1, 2 and 3 pertain to the defect in the domestic enquiry. The finding of learned Single Judge recorded in favour of Sri R.C. Pandey has already been accepted by us. Therefore, no further discussion or elaboration is to be noted on that count. The summary of the oral arguments, as submitted, fails to turn the table, in any manner, in favour of delinquent-employee. 34. Accordingly, the special appeal must succeed and it is allowed. Therefore, no further discussion or elaboration is to be noted on that count. The summary of the oral arguments, as submitted, fails to turn the table, in any manner, in favour of delinquent-employee. 34. Accordingly, the special appeal must succeed and it is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 30.3.2018 of the writ court is hereby set aside and the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.