HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT APPEAL No. 764 OF 2008 14-11-2014 BETWEEN Devarakonda Srihari Rao …Appellant And Chairman and Disciplinary Authority, Andhra Pradesh Vikas Grameena Bank, (H.Q Warangal), Srikakulam, Srikakulam District and two others …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT APPEAL No. 764 OF 2008
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
This writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.7304 of 1997 feeling aggrieved by the order dated 08-08-2007 passed by the learned single Judge.
The appellant was appointed as Junior Clerk-cum-Cashier in the Visakha Grameena Bank i.e., the 1st respondent in the year 1981 and was promoted as Field Supervisor in 1984. He was transferred to Temburu Branch in the year 1989. His duties were to serve mostly in the schedule areas of Visakhapatnam and to arrange for purchase of livestock for the benefit of the tribals.
Alleging that the appellant committed irregularities in the context of purchase of livestock in a shandy conducted on 11-01- 1990 at Narayanavasala Village, he was placed under suspension on 15-03-1990. This was followed by the charge sheet dated 26- 02-1991. As many as 12 acts of misconduct were alleged. The explanation submitted by the appellant was found not satisfactory and accordingly, an enquiry officer was appointed. In his report dated 16-08-1995, the enquiry officer held that the charges were proved. Taking the same into account and after giving an opportunity to the appellant, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 30-11-1995 imposing the punishment of dismissal. The departmental appeal preferred to the Board of Directors was dismissed. Hence, the appellant filed the writ petition.
The appellant pleaded that the charges framed against him are baseless and the findings are perverse. He has also pleaded that the appellate authority did not apply its mind and that the punishment imposed upon him is disproportionate and contrary to the service regulations. The writ petition was opposed by the respondents by filing a detailed counter affidavit. It was stated that the appellant resorted to gross misuse of powers conferred upon him for purchase of livestock and several fictitious transactions were undertaken by him. The pleas as to disproportionate punishment or non-application of mind were denied. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the order of punishment does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The charges framed against the appellant are in relation to his functioning as Field Supervisor at Temburu Branch. As many as 12 charges were framed in all, and all of them are detailed in their contents. For example, charge Nos.1 and 2 read as under:
“Charge No.1:
On 11.1.90, an amount of Rs.2,44,800/- was debited to pending purchase account and the amount was paid to you towards purchase of various livestock (Milch animals, Sheep, Pigs, Plough cattle etc.) under IRDP schemes, the details of which are shown in Annexure ‘A’ (enclosed). It is reported that you have connived with the Branch Manager and other members of the Purchasing committee, got the shandy receipts prepared in the names of the borrowers and obtained the signatures of the committee members, buyers, sellers to the exclusion of yourself without purchase of animals and attending to the shandy. The amount debited to Pending Purchase Account to the extent of Rs.1,99,800/- was embezzled by you, Branch Manager, Committee members and others. Further, the left over balance of Rs.45,000/- was kept with you without accounting for or crediting the amount to the pending purchase account on 11.1.90 and also no precautions were taken by you to keep the Bank’s Cash in a safe manner, exposing the Bank’s funds grave risks.
Charge No.2:
In order to conceal the misappropriations/embezzlements etc., the C.S.O caused with the disappearance of Bank statements and destroyed the pending purchase debit voucher dated 11-1-90 for Rs.2,44,800/- and prepared two separate vouchers in lieu thereof for Rs.1,99,800/- and Rs.45,000/- with your own hand, both the vouchers were not passed for payment, but were entered by you in the pending purchase account register, scroll and daily transactions register erasing the original single entry of Rs.2,44,800/- to show that Rs.45,000/- only was paid to you on 11.1.90 towards purchase of live stock and this amount was held by you and recrideted on 12.1.90 on the pretext that shandy was cancelled on 11.1.90.”
The amount involved is huge. In the departmental enquiry, the management examined PWs 1 to 9 and filed Exs.P-1 to P-
212. The appellant did not depose in the enquiry nor did he examine any other witnesses. He has filed nine documents. The enquiry officer has undertaken extensive discussion with reference to each and every charge and submitted a report running into 37 closely typed pages. All the charges were held proved. The appellant was furnished a copy of the enquiry officer’s report and punishment of dismissal was imposed. The learned single Judge has dealt with all the contentions advanced by the appellant herein and dismissed the writ petition.
Except pleading that the charges are without basis and the punishment is disproportionate, the learned counsel for the appellant did not argue any questions of law nor did he point out any serious defect in the proceedings. It is fairly well established that the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority in a writ petition filed against an order of punishment. It is only when a serious defect is pointed out in the disciplinary enquiry or violation of any specific provision of law is established that the possibility of interfering with an order of punishment may exist.
Every charge framed against the appellant is grave in nature and huge amounts were involved. The appellant, who was supposed to render service to the innocent tribal people has acted in a very objectionable manner and swiped off huge amounts that were meant for the benefit of tribals. The disciplinary authority has also taken into account the report of the enquiry officer as well as the defence offered by the appellant and found that there did not exist any extenuating circumstances that can wriggle out the appellant from the serious charges. We are in total agreement with the learned single Judge and we do not find any basis to interfere with the order under appeal.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 14-11-2014 ks