IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL NO.58 OF 2013 (S-DE) BETWEEN:
ANDHRA BANK, A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1980, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL), HEAD OFFICE, DR.PATTABHI BHAVN, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD-500 004.
(BY SRI.MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SMT.SHUBHA ANANTHI, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI. G. NAGESHWARA RAO, SON OF SRI G.GOPALAKRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, EARLIER WORKING AS SR.MANAGER, AN OFFICER IN MIDDLE MANAGEMENT GRADE SCALE – III AT ANDHRA BANK, VIDHYAPEETA CIRCLE BRANCH, BENGALURU, SINCE ILLEGALLY DISMISSED FROM SERVICE AND RESIDING AT NO.631, 9TH MAIN, SECTOR-7, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 102.
... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENT (BY MS. M. L. SUVARNA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.17050 of 2008 (S- DE) DATED 03.07.2012.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ASHOK S. KINAGI, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The respondent being aggrieved by the order dated 03.07.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.17050 of 2008 allowing the writ petition, has filed this appeal.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred to in the writ petition.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Probationary Officer in Junior Management Grade Scale-I and joined the services of the respondent-bank on 30.12.1985. He was promoted as Manager in Middle Management Grade Scale-II with effect from 01.03.1999 and thereafter, as Senior Manager in Middle Management Grade Scale –III with effect from 04.06.2003. When the petitioner was working at Vidyapeeth Circle Branch of the bank, the bank in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and placed him under suspension in exercise of powers conferred on it under Regulation 12 of the Regulations. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by issuance of a charge sheet at the instance of the Central Vigilance Commission. The charges leveled against the petitioner are as under:
“It is alleged against you that while working as Senior Branch Manager of Chamarajpet Branch, Bangalore, you have committed serious irregularities. The irregularities that have come to light so far and detailed in the statement of allegations (Annexure-I) would indicate that:
1. You have on 10.04.2004, by making a false endorsement on an instrument, resulting in an overdraft, abused your official position in passing on a pecuniary benefit to your wife and thereafter on 21.04.2004 by permitting transfer of funds from a borrowal account to the credit of your wife’s SB account, placed a member of your family under pecuniary obligation to a firm having dealings with the Bank.
2. You have allowed TODs in SB Group of accounts and excess drawals in SOD (against Real Estates) accounts without any discretionary powers to do so, and TODs in current accounts and excess drawals in OCC accounts beyond your delegated authority.
3. You have failed to report the TODs/Excess drawals allowed by you to the Controlling Office.
4. You have failed to ensure end use of funds in respect of two retail trade loans sanctioned to Bhagavathi Traders, Rohini Traders and a Swarnabharana loan sanctioned to Smt.H.N.Sasikala.
5. You have without any delegated authority, sanctioned and disbursed credit facilities to Gaathri Constructions, a firm belonging to a group of firms for which credit facilities were earlier sanctioned by Zonal Office.
6. To suppress reflection of TODs in annual returns of 31.02.2005, you have authorized transfer of funds from a borrowal account, without mandate of the account holder to the credit of accounts where TODs were outstanding.”
3. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 14.12.2006. Thereafter, enquiry was held and concluded on the same day, i.e., on 15.05.2007. In the enquiry proceedings four witnesses were examined in support of the charges leveled against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority by notice dated 04.08.2007 directed the petitioner to submit his representation/objection, if any, against the report and finding of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner made a detailed submission dated 17.08.2007. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority imposed on the petitioner the penalty of dismissal from the service vide order dated 21.09.2007.
4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the penalty of dismissal preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by its order dated 31.03.2006 rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of dismissal and also order of the Appellate Authority filed Writ Petition No.17050 of 2008 sought for quashing the order of dismissal and also order of the Appellate Tribunal and also sought for directions to reinstate the petitioner into service and grant arrears of salary from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement, accord seniority, promotion and all service benefits.
5. The learned single Judge after considering the material on record has allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of penalty dated 21.09.2007 and order of Appellate Authority dated 31.03.2008 and order of forfeiture dated 27.12.2007 at Annexure-N and remanded the matter to the Enquiry Authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The respondent-bank being aggrieved by the said order has filed this appeal.
6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. The Disciplinary Authority has appointed Enquiry Officer. On 16.01.2007 first sitting of the enquiry was held and on the said date the petitioner denied the charges. Thereafter, the enquiry was held and concluded on a single day, i.e., on 15.05.2007 and Enquiry Officer submitted his report along with a covering letter dated 31.07.2007 to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority without applying the mind and without considering that there is violation of principles of natural justice passed the impugned order of penalty dated 21.09.2007 without providing an opportunity to the petitioner to rebut the charges leveled against the petitioner. Thus, there is clear violation of principles of natural justice.
8. At the cost of repetition, though no opportunity was given to the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings, the learned single Judge after considering the enquiry report found that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend his defence. Hence, the learned single Judge has rightly set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the matter to the Enquiry Officer for fresh disposal in accordance with law. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE MBS