Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 259 (AP)

G. Pardha Saradhi Naidu v. State Bank of India

2024-02-16

HARINATH NUNEPALLY

body2024
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings dtd. 14/5/2007 whereby the petitioner was removed from service with pensionary benefits and the subsequent benefits of the appellate authority imposing the punishment of discharge from service with pensionary benefits. 2. The petitioner joined the respondent/bank as a Clerk - Cum - Typist on 1/7/1985. He was promoted as Senior Assistant in the year 2000. The petitioner applied for housing loan of Rs.3, 60, 000.00, which was sanctioned for construction of a house at Mannavarappadu Village, Nellore District. The petitioner was subsequently transferred to Tirupati in the month of August, 2003. An amount of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 was credited to the account of petitioner on 6/5/2003. The Chief Manager of the respondent/bank addressed a letter dtd. 16/1/2004 calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the construction could not start in spite of availing the housing loan. The petitioner submitted his explanation the Branch Manager subsequently on 8/9/2004 the petitioner was called upon to close the loan account by repaying the entire amount. 3. The petitioner repaid the loan amount along with interest on 6/10/2004. However, on 2/11/2004 a memorandum of charge was issued as to why Disciplinary Action should not be initiated against the petitioner for having obtained the loan and failing to start the construction. The act of obtaining housing loan and not starting the construction was viewed seriously and the petitioner was called upon to explain. The respondent/bank initiated a second charge memo that the petitioner issued certain cheques without maintaining sufficient balance and the cheques were returned unpaid for the reason insufficient funds and stop payment etc., The petitioner submitted his response and an enquiry is said to have been conducted. The disciplinary authority had held that the petitioner has availed the housing loan of Rs.3, 60, 000.00 and that the petitioner has submitted a false declaration that he has incurred an amount of Rs.3, 15, 000.00 towards purchase of material like steel, cement, bricks etc., It was held that the employee did not start the construction and also failed to submit the relevant receipts. The other charge pertaining to having obtained loans from ICICI Bank and also from one K.Bala Rami Reddy and issuance of stop payment instructions towards the cheques issued to them were viewed seriously. 4. The petitioner had submitted that, the housing loan obtained from the bank was closed. The other charge pertaining to having obtained loans from ICICI Bank and also from one K.Bala Rami Reddy and issuance of stop payment instructions towards the cheques issued to them were viewed seriously. 4. The petitioner had submitted that, the housing loan obtained from the bank was closed. The petitioner's father passed away on 9/11/2002 and that he purchased a plot within a period of one year from the date of expiry of his father. Elders and well-wishers of the petitioner had advised the petitioner not to go ahead with the construction in the plot which was purchased by him within a period of one year from the date of expiry of his father. The petitioner had closed the housing loan as the respondent/authorities declined to extend time for construction as requested by the petitioner. 5. The other allegation or charge against the petitioner is that the petitioner obtained loan from ICICI Bank and also from a private individual and that cheques issued towards repayment of the EMI to ICICI Bank and cheque issued towards repayment of the loan amount from a private individual could not be honoured on account of stop payment instructions. 6. The petitioner submitted that raising of loans for construction and meeting personal expenses has nothing to do with a discharge of duty as an employee of the bank. That apart the petitioner is also stated to have submitted the proof of foreclosure of the loan obtained from ICICI Bank and also a letter of settlement from the third party from whom a hand loan has been obtained. These facts are also recorded by the disciplinary authority. 7. Considering these allegations, the disciplinary authority has very strangely come to a conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct and as such deserves to be removed from service with superannuation benefits. The petitioner filed an appeal before appellate authority and the appellate authority has simply reiterated the contentions raised by the respondent/bank and has upheld the punishment but modified it as discharge from service instead of removed from service with superannuation benefits. 8. The petitioner filed an appeal before appellate authority and the appellate authority has simply reiterated the contentions raised by the respondent/bank and has upheld the punishment but modified it as discharge from service instead of removed from service with superannuation benefits. 8. The respondents have filed a counter and reiterated that withdrawing of loan amount without starting construction was serious misconduct and that a fair enquiry was conducted and in the enquiry also adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent/bank submitted that the scope of judicial review of this court is limited and places reliance on Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs. Western Geco International Limited, (2014) 9 SCC 263 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. 9. In the matter of Bank of India and another Vs. Degala Suryanarayana5, 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. 10. 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. 10. It is no doubt well established law that this Court can exercise its jurisdiction of judicial review if the petitioner is (1999) 5 SCC 762 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. 11. On the facts on hand in the present case, the petitioner is able to place his case for judicial review by this Court on the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. The first charge with respect to applying and obtaining a housing loan and drawing an amount of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 but failing to submit the receipts evidencing purchase of material was viewed seriously and the memorandum of charge is dtd. 16/1/2004. The petitioner foreclosed the housing loan along with interest on 6/10/2004. The enquiry which was conducted after foreclosure of the housing loan without considering the explanation of the petitioner for not starting the construction even after obtaining the loan was not considered. The reason mentioned by the petitioner that he was advised not to start construction of a new house within one year from the date of expiry of his father ought to have been considered by the disciplinary authority. It is a practice in several orthodox families not to take up any auspicious events such as marriages, housewarming functions within one year from the date of death of member of family. This aspect was not dealt appropriately by the disciplinary authority. 12. It appears that the respondent/bank has exhibited its vengeance against the petitioner by issuing a second charge on the petitioner on 31/5/2005. Whereby the stop payment instructions for the cheques issued by the petitioner towards repayment of monthly equated installments for the loan obtained from ICICI Bank and K.Bala Rami Reddy were dishonoured is the crux of the second charge. The disciplinary authority has completely ignored the documents submitted by the petitioner which evidenced the foreclosure of loan of ICICI bank and also settlement of loan of K.Bala Rami Reddy. 13. The disciplinary authority has failed to take into account the documents submitted by the petitioner and has grossly mislead itself in holding the petitioner guilty for misconduct. The disciplinary authority has completely ignored the documents submitted by the petitioner which evidenced the foreclosure of loan of ICICI bank and also settlement of loan of K.Bala Rami Reddy. 13. The disciplinary authority has failed to take into account the documents submitted by the petitioner and has grossly mislead itself in holding the petitioner guilty for misconduct. The first charge on the petitioner ought to have put to a quietus by considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and also taking into account that the petitioner had foreclosed the housing loan. The second charge also was purely a private financial affair of the petitioner which was also settled. However, the disciplinary authority has grossly erred in holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct and arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner deserves to be removed from service. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is grossly disproportionate and also shockingly improper. Thus indulgence of this Court is essential in rectifying the irrational and illogical acts of the respondents. The proceedings of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority also fail the test of proportionality and deserve to be set aside. 14. The petitioner has also crossed the age of superannuation. The order of removal of petitioner from service with superannuation benefits is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the proceedings dtd. 14/5/2007 and the proceedings of the Appellate Authority dtd. 24/10/2007 are hereby set aside. The respondents shall treat the petitioner as in service from the date of termination till the date of attaining the age of superannuation. The respondents shall release all service benefits to the petitioner including back wages within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 15. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed, without costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed.