Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 461 (AP)

V. Srinivasulu v. Indian Bank

2025-03-13

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2025
Order : K. MANMADHA RAO, J. The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking the following relief: “….. to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS declaring the order of the Disciplinary authority/4 th respondent dated 28.10.2016 communicated vide Letter bearing No.IB:ZO:VIG:VJA:123-2016-17, dated 28.10.2016 through which the petitioner was dismissed from the service and consequent order of the Appellate/3 rd respondent dt.02.03.2017 communicated vide Letter bearing No.VIG:VIJ:Appeal:27519:2852:2016-17, dated 06.03.2017 confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority and order of the Reviewing Authority/2 nd respondent dated 18.02.2019 communicated vide letter bearing CO:VIG:VJA:Review:27519::2828::2018-19, dated 18.02.2019 rejecting the review petition of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India , violative of principles of natural justice and set aside the same and further declare that the petitioner is entitled for continuity of service with all consequential benefits, viz., pay and allowances from the date of suspension till the date of retirement, seniority and promotions and terminal benefits including pension ….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed as Manager at the respondent bank’s Gannavaram Branch, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. While so, the petitioner was dismissed from the service vide order of the 4 th respondent, dated 28.10.2016, communicated vide letter bearing No.IB:ZO:VIG:VJA:123-2016-17, dated 28.10.2016 on the allegations of misutilizing the funds in a Government Account of Executive Engineer, RWS, Project Division, Vijayawada and sanctioning loans to relatives, exceeding his discretionary powers, during the period from 25.07.2013 to 13.09.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed vide order of the 3 rd respondent, dated 02.03.2017, communicated vide letter bearing No.VIG:VIJ:Appeal:27519:2852:2016-17, dated 06.03.2017. The petitioner then filed a revision before the 2 nd respondent, which was rejected on 18.02.2019 and communicated vide letter bearing No.CO:VIG:VJA:Review:27519::2828::2018-19, dated 18.02.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The respondents 1 to 3 filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that the petitioner deliberately and intentionally misused the powers vested in him as the bank’s branch head. The petitioner committed various misappropriations and misused funds, particularly the government accounts of the Executive Engineer, RWS, Project Division, Vijayawada. 3. The respondents 1 to 3 filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that the petitioner deliberately and intentionally misused the powers vested in him as the bank’s branch head. The petitioner committed various misappropriations and misused funds, particularly the government accounts of the Executive Engineer, RWS, Project Division, Vijayawada. In addition to this, without following due procedure and the bank’s guidelines, the petitioner sanctioned loans to his relatives, exceeding his discretionary powers. All these actions took place while the petitioner was discharging his duties as the bank manager at the Gannavaram Branch, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh, during the period from 25.07.2013 to 13.09.2015. As such, his dismissal was correct, and the same was confirmed by the appellate and reviewing authorities. It is further stated that the petitioner is liable to be punished under Regulation 24 of the Indian Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, as his actions would be in breach of Regulation 3(1) of the said Regulations. Every bank official is bound to adhere to the operational guidelines of the bank, which are framed from time to time, with the purpose of ensuring discipline and punctuality. Due to the petitioner’s acts and misappropriations, the government took back all its deposits from the bank's branch. The bank’s fiscal operations primarily involve accepting deposits and lending amounts, which the petitioner completely ignored. 4. The reply affidavit filed by the petitioner states that all the loans were sanctioned in the normal course of business and were cleared by the petitioner to the bank on time, thereby causing no loss to the bank of any nature. The loan accounts were closed long ago, and there are no outstanding amounts owed to the bank. The inadvertent omissions in the transactions referred to in the charges were rectified to the full satisfaction of both the customers and the respondent bank. It is further stated that the respondent officials conducted an enquiry only against the petitioner and imposed the punishment of dismissal. In contrast, the other employees who approved the credits for the said loan accounts were never questioned, nor were any punishments given to them. 5. Heard Mr.Srinivasa Rao Narra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Valiveti Sreedhar, learned counsel for the respondents, who appeared virtually through video conferencing. 6. In contrast, the other employees who approved the credits for the said loan accounts were never questioned, nor were any punishments given to them. 5. Heard Mr.Srinivasa Rao Narra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Valiveti Sreedhar, learned counsel for the respondents, who appeared virtually through video conferencing. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply to the respondent bank on 27.09.2016. In the reply, the petitioner stated that the transactions were carried out in the normal course of business and that any inadvertent omissions of operational guidelines were rectified by the petitioner. Further, this rectification was brought to the attention of the enquiry officer during the proceedings, and MW-1 deposed that there were no outstanding dues to the respondent bank in relation to the said transactions. He further submits that the petitioner approached the National Commission for Schedule Tribes vide File No.VS/17/2018/MFIN9/ SEOTH/RU-IV and the Commission recommended the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for reinstatement into service in the sitting held on 22.01.2019. Thereafter, the Commission dated 27.01.2020 recommended that “the punishment is too harsh and the survival of his family is now on stake on account of his termination from service. The commission suggests to the Bank to consider his case sympathetically and reduce the harshness of the punishment by compulsorily retiring him from the service with all retirement benefits”. But the respondents did not consider any of the recommendations. He further submits that the respondents ought to have considered that that there is no financial loss to the exchequer of the bank and the charges relate to omission of operational guidelines only and all the loans and accounts were closed and there are no outstanding dues on account of the transactions mentioned in the charges and the petitioner has no intention to cause any loss to the bank or play fraud on the bank. Hence, the punishment in the form of dismissal is a major punishment, which the respondents ought not to have awarded and therefore, the same is liable to bet set aside and the respondents have to continue the service of the petitioner. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 7. Hence, the punishment in the form of dismissal is a major punishment, which the respondents ought not to have awarded and therefore, the same is liable to bet set aside and the respondents have to continue the service of the petitioner. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 7. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, after the termination of the petitioner from his service, he made another effort of misusing statutory protection provided to schedule castes and schedule tribes. Admittedly, the petitioner approached the National Commission for Schedule Tribes, New Delhi, for reinstatement into service. Upon perusal of detailed reply filed by the petitioner, the 4 th respondent has recommended the bank to reconsider the dismissal of the petitioner. But the National Commission in its order has erroneously made an observation that, other than the petitioner, other officials who pass the credit was not punished and no enquiry was instituted. The Bank has made necessary enquiry on the role of other officers also and appropriate punishments were imposed on them. He further submits that the rejection of the review petition filed by the petitioner, by the 2 nd respondent and confirming the dismissal order passed by the 4 th respondent are well versed according to local guidelines, as such question of reinstatement of petitioner into the bank’s service is not at all justified at this moment. 8. Perused the record. 9. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the disciplinary authority has issued charge sheet to the petitioner on 29.03.2016 framing six charges alleging that the petitioner has misutilized the funds in a Government Account of Executive Engineer, RWS, Project Division, Vijayawada and sanctioned loans to various persons exceeding discretionary powers and the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 23.04.2016. As the explanation was not acceptable, Departmental enquiry was ordered on 23.06.2016 against the petitioner. After due process of inquiry proceedings, the Inquiry Authority submitted his findings on 14.09.2016 by holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Hence, the 4 th respondent has imposed the punishment of dismissal from service as per Regulation No.4(j) of Indian Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal and review and both were rejected by the authorities. 10. Hence, the 4 th respondent has imposed the punishment of dismissal from service as per Regulation No.4(j) of Indian Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal and review and both were rejected by the authorities. 10. As seen from the material on record, this Court observed that, the petitioner has sent a letter dated 27.09.2016 to the 4 th respondent stating that there is no loss of any nature to the Bank and also no claim on the Branch/ Bank is outstanding and requested to drop the charges and consider the charges as no quintessence and exonerate the petitioner from the charge sheet. 11. In Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others , AIR 1999 SC 22 : MANU/SC/0664/1998 regarding maintainability of writ petition in the context of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy, the Apex Court held thus: “14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, prohibition, Qua Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose". 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in atleast three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged (emphasis supplied).” The instant case falls in one of the exceptions carved out by the Apex Court, the principles of natural justice is a casualty here. 12. It is noted that as per judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in Nakka Suribabu Vs. 12. It is noted that as per judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in Nakka Suribabu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and two others , [W.P.No.12941 of 2010 dated 16.09.2020] wherein this Court was held that “it should be noted that the 3 rd respondent has not discussed the contents in the written explanation as well as the previous reports and has not given reasons as to how he was not satisfied with the submissions made in the explanation and how the findings in the previous reports were not convicting. Most importantly, he has not mentioned as to how the complaint allegations were established and what was the material which weighed with him to come to such conclusion. The order shows, no personal hearing seems to have been accorded to the petitioner. Therefore it is needless to emphasize the order is devoid of reasons and bereft of following the principles of natural justice.” 13. In view of close scrutiny of the impugned proceedings dated 28.10.2016, there is no mention about the letter made by the petitioner to the 4 th respondent dated 27.09.2016 and has nothing stated about the explanation of the petitioner dated 23.04.2016 and has not given reasons as to how he was not satisfied with the submissions made in the explanation. Therefore, it is needless to emphasize the impugned order is devoid of reasons and bereft of following the principles of natural justice. In similar circumstances, a learned Single Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, having found that proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner herein and his explanation was not considered by the authority, set aside the impugned order of termination of the petitioner therein from the service and directed the concerned authority to pass appropriate order after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner. The said order squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand. 14. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusing the entire material on record, this Court is of the opinion that, the 4 th respondent ought to have given opportunity for personal hearing of the petitioner. The said order squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand. 14. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusing the entire material on record, this Court is of the opinion that, the 4 th respondent ought to have given opportunity for personal hearing of the petitioner. Further, the 4 th respondent on seeing the explanation of the petitioner as not satisfactory appointed the inquiry officer and basing on the inquiry officer findings, he found that the petitioner violated the conditions under Disciplinary Rules and terminated the petitioner from service, which is bad in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 28.10.2016 issued by the 4 th respondent and remand back the matter for fresh consideration. 15. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings vide No.IB:ZO:VIG:VJA: 123:2016-17, dated 28.10.2016 issued by the 4 th respondent is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the 4 th respondent with a direction to consider the explanation of the petitioner dated 23.04.2016 and letter dated 27.09.2016 and afford an elaborate personal hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate reasoned orders, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 16. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.