Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 422 (KER)

Antony Zacharias v. State Bank of India

2000-08-11

J.B.KOSHY, M.RAMACHANDRAN

body2000
Judgment :- Per M. RAMACHANDRAN, J. The appellant, petitioner in O.P. No. 9745 of 1989-I, while working as an officer of the State Bank of India had been proceeded against by way of disciplinary action culminating in his dismissal by Ext.P-16 dated September 24, 1988. He had filed an appeal (Ext.P-17) before the second respondent-Deputy Managing Director (Appellate Authority). Vide communication (Ext.P-18) dated August 10, 1989, he had been forwarded a copy of the order of the Appellate Authority. The appellant/petitioner had been informed that the appellate authority did not propose to interfere with the dismissal order. The Original Petition bad been filed challenging Exts. P-16 and P-18 orders and for consequential reliefs. A learned single Judge, who heard the matter, had refused to interfere with the order. According to him, the petitioner had not exercised the control and discipline as was expected of an officer who deals with money belonging to the Bank. It had also been held that the punishment could not be described as disproportionate. The writ appeal had been filed in the above said circumstance. Sri. K. Balakrishnan, counsel appearing for the appellant, led us through the voluminous paper book. The submissions made by him are as follows : i) The allegations against him were not misconducts, and in any case there was no substance brought in the enquiry to establish the conduct. ii) The procedure prescribed for initiating disciplinary action had not been followed as per the conditions of service applicable to him. iii) The service rules had mandatorily provided that the charge sheeted officer should be given an opportunity to explain the circumstances that had been collected in evidence and the enquiry officer had failed to adhere to the procedure.iv) The Appellate Authority had ratified the order of the disciplinary authority, and there was no independent assessment. Therefore, the benefit of scrutiny by the appellate authority had been denied to him. The appellant/petitioner was a person who originally belonged to the Bank of Cochin Limited which had been brought under moratorium and lateon had been amalgamated with the State Bank of India on August 26, 1985. The allegation against him was concerning the period when he was on the rolls of the former Bank. The main charge against the petitioner was that he had granted advances and allowed excess drawings beyond his power and without prior Head Office sanction. The allegation against him was concerning the period when he was on the rolls of the former Bank. The main charge against the petitioner was that he had granted advances and allowed excess drawings beyond his power and without prior Head Office sanction. There were instances of forgery and generally it was alleged that he had acted in a negligent manner. As noted earlier the appellant had a contention that the above conduct, especially in the matter of overdrafts, were not being considered as a grave irregularity by the former Bank. He had also established that the accounts were subsequently got regularised. The enquiry officer had elaborately gone into the matter and had come to a finding wherein some of the allegations were stated to have been proved. Here was a person who had been governed by the Bank of Cochin Service Code as also State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules Elaborating on the 2nd and 3rd points, counsel for the appellant had invited our attention to Rule 50(2)(xvii) of the Rules, which is extracted herein below : "The Inquiring Authority may, after the employee closes his evidence, and shall if the employee has not got himself examined, generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the employee to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him."The appellant therefore contends that when detailed procedure is envisaged, non-compliance of such procedure will render the proceedings illegal. The further objection of the appellant was as regards the manner of disposal of the appeal. The appeal ran to over forty pages and evidently all possible grounds had been taken up. But the appellate order dealt with only a few of the objections. On behalf of the Bank Sri. Panicker of course urged that the arguments of the appellant can only be characterised as technical and without substance. The appellant, according to him, had also failed to show or establish how the procedure followed by the enquiry officer landed him in prejudice. It was also submitted that when the appellate authority concurs with the disciplinary authority, it is well settled that a detailed order is not to be expected and the records would establish proper application of mind. The appellant, according to him, had also failed to show or establish how the procedure followed by the enquiry officer landed him in prejudice. It was also submitted that when the appellate authority concurs with the disciplinary authority, it is well settled that a detailed order is not to be expected and the records would establish proper application of mind. We are of the opinion that even though appellate authority need not pass a very elaborate order while confirming the order of a disciplinary authority, nonetheless the appellate authority is bound to apply his mind regarding the points urged in the appeal, and it should be reflected in the appellate order. Disposal of the appeal is not an empty formality. According to the appellate authority, mainly three grounds are raised in the appeal. First ground is that when the alleged misconduct took place, appellant was working in Bank of Cochin and, therefor State Bank of India had no jurisdiction for taking action against such act. This ground was not taken at all in the appeal petition. It shows that the appellate authority did not apply his mind at all. Various procedural lapses in the enquiry were pointed out in the appeal. Only one of the matter, that is, non-furnishing of required documents appears to have been dealt with. Findings of the enquiry officer on each aspect was challenged in detail. But, it was not considered. After the dismissal order only, appellant got the copy of the enquiry report. So, it is the first opportunity where appellant can question the enquiry report. But contentions of the appellant on various findings of the enquiry officer were not seen considered. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the delay in the matter as the misconduct alleged to have occurred in 1981 and charge sheet was issued only in 1987, it is a fit case where the appellate authority should have granted a personal hearing before disposal of the appeal as specifically pleaded by the appellant in the appeal. In this connection, we also refer to the decision of the Apex Court reported in Ram Chander v. Union of India AIR 1986 SC 1173 : 1986 (3) SCC 103 : 1986-II-LLJ-334, A reading of the appeal (Ext. P-17) and (Ext. In this connection, we also refer to the decision of the Apex Court reported in Ram Chander v. Union of India AIR 1986 SC 1173 : 1986 (3) SCC 103 : 1986-II-LLJ-334, A reading of the appeal (Ext. P-17) and (Ext. P-18) appellate order will show that major points raised by the petitioner were not considered and there is non-application of mind so as to warrant interference in the appellate order and, therefore, Ext. P-18 appellate order is liable to be interfered with.Taking note of the overall circumstances, we are of the view that the ends of justice will be met if the appellate authority examines the issue afresh. We are not going into the correctness of Ext. P-16 order or merits of the matter as we are only remanding the matter to the appellate authority for fresh consideration and it is for the appellate authority to consider whether interference is required in Ext.P-16 order. But the points highlighted in Ext.P-17 appeal are to be examined by the appellate authority, and the appellant should be given an opportunity to urge his submissions, in person. The import of the conduct rules as are applicable to the employee, and whether there has been violation of procedures may also be brought within the scope of the appellate examination. It may also be examined whether the punishment as has been awarded was justified or whether a lesser punishment would have met the ends of justice. The appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal expeditiously, and in any case, on or before October 31, 2000. The appellate authority has to hear the appeal untrammelled by the observations/findings of the learned single Judge. We dispose of the appeal with the above direction. Parties are to suffer their respective costs.