Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 22 (AP)

G. Venkateshwarlu v. Canara Bank

2024-01-03

HARINATH NUNEPALLY

body2024
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings dtd. 30/12/2009 issued by the 3rd respondent and subsequent proceedings dtd. 22/5/2010 issued by the 2nd respondent, whereby the petitioner is imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement. The petitioner seeks a prayer to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner joined the service of the 1st respondent bank in the year 1976 as a Stenographer and he was promoted from time to time. As on the date of imposition of punishment the petitioner was working as Manager Scale - II. The petitioner while working at the Garladenne Branch, Ananthapur some of the rural borrowers of the branch produced fake pattadar passbooks for the purpose of obtaining loans. Apart from the pattadar passbooks the revenue records such as pahanis were also enclosed for obtaining loans from the bank. 3. The petitioner vide letter dtd. 5/11/2008 sent for verification to the MRO, some of the passbooks which were as a tampered or altered to the extent of land in the passbooks. The MRO responded to the query of the petitioner and opined that the passbooks were fake and not issued from the office of the MRO. 4. On 19/11/2008 the Assistant General Manager issued a notice stating that out of the nine loans sanctioned by the petitioner, the loan applicants had furnished fake passbooks. It was also stated that in four other loan cases the land particulars were altered in the pattadar passbooks. That apart two of the loan applicants who were sanctioned loan had submitted fake no due certificate. It was also alleged that heavy cash transactions were recorded in the savings bank account of the petitioner which exceeded Rs.10, 00, 000.00 and that non-reporting the same is against the Circular of the Head Office. 5. The petitioner submitted his explanation to all the concerns raised by the bank and it is also submitted that all borrowers had cleared the loans and the bank did not suffer any monitory loss. 6. The petitioner was served with another notice dtd. 22/12/2008 pointing out that some more transactions in the savings bank account and O.D.Account and call for explanation. The respondents have served with the charge sheet dtd. 6/4/2009 and the petitioner denied the charges vide letter dtd. 23/4/2009. 7. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. 6. The petitioner was served with another notice dtd. 22/12/2008 pointing out that some more transactions in the savings bank account and O.D.Account and call for explanation. The respondents have served with the charge sheet dtd. 6/4/2009 and the petitioner denied the charges vide letter dtd. 23/4/2009. 7. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. An enquiry officer and a presenting officer were appointed. After a detailed enquiry the petitioner was imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. The appeal preferred before the 2nd respondent was rejected on 22/5/2010. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was in fact a whistle blower who had initiated the enquiry with the MRO on some suspected pattadar passbooks and no objections certificates. It is also submitted that the proceedings against the whistle blower initiated by the bank are detrimental to the interest of the bank only. The petitioner has discharged his duty with highest integrity and it was on his letter dtd. 5/11/2008 to the MRO, the petitioner and the bank authorities came to know about the submission of fake, altered, non-genuine pattadar passbooks and other revenue records. It is also submitted that the petitioner being an employee of bank does not have the where with all to ascertain the genuinity of the revenue records by a mere glance at them. It is also pointed out that the Mandal Revenue Officer also cannot ascertain a mere glance at the pattadar passbooks without verifying the revenue records. 9. The enquiry officer has submitted his report dtd. 19/10/2009 holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved. On the strength of the findings of the enquiry officer the petitioner was imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement vide order dtd. 22/6/2010. As seen from the said order it was held that the charge of sanctioning loans on the basis of fake/forged/altered pattadar passbooks is serious in nature and loans were sanctioned against the fake documents. The other finding against the petitioner in the enquiry report is that the number of transactions in the personal account of the petitioner were not reported and the same is also admitted by the petitioner. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue of the petitioner has not been dealt appropriately by the respondent and serious injustice has been caused to the petitioner on account of imposing of a disproportionate punishment. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue of the petitioner has not been dealt appropriately by the respondent and serious injustice has been caused to the petitioner on account of imposing of a disproportionate punishment. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted a detailed counter and submits that the case of the petitioner challenging the disciplinary proceedings in the writ petition ought not to be entertained. It is also submitted that the petitioner cannot seek a reassessment of the report of enquiry officer. The petitioner is also not entitled for re-appreciating the findings of the enquiry officer. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is not the case of the petitioner that principles of natural justice were not followed during the enquiry proceedings or that the enquiry was conducted in an unfair manner. On the contrary the petitioner was given adequate opportunity and also the petitioner was permitted to take the assistance of the Co-Officer for putting forth his best case before the enquiry officer. As such he cannot claim any relief from this Court. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent also submits that re-appreciation of evidence is also not permissible in a writ petition Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs. Western Geco International Limited, (2014) 9 SCC 263 . the learned counsel placed reliance on Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli Vs. Gulabhia M.Lad, (2010) 5 SCC 775 . Disciplinary Authority - Cum - Regional Manager and Others Vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, (1996) 9 SCC 69 . Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Bholanath Singh and Others, (1997) 3 SC 657. In all these Judgments the legal position with respect to exercising the power of Judicial Review is settled. Unless and until any illegality or procedural irregularity which would shock the conscious of the Court or Tribunal, the discretion can be exercised. It may not matter as to whether there was no loss which was resulted by the acts of the charged officer. However, when the amounts of the bank are at risk and there is a necessity for recovery of the due amount the funds of the bank will be placed in jeopardy. 14. The learned counsel also placed reliance on Bank of India and another Vs. Degala Suryanarayana, (1999) 5 SCC 762 . However, when the amounts of the bank are at risk and there is a necessity for recovery of the due amount the funds of the bank will be placed in jeopardy. 14. The learned counsel also placed reliance on Bank of India and another Vs. Degala Suryanarayana, (1999) 5 SCC 762 . the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that strict rules of evidence is not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. The only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravamen of the charge against the delinquent officer. The Court exercising the jurisdiction of the judicial review would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceeding except in a case of malafides or perversity i.e., where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that finding. The Court cannot embark upon re- appreciating the evidence or weighing the same like an appellate authority so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion. 15. It is no doubt well established law that this Court can exercise its jurisdiction of judicial review if the petitioner is able to place the case of the petitioner within the exceptions carved out by the established law and the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The various decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents discussed the facts therein and the Court has held basing on the facts of those cases. However, so far as the law relating to the scope of judicial review is very narrow. Considering the facts of the case, this case does not fall within the parameters set for interfering in a disciplinary proceeding in the writ jurisdiction. 16. In the absence of an exceptional situation for interference in the findings by the disciplinary authority, this Court cannot certainly interfere in the disciplinary proceedings. It is also not a case for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction in trying to re-appreciate the evidence which admittedly is based on several documents which were placed before the enquiry officer by the presenting officer. Thus, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. It is also not a case for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction in trying to re-appreciate the evidence which admittedly is based on several documents which were placed before the enquiry officer by the presenting officer. Thus, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 17. However, it is pertinent to mention that the petitioner was aged 57 years when the writ petition was filed and now the petitioner is 70 years old. The order of punishment by imposing compulsory retirement is dtd. 30/12/2009 and confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dtd. 22/5/2010 cannot be interfered at this stage. The petitioner had joined the bank in the year 1976 and served in the bank for about 33 years and the disciplinary proceedings were issued during the last leg of his service. Considering the long service of the petitioner and the present age of the petitioner, this Court while dismissing the writ petition directs the respondent/bank to pay the terminal benefits due payable to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this Order if not already paid. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed.