IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.40819 OF 2010 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI U.VIJAYA SHANKAR SHENOY S/O. U.NARASIMHA SHENOY AGED 50 YEARS R/AT NO.218, 1ST FLOOR 2ND E CROSS, 8TH MAIN III BLOCK, III STAGE BASAVESWARANAGAR BANGALORE-560 079.
(BY SRI.N.AMARESH AND … PETITIONER SRI.G.R.MADHU SUDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATES) AND:
STATE BANK OF INDIA LOCAL HEAD OFFICE REP. BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER #65, ST. MARKS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K.SUBHA ANANTHI KASTURI ASSOCIATES) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE (i) ORDER DATED:22.09.2009 PASSED BY THE REVIEWING AUTHORITY AS AT ANNEXURE-A. (ii) ORDER DATED: 27.01.2009 PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS AT ANNEXURE-B AND (iii) ORDER DATED 23.09.2008 AS AT ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER In the instant petition, petitioner has questioned the validity of orders of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority’s order dated 23.09.2008, 27.1.2009 and 22.09.2009 respectively.
2. Petitioner has joined service as Typist cum Clerk in the year 1978 and he has earned promotion to the cadre of Junior Manager Grade Scale – I for short (JMGS I) on 01.12.1994. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on the following charges:
AMENDMENT TO CHARGE SHEET BEARING NO.DPD/1704 DATED:20.09.2001 We have made the following amendments to charge sheet bearing DPD/1704 dated 20.09.2001 along with statement of Imputation which please note.
AMENDMENT TO CHARGE SHEET Reading as To be read as Charge 1 Para 1 Line 2:- CP.2/13 Charge 2 (page 2) Line 4:-
Thereafter the debit entry is cancelled by you in your ledger account and you have posted the cheque amount in current account No.A/535 of D.N.Sreenivasa Rao duly altering the account number on the cheque to read as A/537, you have passed the cheque and entered in the payment scroll and received cash from Head Cashier of the branch.
AMENDMENT TO STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION Charge 2 (Page 2) Para 2:-
Thereafter Sri.U.Vijayashankar Shenoy cancelled the debit entry in his ledger account Thereafter the debit entry is cancelled by you in your ledger account and you have posted the same in current account No.A/537 of Sri.D.N.Sreenivasa Rao, passed the cheque, entered in the payment scroll and received cash from Head Cashier of the branch.
Thereafter Sri.U.Vijayashankar Shenoy cancelled the debit entry in his ledger account and posted the same in current account No.A/537 of and posted the cheque amount in currect account no.A/537 of D.N.Sreenivasa Rao duly altering the account number on the cheque to read as A/537, Sri.U.Vijayashankar Shenoy had passed the cheque for payment and had obtained payment of the cheque from the Head Cashier.
Sri.D.N.Sreenivasa Rao, Sri.U.Vijayashankar Shenoy had passed the cheque for payment and head obtained payment of the cheque from the Head Cashier.
All other contents of the Charge Sheet and Statement of Imputation remain unchanged.
3. Charges were framed on 20.09.2001 and it was modified on 07.02.2002. Pursuant to the Disciplinary Proceedings, Disciplinary Authority concluded the proceedings while imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement on 6.11.2002. Both Appellate and Revisional Authority affirmed the order of the Disciplinary authority. Feeling aggrieved by all the three Authorities’ order, petitioner preferred writ petition No.30527/2014 before this Court and it was allowed on 12.2.2008. This Court while allowing the writ petition, reserved liberty to the respondent- Bank to proceed from the stage of preparation of enquiry officer’s report. Thus, afresh enquiry report was prepared and furnished. Enquiry Officer held all the three charges were proved in part. Based on the enquiry officer’s report, Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of reduction from the post of JMGS - I to that of clerical cadre on 23.09.2008. Still aggrieved by the order of Disciplinary Authority, petitioner preferred an appeal wherein he suffered an order. Consequently, before the revisional authority also he has suffered an order. Hence, this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the charges leveled against petitioners were proved in part. In respect of charge No.1 is all procedural defects, in respect of charge No.2 is of his personal that he had current account whether he has drawn in excess to the over draft facility. Having regard to the charge proved, imposition of penalty of demotion from JMGS – I to clerical cadre is disproportionate since petitioner was promoted to the post of JMGS – I on 1.12.1994 and reverted to clerical cadre on 23.09.2008 would be too harsh. Further it was contended imposition of reverting penalty is indefinite and even to this he has two more years of service. Even though regulation do not stipulate time limit in respect of reduction to lower cadre under 67 (g) of SBM Officer’s Service Regulations, 1979 whereas imposition of penalty for indefinite period would be highly arbitrary and illegal. On this ground, impugned orders dated 23.09.2008, 27.1.2009 and 22.09.2009 to be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that having regard to the alleged charges and the fact that he was holding post of JMGS – I and in respect of all the three charges, petitioner has committed misdeeds. Being a staff of the Bank, he should not have indulge in such transaction. It was also contended that Regulation 67 (g) of SBM Officer’s Service Regulations, 1979 is silent about the period of reduction to the lower grade or a post. Hence, no interference is called for.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Petitioner being in the cadre of JMGS – I should have been careful in transactions that too in the financial institution of the petitioner’s employer. Customers have certain faith in the financial institutions. Hence, findings of the Enquiry Officer need not be interfered. What remains in the case is ‘whether punishment imposing reduction to the lower grade or post is indefinite?
8. Undisputed facts are that petitioner has earned promotion to the cadre of JMGS – I on 01.12.1994 whereas he has been reverted on 23.09.2008 i.e. after 14 years from the date of promotion and that too it is indefinite. He has hardly two years of service as on this day. Therefore, imposition of penalty reduction in rank, indefinitely would be highly arbitrary and illegal, even though regulation do not stipulate, at the same time, one cannot brush aside that such penalty would be too harsh. Petitioner was in the cadre of JMGS – I from 1994 to 23.09.2008. Accordingly, penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is modified to the extent of fixing tenure of the penalty order of reversion from the cadre JMGS – I to clerical cadre dated 23.09.2008 would be in vogue for a period of five years, since imposition of penalty for a indefinite period would be shocking to this Court.
9. Accordingly, writ petition allowed in part.
In view of modification of the penalty order while fixing the tenure of penalty would be in vogue for a period of five years from 23.09.2008. Petitioner is entitled to difference of salary in the cadre of JMGS – I w.e.f. 22.09.2013. The same shall be calculated and disbursed. Further, petitioner shall be put back to the post of JMGS – I, if he is not facing any other penalty in respect of any other allegations. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE BS