When an employee denies the charges, a departmental inquiry cannot be concluded on documents and electronic records alone, the Rajasthan High Court has held, setting aside the dismissal of a cooperative bank employee whose defence that his login ID had been misused was never tested through witnesses or cross-examination.
Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the dismissal from service of a Banking Assistant of the Chittorgarh Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. over alleged embezzlement of bank funds, holding that the departmental inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the mandatory procedure under Rule 16(6)(a) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 [Vedprakash v. Chittorgarh Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Another].
Justice Kuldeep Mathur allowed the writ petition, setting aside the dismissal order of February 25, 2020 and the appellate order of March 5, 2021, while granting the bank liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Background of the case
The petitioner joined the bank as a Banking Assistant on December 30, 2011. On February 14, 2018, he was served a memorandum under Rule 16 of the 1958 Rules containing 37 charges, mainly relating to alleged embezzlement of bank funds between January 2012 and April 2017. He denied the charges, stating that he was never promoted to or given charge of the post of Manager, that his user ID was only a “maker” ID while the Manager held the “checker” ID needed to pass transactions, and that his ID and password could have been misused by the Manager or a contractual employee. He also denied deriving any benefit.
An Inquiry Officer appointed in August 2018 held him guilty in a report dated February 7, 2019. The petitioner’s case was that no departmental witness was examined and the documents relied on were not proved as the Rules require. The disciplinary authority dismissed him from service, and his departmental appeal was rejected.
What the parties argued
Counsel for the petitioner argued that he was not given the list of prosecution witnesses and documents in the prescribed manner and that no evidence was recorded through examination and cross-examination, depriving him of an effective opportunity to defend himself. Reliance was placed on State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772, and on the High Court’s ruling in Ganga Das Bohra v. State of Rajasthan, affirmed by a Division Bench.
The bank contended that the petitioner had sufficient opportunity and access to the relevant material, that as a computer engineer he was responsible for keeping his ID and password confidential, that the transactions were carried out through his ID, and that the disciplinary findings were findings of fact that did not call for writ interference.
Rule 16(6)(a) is a complete code
The Court clarified that it was not re-appreciating evidence, but examining whether the inquiry followed the procedure mandated by the Rules. It noted that Rule 16(6)(a) lays down a full framework where charges are denied: submission and supply of lists of witnesses and documents, admission or denial of documents, recording of evidence with examination-in-chief and cross-examination, defence evidence, and a hearing on arguments. The opportunity it contemplates, the Court said, extends to each of these stages and is not limited to filing a written explanation. It found no material showing that these stages were followed. Rejecting the bank’s justification, the Court held:
“The Rule does not leave it to the disciplinary authorities to dispense with the stages of examination, cross-examination, defence evidence or hearing of arguments merely because the department considers the documentary or electronic material sufficient. Where the charges are denied, the procedure prescribed by the Rule is required to be followed.”
Disputed login ID needed testing
The Court stressed that the petitioner’s defence was a specific one: that his was a maker ID, that the checker ID lay with the Manager, and that his ID had been misused, while the bank relied on the use of his ID to fix responsibility. Such a disputed issue, it held, could not be settled by pointing to electronic records without subjecting the departmental case to the prescribed procedure, and the failure to do so denied him a meaningful chance to test that case and prove his defence. It added that a report under Rule 16(7) must follow a properly completed inquiry:
“A finding of guilt cannot cure the failure to conduct the inquiry in the mandatory procedure prescribed by the CCA Rules. This requirement is particularly significant where the penalty imposed is a major penalty including but not limited to dismissal from service.”
Liberty to hold fresh inquiry
Holding that the inquiry could not be sustained, the Court quashed the dismissal and appellate orders. The bank is at liberty to proceed afresh, if so advised, after following the entire procedure under Rule 16(6)(a) and then Rule 16(7), and after giving the petitioner due opportunity of defence. The Court made no finding on whether the embezzlement allegations are true.
Case Title: Vedprakash v. Chittorgarh Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Another
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6260 of 2021
Bench: Justice Kuldeep Mathur, Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur)
Date of Order: September 17, 2026
Appearance: Manoj Bohra for the petitioner; Dr. Pratishtha Dave for the respondents