Allowed

T. Lakshmana Rao, v. Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Jul 2025WP/9114/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an impugned order by the Board of Directors-cum-Appellate Authority of Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank. The Court held the Authority failed to comply with its prior 2020 order to reconsider the case by the petitioner's explanation during the 2020 modification, instead relying on an earlier 2008 consideration. The penalty order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed with costs of Rupees Ten Thousand payable to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee.

T. Lakshmana Rao, Vs Andhra Pradesh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

APHC010159022021

¶3

SMS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NQ.- 9114 pp yn9i

¶7

Between:

¶8

T. Lakshmana Rao, S/o T. Apparao Naidu, Aged 66 Years, Occ- Manager (Retired), Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, R/o- Plot No.4, SBI Staff Colony, Bondilipuram, Srikakulam District

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank Rep. by its Chairman, Head

¶12

Office, Hanamakonda, Warangal District

¶13

The Chairman-cum-Disciplinary Authority, Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, Head Office, Srikakulam Andhra Pradesh 532 001,

¶14

Andhra Pradesh.

¶15

Board of Directors-cum-Appellate Authority, Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, Head Office, Hanamakonda, Warangal District.

¶16

The General Manager I, Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, Head

¶17

Office, Hanamakonda, Warangal District.

¶18

Andhra Pradesh Grameena Bank, Rep. by its Chairman Head Office at D.No.5-37-234, 4th Floor, Raghu Mansion 4/1, Brodipet, Guntur.

¶19

Board of Directors-cum-Appellate Authority, Andhra Pradesh Grameena Bank, Head Office at D.No.5-37-234 4th Floor, Raghu Mansion,

¶20

4/1, Brodipet, Guntur.

¶21

Respondent Nos.5 and 6 impleaded as per Court Order dated 25.06.2025 vide I.A.No.1 of 2025 in WP No.9114 of 2021.

¶22

...Respondents

¶23

i I

¶24

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 any order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature Of Writ Of Mandamus and deciare the actions of the Respondent No 3 in passing he impugned Order as illegal, arbitral, unconstitutional , in violation dated 3 oZ r 31.08.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No. 7086 of 2009 and consequently set aside the Impugned order passed by the Respondent No.3 in the Board Meeting No. 94 held on 23.10.2020 by which major penalty was issued by reducing the scale of pay by placing the Petitioner in fifth stage of pay in Officers Service I Cadre. jA NO: 1 OF ?n9i

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to reconsider Impugned Order strictly in light of this hT I r T' '' Of Hon b e Court in the Order dated 31.08.2020 in W.P.No. 7086 of 2019 ounsel for the Petitioner: Ms.SODUM ANVESHA Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. V UMA DEVI

¶26

The Court made the following Order:

¶27

APHC010159022021

¶28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶29

[3458]

¶30

0MS

¶31

THURSDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶32

PRESENT

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶34

WRIT PETITION NO: 9114/2021

¶35

Between:

¶36

I.T. LAKSHMANA RAO,, S/0 T. APPARAO NAIDU, AGED 66 YEARS, OCC- MANAGER (RETIRED), ANDHRA PRADESH GRAMEENA VIKAS BANK, RIOPLOT N0.4, SBI STAFF COLONY, BONDILIPURAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT,

¶37

...PETITIONER

¶38

¶39

1.ANDHRA PRADESH GRAMEENA VIKAS BANK, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HEAD OFFICE, HANAMAKONDA, WARANGAL DISTRICT

¶40

2.THE CHAIRMANCILMDISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, ANDHRA PRADESH GRAMEENA VIKAS BANK, HEAD OFFICE, SRIKAKULAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 532 001, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶41

BOARD OF DIRECTORSCUMAPPELLATE AUTHORITY, ANDHRA PRADESH GRAMEENA VIKAS BANK, HEAD OFFICE, HANAMAKONDA, WARANGAL DISTRICT.

¶42

4.THE GENERAL MANAGER I, , ANDHRA PRADESH GRAMEENA VIKAS BANK, HEAD OFFICE, HANAMAKONDA, WARANGAL DISTRICT.

¶43

5.ANDHRA PRADESH GRAMEENA BANK, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HEAD OFFICE AT D.NO.5-37-234, 4TH FLOOR, RAGHU MANSION, 4/1, BRODIPET, GUNTUR

¶44

¶45

BOARD OF DIRECTORSCUMAPPELLATE AUTHORITY, ANDHRA PRADESH GRAMEENA BANK, HEAD OFFICE AT D.NO.5-37-234, 4TH FLOOR, RAGHU MANSION, 4/1, BRODIPET, GUNTUR RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6 IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 25.06.2025 VIDE I.A.N0.1 OF 2025 IN WP NO.9114 OF 2021.

¶46

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶47

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 topleased to issue any order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and declare the actions of the Respondent No.3 in passing the Impugned Order as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, in violation of principles of natural justice, and contrary to the findings of the Order dated 31.08.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No. 7086 of 2009and consequently set aside the Impugned order passed by the Respondent No.3 in the Board Meeting No. 94 held on 23.10.2020 by which major penalty was issued by reducing the scale of pay by placing the Petitioner in fifth stage of pay in Officers Service I Cadre

¶48

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶49

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 pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to reconsider Impugned Order strictly in light of the explanation offered by the Petitioners and the observations and findings of this Hon'ble Court in the Order dated 31.08 2020 in W P No 7086 of 2019

¶50

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶51

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 may be pleased to implead the proposed Respondent Nos.5 & 6 as the Party Respondent Nos.5 & 6 in W.P.No.9114/2021 and pass

¶52

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶53

1.SODUM ANVESHA

¶54

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶55

1.VUMA DEVI

¶56

The Court made the following:

¶57

¶58

ORDER:

¶59

Heard Ms. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent-Bank.

¶60

It is contended that the petitioner who was working as a Branch Manager of respondent bank suspended in irregular manner from service on 07.04.2006. The said suspension was revoked on 02.08.2006. Subsequently, Charge Memo dated 05.06.2007 was served on the petitioner on 14.06.2007, alleging that the petitioner was irregular to the duties and was not courteous to the customers of the Bank The petitioner has filed an explanation to the Charge Sheet on 23.08.2007. Being unsatisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, the 2'^’^ respondent ordered for a Departmental Enquiry and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. Enquiry officer has submitted his report on 06.06.2008. Basing on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the 2"^^ respondent passed an order dated 04.08.2008, imposing the penalty of reducing the employment to the lower time scale. It is stated that before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was not given any opportunity for filing objections.

¶61

The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the 2"^ respondent on 18.09.2008, before the 3^^ respondent. The 3^^ respondent vide order dated 27.12.2008, dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of the 2"^ respondent-Disciplinary Authority, The petitioner further challenged the Appellate Authority order, by way of writ petition in W.P.No.7086 of 2009

¶62

'--s.

¶63

¶64

alleging non consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner and the charges framed are grossly disproportionate to the charges framed. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 31.08.2020, remitting the matter to the 3'^' respondent to reconsider the same in the light of the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, it is contended by the petitioner that he has made an application to the 3^^^ respondent to pass an order afresh, in the light of the explanation submitted by him. It is stated that pursuant to the directions in W.P.No.7086 of 2009 dated 31.08.2020, the matter was placed before the O''* respondent for passing appropriate orders. It is contended that despite specific directions given by this Court, the 3'^'^ respondent did not consider the matter in correct perspective and modified the punishment by placing the petitioner in fifth stage of pay in Officers Service -I Cadre.

¶65

The respondents filed counter affidavit stating that considering the petitioners long history of irregularities, tardiness, discourteous behavior towards customers of the bank and blatant disregard for the rules and regulations of the bank, disciplinary proceedings were concluded imposing a penalty of reduction to the lower scale. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, a punishment imposed was modified to that of reduction of scale of pay by placing the petitioner in fifth stage of pay in Officers Service - I Cadre. It is further stated that in the light of the order passed by this Court, the 3'"'^ respondent has considered the matter afresh and on the basis of documentary evidence on record, the punishment imposed was modified. As

¶66

¶67

regards disproportionality of the punishment > and having regard to the deplorable conduct of the petitioner coupled with unsatisfactory performance, the bank has suffered i immensely and the same was caused embracement of the bank and its customers. However taking lenient view of the matter, punishment imposed was modified.

¶68

Learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Sodum Anvesha would submit referring to the articles of charges framed against the petitioner that in the earlier round of litigation. this Court had come to a conclusion referring to the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the charges framed that the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the charges proved. Having regard to the same, the matter remanded to the 3'^^ respondent in the light of the explanation of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that in compliance to the directions of this Court, the respondent Board passed the two line impugned order, which i IS cryptic and in disregard to the directions of this Court. Learned counsel further submits that the observation of the 3'^^ respondent that the explanation of the petitioner was considered is not depicted from the i impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that this Court has categorically observed that the explanation of the petitioner justifies the petitioner’s case. In the light of the said direction, the 3rd respondent Board, referring to its earlier proceedings states that the

¶69

explanation was considered by the Board i in its order dated 27.12.2008, without considering the directions of the Court, the punishment imposed was

¶70

¶71

modified to that of reduction of scale of pay by placing the petitioner in fifth stage of pay in Officers Service -1 Cadre.

¶72

Learned Standing Counsel Ms. Uma Devi appearing for the respondents-Bank would submit that the pursuant to the directions of this Court, the Appellate Authority had passed the order exercising the discretion vested in it and modified the order of punishment. Learned counsel further submits that the explanation of the petitioner was considered by the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority need not give reasons if they are in agreement with the original Authority, And the punishment is not disproportionate to the charges framed. The learned counsel further argues that the impugned order will not have any cumulative effect in any manner.

¶73

¶74

Considered the rival submissions.

¶75

This Court while disposing of the writ petition has^observed as

¶76

follows:

¶77

“Broadly, the allegations against the petitioner are;^unauthorized absence and discourteous towards the customers. As seen from the record, the explanation of the petitioner justifies his case. Hence, in the light of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the punishment imposed on him appears to be disproportionate to the charges proved.”

¶78

And observed as follows:

¶79

“ The matter is remanded to the appellate authority i.e., the third respondent to reconsider the same in the light of the explanation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this^order....”

¶80

¶81

Pursuant to the said directions, the 3"'^ respondent passed the impugned order. Perusal of the impugned order would reflect that the Appellate Authority has observed that the explanation^{ofthepetitionerwas} duly considered by the Appellate Authority in the meeting^{heldon27.12.2008} and thus passed the impugned order reducing the punishment^imposed. In the impugned order, nowhere does the Appellate Authority^{hasreferredtothe} explanation of the petitioner while passing the order^consequent to the directions of this Court, and above all that goes to^{theextentofsayingthatthe} explanation of the petitioner was considered in the earlier round of proceedings, implying that the same need not be considered now. It is relevant to extract the relevant observation of the Appellate Authority.

¶82

\ N \

¶83

“ After thorough examination and careful consideration of the circumstances, we find that the explanation submitted by the petitioner in his appeal dated 18.09.2008 was duly^{consideredinthe} meeting on 27.12.2008 by the Board and Appellate Authority.^However, in consideration of the' directions of the Hon’ble High court and considerinQ the lonp service put in by the petitioner^inthebank,we the Board and Appellate Authority is inclined to consider^thecase and feel that the ends of justice would be adequately^met if the punishment imposed vide orders dated 04.08.2008 is^{modifiedtothat} of reduction of scale of pay by placing in fifth stage^{of payinOS-1cadre.}

¶84

From the above, it can be seen that the direction of^thisCourt, which has become final, has not been complied with by the Appellate Authority, as it observed that the explanation was^{alreadyconsideredin2008,} by the Board and appellate authority implying that it need not be considered once again.

¶85

¶86

Having regard to the fact that the 3'"'^ respondent had observed that the explanation of the petitioner was considered in 2008, implying that it need not be considered once again now, is in total disregard to the directions of this Court and also contemptuous. The 3™respondent in a predetermined manner passed the impugned order arbitrarily which smacks of high-handedness, and is in blatant disregard of the directions of the High Court. Thus, the impugned order modifying the earlier punishment requires to be set aside.

¶87

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with costs of Rupees Ten Thousand, payable to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee.

¶88

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall stand

¶89

closed.

¶90

Sd/- B. PR^SADA assistant registrar

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank,^HeadOffice, Hanamakonda, Warangal District.

¶95

The Secretary, A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee,^HighCourt Buildings, Amaravathi.

¶96

The Chairman-cum-Disciplinary Authority, Andhra^{PradeshGrameena} Vikas Bank, Head Office, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh 532 001, Andhra Pradesh.

¶97

Board of Directors-cum-Appellate Authority, Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, Head Office, Hanamakonda, Warangal^District.

¶98

The General Manager I, Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas^Bank,Head Office, Hanamakonda, Warangal District.

¶99

The Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Grameena Bank, Head Office at D.No.5-37-234, 4th Floor, Raghu Mansion, 4/1, Brodipet,^Guntur

¶100

The Board of Directors-cum-Appellate Authority, Andhra Pradesh Grameena Bank, Head^ Office at D.No.5-37-234, 4th Floor, Raghu Mansion, 4/1, Brodipet, Guntur

¶101

One CC to Ms. SODUM ANVESHA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶102

One CC to Ms. V UMA DEVI, Advocate [OPUC] 10. Two CD Copies

vna

\ \

HIGH COURT

DATED:10/07/2025

ORDER

WP NO. 9114 OF 2021

o 2 9 AUG 2025 )S
Co
SectjoD-^'

¶110

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION

T. Lakshmana Rao, v. Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Lakshmana Rao, v. Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.N.R. Minerals Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Achari Kandukufi Umamaheswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G Veera Bhaskararao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Konakalla Reddimma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P M Subramanyam Vs the State of Ap

B Subramanyam Vs the State of Ap