P. Dhanujaya Rao Vs Dy General Manager

P. Dhanujaya Rao, S/o. Narayanamurthy, Aged 58, Occ Clerk-cumCashier(SBI)( under Suspension), Flat No.402, Kasula Plaza, Road No.4, Near Mahitha Public School, Currency Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna^District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Suryarao Pet, Vijayawada, Krishan District.

¶13

Asst. General Manager & Disciplinary authority, O/o. Regional Manager, State Bank of India, R.B.O - V, Rajamahendra Varam, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, order or orders specially one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declare the action of the 1 St respondent in issuing the proceedings in DPS/R-IV/No.62 Dated 26-08-2000 and order of the appellate authority i.e., is the 1st respondent in DPS/DGM/263 dated 11-12-2000 is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of constitution of India also a clear violation of natural justice and also violation

¶16

f

¶17

of Satry award and Dasai award and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits into service.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2niQ

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1®‘ respondent to reconsider the proposal of the petitioner for extension of service as 2"^ Officer/ANO NCC for a period of 2 years i.e., from 7-12-2018 to 6-12-2020 i - in Z.P.H.S. Narakoduru, Chebrole Mandal,Guntur District sent by the 5' respondent dated 24-12-2018 pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. ELISHA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA The Court made the following order:

¶21

APHC010100912019

¶22

[3396]

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶24

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶25

MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO: 4541/2019

¶29

Between:

¶30

1.P. DHANUJAYA RAO, S/0. NARAYANAMURTHY, AGED 58, OCC CLERK-CUM-CASHIER(SBI) FLAT NO.402, KASULA PLAZA, ROAD N0.4, NEAR MAHITHA PUBLIC SCHOOL, CURRENCY NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA,

¶31

...PETITIONER

¶32

AND

¶33

1.DY GENERAL MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, SURYARAO PET, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶34

2.ASST GENERAL MANAGER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,^0/0. REGIONAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, R.B.O V RAJAMAHENDRA VARAM, east GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶35

...RESPONDENT{S):

¶36

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, order or orders specially one^{inthenatureofWRITOF} MANDAMUS declare the action of the 1^ST respondent in issuing the proceedings in DPS/R-IV/No.62 Dated 26-08-2000 and order of the appellate authority i.e., the 1st respondent in DPS/DGM/263 dated 11-12-2000 is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of constitution of India also a clear violation of natural justice and also violation of Satry award and Dasai award and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits into service and pass

¶37

2

¶38

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶39

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1st respondent to reconsider the proposal of the petitioner for extension of service as 2nd Officer/ANO NCC for a period of 2 years i.e., from 7-12-2018 to 6-12-2020 in Z.P.H.S. Narakoduru, Chebrole Mandal,Guntur District sent by the 5th respondent dated 24-12-2018 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass

¶40

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶41

1.G ELISHA

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶43

¶44

VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA

¶45

The Court made the following:

¶46

%

¶47

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAl PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 4541/2019

¶48

ORDER:

¶49

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution^ofIndiawith

¶50

the following prayer for:

¶51

“...to issue Writ, order or orders speciaily one in^thenatureof WRiT OF MANDAMUS declare the action of the respondent in issuing the proceedings in DPS/R-IV/No.62 Dated 26-08-2000 and order of the appellate authority i.e., the 7®' respondent in DPS/DGM/263 dated 11-12-2000 is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 19 and^{21ofconstitutionof} India also a clear violation of natural justice and^{alsoviolationofSatry} award and Dasai award and consequently direct the respondents^to reinstate the petitioner with ail consequential benefits^{intoserviceand} pass...”

¶52

Heard Sri G.Elisha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner^{andSriVenkata} Rama Rao Kota, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank.

¶53

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that^the Petitioner joined the Respondent-Bank as Clerk-cum-Cashier on 14.09.1983 and thereafter promoted as the Assistant Head Cashier in^{theyear1987.Whilehe} that he has was working at Eluru, he was suspended on the allegation misappropriated some amounts, for which the disciplinary action has been initiated and punishment was imposed as stoppage of^{twoincrementsand} reinstated him in the month of October, 1990 at Prakkilanka^{ofWestGodavari} District. Learned Counsel would further submit that^{ashowcausenoticewas} issued to the Petitioner on 23.01.1992 on the allegations that he has misappropriated the amounts received from the Account^{Holders.Enquirywas} Bank and the Respondent No.2 has imposed the conducted by the

¶54

■ ^

¶55

punishment of “Discharge by way of Punishment” vide Orders dated 08.11.1993. Learned Counsel would further submit that aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has approached the appellate authority. The appeal was dismissed. While the said proceedings were pending, another charge sheet was framed against the Petitioner with six (6) charges. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that the Respondent No.2 issued the proceedings dated 08.11.1993 mentioning that the charge memo dated 07.06.1993 has become infructuous, in view of the punishment imposed with regard to the earlier charge sheet dated 23.01.1992. However, the Bank reserved their right to revive the same at any time in future from the stage where it is discontinued. Learned Counsel would further submit that the Petitioner has challenged the punishment of discharge imposed against him before the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad vide I.D.No. 79 of 1996 and obtained favorable orders vide Award dated 01.11.1997 directing the Respondents to reinstate him into service with continuity^ofserviceand all consequential benefits, In compliance of the Award, the Petitioner was reinstated into service on 19.05.1998. 5. Learned Counsel would further submit that after the reinstatement of the Petitioner, in obedience to the orders of the industrial Tribunal, again the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner with prejudicial mind and dismissed him from service vide orders dated 26.08.2000 by reviving earlier charge sheet dated 07.06.1993. Learned Counsel would further submit that though the appeal preferred before the

¶56

5

¶57

% ' Respondent No.1, the Appellate Authority just confirmed^{theorderspassedby} the Disciplinary Authority. Despite, a representation^{ismadebythePetitioner,} the Respondent No.1 for personal hearing, that was^{notconsidered} till this day. A lot of injustice has been occurred to the Petitioner^{whobelongstothe} Scheduled Caste. Higher Officials who are above the^{Petitionerbelongsto} separate Union. It is their secret agenda to create^a story against the Petitioner which leads to dismissal from service.

¶58

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that the Petitioner has become sick and he was bedridden for^{severalmonthsafterthe} dismissal order. He could not approach appropriate authority for justice due to his financial position. Due to the advice of the close^{relatives,atthefagendof} the service, he preferred the present petition. He^{wouldhavecontinued} in service and still he may have one and half year of^service.

¶59

Per Contra, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent-Bank^would submit that the Petitioner while working as Assistant Head Casher at Prakkilanka Branch, was also served with another show^{causenoticeonthe} allegation that misappropriate of funds received from^{theBankcustomers} in January, 1993, 08.02.1993 and 27.02.1993, obstructing^{theBranchManager} on 31.03.1993 by entering his chamber while he was^{attendingtheworkofa} customer and on 13.04.1993 for abusing the Branch Manager in an unparliamentary language. The Petitioner was called^{forexplanationforhis} misconduct. He did not submit his explanation to the Authority. Enquiry has been ordered against him by issuing a charge sheet. Sri M.Venugopala Rao,

¶60

6

¶61

Assistant General Secretary, SBI Staff Union, Hyderabad Circle represented as Defense Representative to defend the Petitioner. The Enquiry underwent several adjournments. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the Enquiry Officer found charges I, III, V and VI are proved and charges II and IV are not proved. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that as the Petitioner was discharged from service by order dated 08.11.1993, the present disciplinary proceedings were made infructuous at that stage, specifically reserving the right to the Bank to revive the proceedings relating to the charge sheet dated 07.06.1993. Learned Standing^{Counselwouldfurther} submit that the Petitioner was reinstated into service on 19.05.1998 by virtue of Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. The copy of the Enquiry Report was served to the Petitioner after his reinstatement. The Petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 12.02.2000. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the petitioner was accorded personal hearing and thereafter, the Appointing Authority dismissed the petitioner on 26.08.2000. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the dismissal of the Petitioner without notice by way of punishment is in^{accordancewithParaNo.} 21 (iv)(a) of the 6‘^ Bipartite Settlement dated 15.05.1995 reached between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation on Service Conditions in supersession of Para 521(5) of the Sastry Award^and Para 18.28 of the Desal Award after considering the facts of the case and on examining the relevant records by a reasoned order.

¶62

7

¶63

^ ■

¶64

Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that^{thePetitionerhas} preferred an appeal and the Appellate Authority also^{dismissedtheappeal.} Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that^{thepetitionhastobe} dismissed at the threshold itself on the ground that there is inordinate delay in approaching the Court after a lapse of 19 years. Learned^{StandingCounsel} would further submit that the discharge of the Petitioner^{earlieronconclusion} of the Disciplinary proceedings is relating to the^{misconductcommittedon} 19.03.1991, 25.05.1991, 10.06.1991, 21.07.1991 and 02.01.1991. After his reinstatement by virtue of the award passed by the^{learnedIndustrialTribunal,} the Respondent- Authorities have proceeded with the^{other enquiry relating to} the misconduct and misappropriations dated 27.02.1993, 31.03.1993 and 13.04.1993. Both enquiries are different. Learned Standing Counsel vehemently argued that the Bank never conducted the^{unifiedenquiryforthe} very same allegations. It is indeed, two separate proceedings^{wereinitiatedfor} the misconduct committed by the employee in different spells. The Respondent authorities have followed the Rules and Procedure. Learned Standing Counsel finally prays of dismissal of the petition.

¶65

In reply, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would^{submitthatthedelay} does not matter when injustice have been done to the Petitioner. The Petitioner could not approach the Court within time^{becauseofhisill-health} and other financial constraints. Learned Counsel finally prays to allow the petition.

¶66

Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioner joined as Clerkcum-Cashier in SBI at Nidadavolu on 14.09.1983. It is also on record that he was promoted as Assistant Head Cashier in the year 1987. While he was working at Eluru, the Petitioner was suspended on the ground of misappropriation of amount. Enquiry has been conducted by the Bank authorities. However it was ended by imposing the punishment of stoppage of two (2) increments and reinstated him into service. Thereafter, the Petitioner while working at Prakkilanka Branch, received show cause notice on 23.01.1992 and he has submitted an explanation to the same. Enquiry has been conducted and that was ended by imposing punishment of “Discharge by way of Punishment” dated 08.11.1993. Aggrieved thereby, he has approached the appellate authority and the appeal was dismissed. The Petitioner has approached Industrial Tribunal by filing I.D.No. 79 of 1996, the case was ended in his favour vide award dated 01.11.1997 directing the respondents to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, notional increments, revision of pay and all other consequential benefits. The Record further shows that while imposing the punishment of “Discharge by way of Punishment”, the Bank Authorities referred about a charge memo dated 07.06.1993 stating that this became infructuous, in view of the punishment imposed with regard to the earlier charge sheet dated 23.01.1992. However, they reserved their right to review the case in future. After the reinstatement of the Petitioner in to service, the Bank, authorities have proceeded further

¶67

9

¶68

relating to the charge memo dated 07.06.1993 which^{waskeptinabeyance} while discharging the Petitioner in another enquiry.^There is no merit in the contention that the Respondent-Bank has not followed the procedure as per law while dismissing the Petitioner from service. The^material placed on record would show that the Bank authorities have issued^{showcausenotices} to the individual, giving him an opportunity to submit^{hisexplanation.Later,} charge memo was issued. Enquiry Officer has been appointed,^theenquiry was conducted and when the said charge reached the stage of submitting enquiry report, the individual was discharged from^{servicerelatingtoanother} enquiry and that is why, they could not proceed further^{relatingtothecharge} memo dated 07.06.1993. In the light of the same, the argument that they have not followed the procedure according to law and order passed in violation of principles of natural justice cannot be countenanced.

¶69

The Record further shows that the enquiry report has^beenservedon the individual. He has submitted his written explanation to the authorities. They have given him an opportunity of personal hearing and thereafter, passed order dismissing the individual from service.^{Inthat view, the argument} advanced to the effect that for the very same charge,^{thebankconducted} enquiry twice which was already held by the Industrial Tribunal as not sustainable falls to ground, the reason being the charge memo dated 23.01.1992 relating to alleged misappropriations during the year 1991 whereas the said charge memo dated 07.06.1993 is relating^tothealleged misconduct of the employee during the year 1993. They are separate

¶70

10

¶71

enquiries which have been initiated against the individual relating to alleged misconduct in different periods. Needless to say that when the allegations against the Petitioner is relating to misappropriation of funds of the customers which is a serious allegation and the charge memo dated 07.06.1993 was kept in abeyance because the individual was discharged relating to another enquiry, absolutely, there is no bar to the Bank-authorities to continue the disciplinary proceedings relating to charge memo dated 07.06.1993, after reinstatement of the employee. In that view, as the charges framed against the Petitioner are proved, the appointing authority^{hastakenadecisionfor} dismissal of the Petitioner in the light of Para No. 21 (iv)(a) of the 6*^ Bipartite Settlement dated 15.05.1995 reached between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation on Service Conditions in supersession of Para 521(5) of the Sastry Award and Para 18.28 of the Desal^Award.

¶72

Coming to the point of delay, as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, the impugned order of dismissal is on 26.08.2000 whereas the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition in the year 2019. Hence, it is a case of inordinate delay in failing the Writ Petition. It is beneficial to refer the Judgment of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 852 of 2020 in Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & others vs. Ram Gopal, wherein it is held that at para Nos.14 & 16 as follows;

¶73

Finally, the prolonged delay of many years ought^nottohave been overlooked or condoned. Services of the Respondent^were terminated within months of his appointment, in 1978. Statedly, the

¶74

11

¶75

Respondent made a representation and served UPPCL with a legal notice in 1982, however such feeble effort does^littleto fill the gap between when the cause of action arose and he chose to seek its redressal (in 1990).

¶76

Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution^ofIndia, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have^sleptover wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fence-sitters^cannotbe allowed to barge Into courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be^{treatedalikewith} mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, It has been^restated that there are implicit limitations of time within^{whichwritremedies} can be enforced. In SS Baluv. State of Kerala\ this Court observed thus:

¶77

"17. It is also well-settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity"....It is now a trite law that where^thewrit petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on^the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact^that they are similarly situated to the other candidates^who obtain the benefit of the judgment."

¶78

(emphasis supplied)

¶79

In the light of the aforementioned premises, the Writ^{Petitionisliableto}

be dismissed.

'(2009) 2 see 479

12

In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶84

.SSISTSfelSl //TRUE COPY//

¶85

To,

¶86

SECTION OFFICER

¶87

1- One CC to Sri G. Elisha, Advocate [OPUCJ 2. One CC to Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, Advocate fOPUC] 3. Two CD Copies

¶88

ssb

¶89

HIGH COURT