Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 359 (KAR)

C. D. Sivanna v. Syndicate Bank

2015-03-31

ARAVIND KUMAR

body2015
ORDER : Aravind Kumar, J. 1. Petitioner is seeking for quashing of order No. PRS(O)/DGM/HYD/2001/07 dated 13.03.2001, Annexure-N, dismissing petitioner from services and order No. 087/PD:IRD:DA:7 dated 02.05.2001, Annexure-Q, passed by Appellate Authority confirming the order of dismissal and order dated 31.12.2001 rejecting the review petition indicating thereunder that petitioner does not confer right on an Officer to seek review of his case after Appellate Authority has disposed of his appeal. Petitioner has also sought for issuance of a writ to direct respondents to reinstate petitioner in the services of Bank by granting consequential benefits including arrears of salary, promotion, seniority, etc. 2. Petitioner joined the services of Syndicate Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'Bank' for the purposes of brevity) on 28.04.1977 as a clerk and was promoted as Officer in Junior Management Grade Scale-I with effect from 03.06.1985. With effect from 30.05.1994 to 26.06.1999 petitioner was working as Assistant Manager at Cuddapah Main Branch, Andhra Pradesh. On 17.06.2000 a charge sheet came to be issued to petitioner alleging thereunder that while petitioner working as Assistant Manager at Cuddapah Main Branch during 30.05.1994 to 26.06.1999 he had derived undue pecuniary benefit at the cost of customers of Bank and facilitated temporary misappropriation of Bank's funds by unconnected third parties while releasing 30 FL (Dairy Loans) aggregating to Rs. 4.74 lakhs under IRDP Scheme and had failed to exercise proper pre-sanction safe guards and post-sanction controls while releasing; (a) 18 loans under OSL/PMRY Scheme and 3 loans under SJSRY Scheme aggregating to Rs. 8,99,700/-; and (b) 1 demand loans aggregating to Rs. 1,68,400/-. As such, it was alleged that petitioner has failed to discharge duties with utmost integrity and honesty and exhibited conduct unbecoming of the status of Bank Officer and thus contravened Regulation No. 3(1) read with Regulation No. 24 of Syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations' for short). 3. On service of charge sheet petitioner submitted his reply statement on 26.02.2000, Annexure-D. Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the reply given by petitioner ordered for conducting an inquiry and by order dated 05.07.2000 appointed one Sri. C.S. Rao, Deputy Chief Officer, Grade Scale - II as Enquiry Officer. By order of even date one Sri. R. Venkataraman was appointed as Presiding Officer on behalf of Bank. Enquiry officer commenced the proceedings on 25.08.2000. In the inquiry proceedings petitioner appeared and denied the charges. C.S. Rao, Deputy Chief Officer, Grade Scale - II as Enquiry Officer. By order of even date one Sri. R. Venkataraman was appointed as Presiding Officer on behalf of Bank. Enquiry officer commenced the proceedings on 25.08.2000. In the inquiry proceedings petitioner appeared and denied the charges. Petitioner was assisted by Sri. P. Rajasekhar, Manager, Currency Chest, Vijayawada. 4. On behalf of management five (5) witnesses came to be examined and 277 documents were produced. On behalf of delinquent employee six (6) witnesses came to be examined including delinquent employee himself and two (2) documents were got marked. Enquiry Officer evaluating the evidence on record submitted a report on 02.12.2000 vide Annexure-L by holding that charges were proved. Copy of inquiry report was forwarded to petitioner, who on receipt of inquiry report submitted his representation for same being accepted by Disciplinary Authority. After considering inquiry report and representation submitted by petitioner to inquiry report, Disciplinary Authority evaluated the material on record and by order dated 13.03.2001, Annexure-N passed an order dismissing petitioner from the services of Bank for contravening Regulation No. 3(1) read with Regulation No. 24 of Regulations. 5. Being aggrieved by order of dismissal petitioner filed an appeal under Regulation 17 before the Appellate Authority cum General Manager (Personnel) on 03.04.2001 vide Annexure-P. Appellate Authority after considering the grounds urged by petitioner and on scrutiny of records proceeded to pass an order on 02.05.2001, Annexure-Q, dismissing the appeal filed by petitioner and affirmed the order passed by Disciplinary Authority dismissing petitioner from services vide Annexure-Q. 6. Petitioner pursued his grievance by review/mercy petition on 23.07.2001, Annexure-R, before the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank and said review/mercy petition was not entertained by the Reviewing Authority on the ground that Circular No. 6/98/BC dated 07.01.1998 issued by Bank would indicate that Regulation 18 of Bank does not confer right of an Officer to seek a review of his case after same is being disposed of by Appellate Authority and as an order came to be passed on 31.12.2001, Annexure-T, rejecting the review petition filed by petitioner. 7. 7. Being aggrieved by these orders, petitioner has filed present writ petition which in the first instance came to be allowed by order dated 12.07.2012 on the short ground that management witnesses M.W.1 to M.W.4 are seniors to the Enquiry Officer and as such, inquiry proceedings conducted by Enquiry Officer was prejudiced, by relying upon judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 4973/1999 dated 13.01.2006, which had been affirmed in W.A. No. 374/2006 vide order dated 25.05.2012. As such, writ petition had been allowed and impugned orders came to be set aside reserving liberty to Bank to conduct den ova inquiry. 8. Being aggrieved by this order respondent -Bank preferred writ appeal in W.A. No. 1890/2013 (S-DE) and it was brought to the notice of Division Bench that order passed by Division Bench in W.A. No. 374/2006 dated 25.05.2012, on which basis the learned Single Judge of this Court had allowed the writ petition, had been set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Cvl) No. 36164/2012. Taking note of this subsequent event, Division Bench set aside the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 12752/2002 dated 12.07.2012 and remitted the matter back to this Court being disposed of on merits and in accordance with law. As such writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 9. Grounds urged in the writ petition can be crystallized as under: "(a) Entire proceedings initiated against petitioner is based on investigation report submitted by Sri. As such writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 9. Grounds urged in the writ petition can be crystallized as under: "(a) Entire proceedings initiated against petitioner is based on investigation report submitted by Sri. K.V. Krishna Swamy, who has been examined as M.W.1 and neither said report nor copies of investigation report was made available to petitioner and as such, there has been deprivation of reasonable opportunity to defend himself and thereby it has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice; (b) Order of Disciplinary Authority to imposed penalty is without jurisdiction and as such, order of dismissal is bad in law; (c) Investigating Officer who appeared as M.W.1 is senior to the Enquiry Officer and so also several management witnesses including Presiding Officer and as such, Enquiry Officer report is inherently biased and there being no other independent evidence to corroborate the charge, order of dismissal is bad; (d) Finding of Enquiry Officer is based on no evidence and said finding of Enquiry Officer is contrary to evidence on record and they are based on surmises and conjectures, suspicion and there is total non-application of mind by the Enquiry Officer; (e) The document - MEX 130 relied upon by the management through witness M.W.1 is not proved in the inquiry proceedings; (f) Appellate Authority has not considered the evidence on record in proper perspective and authority before whom the review petition is filed has not considered the mandate of Regulation 18 of Bank in proper perspective and as such, order rejecting review is also liable to be set aside." 10. Respondent - Bank has filed its statement of objections denying the contentions raised by petitioner and it has been contended that domestic inquiry held against petitioner is fair and proper and at all stages opportunities have been extended to petitioner and there is no violation of principles of natural justice and Appellate Authority having reconsidered the claim of petitioner, has rightly rejected the appeal which order does not suffer from any infirmity, whatsoever, calling for interference and as such, respondent has sought for dismissal of writ petition. It is also contended that petitioner does not have any inherent right to seek review of order passed by Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority and when the Appellate Authority has affirmed the order or punishment by rejecting the appeal after reappreciating entire case on merits substituting said view by the Reviewing Authority, does not arise, that too under Regulation 18 and as such, respondent has sought for dismissal of writ petition. 11. Having heard the learned Advocates and on perusal of the pleadings of parties this Court is of the considered view that following points would arise for consideration: "(i) Whether order of dismissal passed against the petitioner dated 13.03.2001, Annexure-N, suffers from any patent illegality or irregularity on account of inquiry proceedings being vitiated for any reasons whatsoever calling exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court? (ii) What order?" 12. Sri. M.N. Prasanna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has raised contentions similar to the one raised by writ petitioner in W.P. No. 4973/1999 and he would fairly submit that contentions raised by petitioner in this writ petition are identical and similar to the one raised by writ petitioner in W.P. No. 4973/1999. It is not in dispute, this Court has negatived said contentions by not accepting the same and as such this Court is of the considered view that nothing further requires to be delved upon in this writ petition. For purposes of convenience it would be necessary to note similar contentions raised by petitioner in W.P. No. 4793/1999 which came to be answered against said petitioner and same reads as under: "10. Insofar as official bias is concerned as rightly contended by Sri. Abhilash Raju, learned counsel appearing for respondent -Bank, same has been laid to rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court itself. Even otherwise after the order passed by this Court came to be set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court, no steps have been taken by petitioner to place on record any material to exhibit bias against the Enquiry Officer. He has not been impleaded as a party to these proceedings. That apart, neither in the reply given to charge sheet nor in the written submissions submitted to enquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority or in the grounds urged before the Appellate Authority assailing the order of Disciplinary Authority or before the reviewing authority, this ground was raised by the petitioner. That apart, neither in the reply given to charge sheet nor in the written submissions submitted to enquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority or in the grounds urged before the Appellate Authority assailing the order of Disciplinary Authority or before the reviewing authority, this ground was raised by the petitioner. For the first time before this Court, said ground of official bias has been raised by the petitioner. As noticed hereinabove under identical circumstances the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of SYNDICATE BANK v. A.M. SUGUNASUNDARAM in W.A. No. 4599/2001 disposed of on 12.10.2004 had an occasion to consider the similar contention and it was negatived. It has been held by Division Bench in said case as under: "7. It is fairly well settled by a catenna of decisions of Supreme Court and those of the High Courts that preliminary enquiry is conducted essentially for the disciplinary authority to form an opinion as to whether there is prima facie case to proceed against the delinquent. So long as the disciplinary authority does not make use of that report as the basis to punish the delinquent, there is no legal obligation for the disciplinary authority to disclose the contents of the preliminary enquiry report much less furnishing a copy of the same to the delinquent. Although the learned counsel for the delinquent has argued before us quite extensively, he was not in a position to convince us that the preliminary enquiry report prepared by the witness of the management is in fact made as a basis to impose the disciplinary measure. Perhaps realising this threshold impediment in the argument, learned Counsel would submit that the preliminary enquiry report prepared by the witness should be regarded as statements of the witnesses and if it so regarded, in terms of regulation 6(10)(b)(iii), a copy of the statement ought to have been made available to the delinquent in advance, that is to say, three days prior to the date on which the witness of the delinquent was examined. This submission of the learned Counsel for the delinquent is not acceptable to us. By no stretch of imagination, the preliminary enquiry report can be regarded as a statement of the author of the report. It is trite that the management having framed certain charges against the delinquent, it is the onus of the disciplinary authority to discharge the same. This submission of the learned Counsel for the delinquent is not acceptable to us. By no stretch of imagination, the preliminary enquiry report can be regarded as a statement of the author of the report. It is trite that the management having framed certain charges against the delinquent, it is the onus of the disciplinary authority to discharge the same. In order to discharge that onus, the disciplinary authority has examined a witness on behalf of the management. Merely because that witness happens to be the author of the preliminary enquiry report, that fact itself would not be a justification for the Court to regard it as his statement. Only the evidence adduced and documents produced by the disciplinary authority in the course of regular enquiry would together constitute the base for supporting the disciplinary action. Be that as it may, there is no need for us to dilate this aspect further. It is fairly conceded that the delinquent at no point of time during the course of enquiry either before the enquiry authority or before the disciplinary authority or before the appellate authority did not make any grievance against the non-supply of copy of the preliminary enquiry report. In fact, not even a ground is raised in the writ petition against the alleged non-supply of copy of the preliminary enquiry report. As could be seen from the judgement of the learned Single judge, only in the course of argument at the time of final hearing, this allegation was raised. Be that as it may, we are fully satisfied that non-supply of copy of the preliminary enquiry report has not resulted in any prejudice to the delinquent. In that view of the matter, we have no reason to differ from the opinion of the learned Single judge with regard to point number 2." 11. Be that as it may, we are fully satisfied that non-supply of copy of the preliminary enquiry report has not resulted in any prejudice to the delinquent. In that view of the matter, we have no reason to differ from the opinion of the learned Single judge with regard to point number 2." 11. As already noticed hereinabove the Hon'ble Apex Court having held that merely because the witnesses were senior to Enquiry Officer, is not a ground for the Court to presume that Enquiry Officer was biased, had set aside the finding recorded by this Court of official bias and as such, law having been laid to rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court and there being no other additional material placed by petitioner before this Court to have a fresh look to the ground of bias, I do not find that contention raised in this regard is to be entertained and accordingly, it stands rejected. 12. Insofar as the contention of petitioner that enquiry proceedings is vitiated on account of petitioner's right being prejudiced for want of non-furnishing of preliminary enquiry report since it formed the basis for Disciplinary Authority to initiate enquiry proceedings against petitioner and same having not been furnished, it had resulted in violation of principles of natural justice and as such, order of Disciplinary Authority as well as order of Appellate Authority is to be set aside, requires to be considered with utmost circumspection for reasons more than one. 13. Perusal of reply given to charge sheet as well as grounds urged in the appeal memorandum which was filed against Disciplinary Authority does not even remotely suggest of said plea having been raised by petitioner. Though it does not preclude the petitioner from raising said plea before this Court, it requires to be examined in the background as to whether non furnishing of said preliminary enquiry report had resulted in violation of principles of natural justice and thereby it has prejudiced the right of petitioner. Undisputedly, preliminary enquiry reports did not form the basis on which charge sheets were issued. M.W.1 and M.W.2 who are two official witnesses examined on behalf of management have collected the material and placed the same before the Disciplinary Authority to form an opinion as to whether enquiry proceedings are to be initiated or not. Undisputedly, preliminary enquiry reports did not form the basis on which charge sheets were issued. M.W.1 and M.W.2 who are two official witnesses examined on behalf of management have collected the material and placed the same before the Disciplinary Authority to form an opinion as to whether enquiry proceedings are to be initiated or not. Said Disciplinary Authority on the basis of material available on record and on scrutiny of such material, has formed an enquiry to conduct a domestic enquiry against CSO and accordingly charge sheet came to be issued including issuance of supplementary charge sheet and enclosing therewith documents upon which the Bank intends to rely upon to prove the charges. Said documents which were produced by Bank were marked as Exs. MEX1A to MX620, copies of which have been furnished to CSO. In fact defence assistant, who appeared on behalf of CSO has extensively cross-examined management witnesses namely, M.W.1 and M.W.2. Said evidence which has been discussed in detail by the Disciplinary Authority also does not suggest about the fact of any suggestion having been made to witnesses about preliminary enquiry report forming basis for conducting domestic enquiry against petitioner. As such, contention of petitioner that non furnishing of preliminary enquiry report had resulted in great prejudice to petitioner, cannot be accepted. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. ALOK KUMAR reported in (2010) 5 SCC 349 that important element of prejudice should exist as a matter of fact and there should be such definite interference of likelihood of prejudice flowing from such default which relates to statutory violation and in conclusion it came to be held by Hon'ble Apex Court that merely on the basis of apprehended prejudice departmental enquiry cannot be set aside. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under: "89. The well-established canons controlling the field of bias in service jurisprudence can reasonably be extended to the element of prejudice as well in such matters. Prejudice de facto should not be based on a mere apprehension or even on a reasonable suspicion. It is important that the element of prejudice should exist as a subject matter of fact or there should be such definite interference of likelihood of prejudice flown from such default which relates to statutory violations. Prejudice de facto should not be based on a mere apprehension or even on a reasonable suspicion. It is important that the element of prejudice should exist as a subject matter of fact or there should be such definite interference of likelihood of prejudice flown from such default which relates to statutory violations. It will not be permissible to set aside the departmental enquiries in any of these classes merely on the basis of apprehended prejudice." 14. In the case of BURDWAN CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED AND ANOTHER v. ASIM CHATTERJEE AND OTHERS reported in (2012) 2 SCC 641 their lordships of Apex Court have observed that in B. Karunakar's case that in the event of Inquiry Officer's report had not been furnished to the employee in the disciplinary proceedings, a copy of the same should have been made available to him to enable him to explain as to what prejudice has been caused to him on account of non furnishing of report. It came to be further held that order of punishment should not be set aside mechanically on the ground that the copy of Inquiry report had not been supplied to the employee. 15. Yet again the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CHAIRMAN GANGA YAMUNA GRAMIN BANK AND OTHERS v. DEVI SAHAI reported in (2009) 2 SCC (L & S) 618 has held that until and unless the delinquent employee/CSO does not show as to how he was prejudiced on account of non supply of copy of enquiry proceedings, it cannot be held to be vitiated. 16. It is also to be noticed that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SYNDICATE BANK & ORS. v. VENKATESH GURURAO KURATI reported in AIR 2006 SC 3542 has held that non supply of document, on which the Enquiry Officer does not rely upon during the course of enquiry proceedings, would not be a ground available to CSO or delinquent employee to contend that principles of natural justice is violated. 17. Keeping these contours laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases referred to supra in mind, when the facts on hand are reexamined again it would not detain this court too long to reject the contention raised by petitioner. 17. Keeping these contours laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases referred to supra in mind, when the facts on hand are reexamined again it would not detain this court too long to reject the contention raised by petitioner. Firstly management or respondent-Bank has not relied upon the preliminary enquiry report or investigation report during the course of enquiry proceedings to prove the charges leveled against petitioner. Secondly, said investigation or preliminary enquiry report did not form part and parcel of documents relied upon by the management to substantiate the charges leveled against the CSO and last but not the least, petitioner has not been able to demonstrate as to how non furnishing of those investigation or preliminary enquiry report has prejudiced his right. For these myriad reasons, I am unable to accept the contention of petitioner that on account of non furnishing of investigation or preliminary enquiry reports, domestic enquiry is vitiated. Said contention stands rejected. 18. Now turning my attention to the issue regarding proportionality of punishment imposed on petitioner is examined, it requires to be noticed at the threshold itself that until and unless strong and compelling reasons are made out by the CSO to establish that punishment imposed by Disciplinary Authority is shockingly disproportionate to the charges leveled, Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India would be loath in interfering with the order of Disciplinary Authority. In the instant case as noticed hereinabove, charges leveled against petitioner was serious and grave in nature. On account of petitioner's conduct, funds of public sector Bank was under stake, which has also resulted in financial loss to the Bank and as such, exercising its power, Disciplinary Authority has ordered for dismissal of petitioner from service. If an officer or an employee is allowed to act beyond his authority or beyond prescribed authority given to him, it would result in chaotic situation and the public funds, which are in the hands of employee, like that of CSO, would be at peril. As such, indiscipline in this regard requires to be curbed as otherwise functioning of institution itself would be in jeopardy. As such, indiscipline in this regard requires to be curbed as otherwise functioning of institution itself would be in jeopardy. This view is also fortified by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY CUM REGIONAL MANAGER AND OTHERS v. NIKUNJA BIHARI PATNAIK reported in (1996) 9 SCC 69 , whereunder it has been held as under: "7. It may be mentioned that in the memorandum of charges, the aforesaid two regulations are said to have been violated by the respondent. Regulation 3 requires every officer/employee of the Bank to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. It requires the officer/employee to maintain good conduct and discipline and to act to the best of his judgment in performance of his official duties or in exercise of the powers conferred upon him, Breach of Regulation 3 is "misconduct" within the meaning of Regulation 24. The findings of the Enquiry Officer which have been accepted by the disciplinary authority, and which have not been disturbed by the High Court, clearly show that in number of instances the respondent allowed overdrafts or passed cheques involving substantial amounts beyond his authority. True, it is that in some cases, no loss has resulted from such acts. It is also true that in some other instances such acts have yielded profit to the Bank but it is equally true that in some other instances, the funds of the Bank have been placed in jeopardy; the advances have become sticky and irrecoverable. It is not a single act; it is a course of action spreading over a sufficiently long period and involving a large number of transactions. In the case of a Bank - for that matter, in the case of any other organization - every officer/employee is supposed to act within the limits of his authority. If each officer/employee is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the organisation/bank will disappear; the functioning of the Bank would become chaotic and unmanageable. Each officer of the Bank cannot be allowed to carve out his own little empire wherein he dispenses favours and largesse. If each officer/employee is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the organisation/bank will disappear; the functioning of the Bank would become chaotic and unmanageable. Each officer of the Bank cannot be allowed to carve out his own little empire wherein he dispenses favours and largesse. No organization, more particularly, a Bank can function properly and effectively if its officers and employees do not observe the prescribed norms and discipline. Such indiscipline cannot be condoned on the specious ground that it was not actuated by ulterior motives or by extraneous considerations. The very act of acting beyond authority - that too a course of conduct spread over a sufficiently long period and involving innumerable instances -is by itself a misconduct. Such acts, if permitted, may bring in profit in some cases but they may also lead to huge losses. Such adventures are not given to the employees of Banks which deal with public funds. If what we hear about the reasons for the collapse of Barings Bank is true, it is attributable to the acts of one of its employees, Nick Leeson, a minor officer stationed at Singapore, who was allowed by his superiors to act far beyond his authority. As mentioned hereinbefore, the very discipline of an organization and more particularly, a Bank is dependent upon each of its employees and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and a breach of Regulation 3. It constitutes misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 24. No further proof of loss is really necessary though as a matter of fact, in this case there are findings that several advances and over-drawals allowed by the respondent beyond his authority have become sticky and irrecoverable. Just because, similar acts have fetched some profit -huge profit, as the High Court characterizes it - they are no less blameworthy. It is wrong to characterize them as errors of judgment. It is not suggested that the respondent being a Class-I officer was not aware of the limits of his authority or of his powers. Indeed, Charge No. 9, which has been held established in full is to the effect that inspite of instructions by the Regional Office to stop such practice, the respondent continued to indulge in such acts. It is not suggested that the respondent being a Class-I officer was not aware of the limits of his authority or of his powers. Indeed, Charge No. 9, which has been held established in full is to the effect that inspite of instructions by the Regional Office to stop such practice, the respondent continued to indulge in such acts. The Enquiry Officer has recorded a clear finding that the respondent did flout the said instructions and has thereby committed an act of disobedience of lawful orders. Similarly, Charge No. 8, which has also been established in full is to the effect that inspite of reminders, the respondent did not submit "Control Returns" to the Regional Office. We fail to understand how could all this be characterized as errors of judgment and not as misconduct as defined by the regulations. We are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a clear error in holding that the aforesaid conduct of the respondent does not amount to misconduct or that it does not constitute violation of Regulations 3 and 24." 13. Yet another ground which was raised by learned counsel for petitioner in this petition relates to non application of mind by Disciplinary Authority with regard to appreciation of documentary evidence available on record namely, MEX-130 to contend that respondent - Bank had relied upon these documents namely, 16 letters which came to be collectively marked as MEX-130 and in order to prove the contents of said documents it had cited the authors of said letters as its witnesses in the list of witnesses along with list of documents furnished to Petitioner together with the charge sheet and he contends that undisputedly Bank did not examine said witnesses, but on the other hand to disprove the contents of said documents petitioner had secured the presence of six witnesses namely authors of six letters to tender their evidence who have supported the case of CSO and non consideration of this vital aspect or material evidence available on record has resulted in great prejudice to petitioner's claim. In the background of said contention raised when order passed by Disciplinary Authority dated 13.03.2001, Annexure-N, is perused it would not detain this Court for long to reject said contention, inasmuch as, persons who are examined on behalf of petitioner have admitted the contents of letters and state that letters were not only written in their presence but also Telugu version of said letters was appended to it and after having read over its contents and explained to them they have affixed their signatures after having understood the contents of it. When same is conjointly read with the evidence of two witnesses namely, M.W.1 and M.W.2 it would clearly indicate that these two witnesses namely M.W.1 and M.W.2 were threatened by Sri. K.S. Sudhakar Reddy and Sri. K.S. Raghava Reddy during the course of enquiry proceedings as could be seen from records and they did not enter the witness box namely these two persons who have allegedly threatened M.W.1 and M.W.2 to raise any doubt about testimony of M.W.1 and M.W.2 or to disbelieve their evidence. In that view of the matter, Disciplinary Authority has rightly taken into consideration entire evidence available on record to reject the contention of petitioner. Hence, said contention cannot be accepted. 14. In that view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by Appellate Authority. Hence, writ petition is hereby dismissed. Rule discharged.