Partly allowed

Shri Ranganath v. the Indian Bank

Karnataka HC25 Sept 2024WP/28289/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bank Branch Manager challenged his compulsory retirement imposed after a disciplinary enquiry into sanctioning secured overdraft loans in violation of head office guidelines. The High Court upheld the findings of misconduct but held the punishment disproportionate, reducing it to reduction of three increments with continuity and consequential retirement benefits.

What did the court decide?

Punishment of compulsory retirement modified to reduction of three increments with cumulative effect; notional restoration with continuity; respondents directed to determine pension, gratuity, DCRG an

Shri Ranganath Vs the Indian Bank — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:40233 WP No. 28289 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 28289 OF 2013 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI RANGANATH S/O. LATE RAMDAS, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.912/A, 9^TH CROSS, 10^TH A MAIN ROAD, SRINAGARA, BANGALORE-50 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANAND S.G., ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

THE INDIAN BANK (A BANKING COMPANY ESTABLISHED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES ACQUISITION OF UNDERTAKINGS ACT, 1980) REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER ZONAL OFFICE 4^TH FLOOR, EAST WING, RAHEJA TOWERS, NO.26-27, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI. A. KESHAVA BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.BG:ZO:VIG:528:2010-11 VIDE ANNEXURE-K DATED 02.04.2011 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AND THE ORDER DATED 14.07.2011 BEARING NO.1575/VG:SR NO.18864:APP:2011-12 VIDE ANNEXUREM PASSED BY RESPONDENT AND ORDER DATED 26.05.2012

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:40233 WP No. 28289 of 2013

¶15

BEARING NO.VG:FC1988:801:REV:SR18864-2012-13 VIDE ANNEXURE-P AND ETC.

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

The petitioner has challenged an order bearing

¶20

No.BG:ZO:VIG:528:2010-11 as per Annexure-K dated 02.04.2011 passed by the Assistant General Manager/disciplinary authority by which, he imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. He has also challenged an order bearing No.1575/VG:SR NO.18864:APP:2011-12 dated 14.07.2011 Annexure-M passed by the Deputy General Manager/appellate authority and the order bearing No.VG:FC1988:801:REV:SRI8864-2012-13 dated 26.05.2012 Annexure-P passed by the General Manager/reviewing authority.

¶21

The petitioner contends that when he was working at Sadashivanagar branch between 12.04.2006 and 22.10.2008, a memo dated 05.01.2010 was issued to him alleging misconduct, based on a vigilance report submitted on

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:40233 WP No. 28289 of 2013

¶23

10.12.2009. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice. The disciplinary authority not satisfied with the reply issued articles of charge which reads as follows:

¶24

"Charge No.1

¶25

You had sanctioned certain Sec. OD loans without observing the HO: guidelines Mr. N.S.Siddesh, his associates namely Mr.J Mahadeva, Mr.N.S.Prasad, Mr. N.S.Chandramohan and his company M/s. Nirman Associates are involved in one way or other in the sanction of eight Home Loans sanctioned earlier and OD accounts sanctioned by you during your tenure as Branch Manager. Mr. N.S.Siddesh, N.S.Chandrmohan and N.S.Prasad had introduced the Sec. OD accounts and had received cash payments from the loan proceeds of Sec. OD accounts. You had relied on Mr. Siddesh and his men for credit opinion while preparing the credit reports of Borrowers and guarantors. They had witnessed certain sale transactions of immovable properties both legal and illegal by signing in sale deeds and stood as guarantors for certain loan accounts. These indicate that you had sanctioned the Sec. OD loans with the association and under the influence of this group and that you had deliberately violated the HO

¶26

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:40233 WP No. 28289 of 2013

¶27

guidelines on group concept and sanctioned loans exceeding your discretionary powers.

¶28

Charge No.2

¶29

You had sanctioned Sec. OD loans to various parties and whose line of activity differs by accepting common guarantors and EM of properties belonging to third parties as collateral security. This evidences the interests/involvement of third parities in the loans sanctioned by you. The EM properties mortgaged to our bank as security for the loans sanctioned were fraudulently sold to others without the knowledge of the bank and without liquidating the liabilities. You had failed to obtain permission from higher level sanctioning authority for creating EM by the Power of Attorney holders. Thus you had accommodated the parties and deliberately violated HO guidelines.

¶30

Charge No.3

¶31

You had failed to evaluate the security value by making independent enquiries. You had accepted the EVRs with inflated value to provide adequate margin cover for the borrowers and to avail limit. When the EM properties were subjected to revaluation at the time of initiation of SARFAESI action, it came to light that the margin available in a number of Sec. OD

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:40233 WP No. 28289 of 2013

¶33

accounts is far less than the 50% as stipulated by HO for advances under Sec. OD. The present value of the properties in certain accounts is not adequate to cover the balance outstanding in the books, and balance under MLE and MOI. Thus you had accommodated the parties by accepting the EM properties with inflated value and thereby failed to protect the interest of the Bank.

¶34

Charge No.4

¶35

You had failed to obtain ECs at periodical intervals to ensure that the mortgaged properties are free from encumbrance. Because of this serious omission, in seven accounts properties mortgaged to the Bank were illegally sold by the mortgagors without informing the Bank when the loan accounts still exist and the original title deeds are with the Branch. In the account M/s. Vinayaka Enterprises, the mortgaged property was sold twice and in A/c EPOCH, the property was sold to borrower himself. Thus you had failed to protect the interest of the Bank.

¶36

Charge No.5

¶37

You had failed to prepare Credit Reports of the borrowers and guarantors by making independent enquiries and by verifying the related documents. For

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:40233 WP No. 28289 of 2013

¶39

credit opinion, you had relied on Mr. N.S. Siddesh and his group members only while preparing the credit reports of the properties of various companies and the guarantors. Thereby you had deliberately favoured the parties.

¶40

Charge No.6

¶41

You had sanctioned several Sec. OD facilities without making any realistic appraisal by obtaining audited balance sheets, stock statements, and other relevant documents. The quotations/work orders or supply orders produced for appraisal of working capital limits were obtained from non existent entities. The name and addresses furnished by them in the quotations are found to be bogus. You had failed to verify the genuineness of the quotations/work orders, which turned out to be bogus ones and thereby you had accommodated the parties.

¶42

Charge No.7

¶43

You had, exceeding your discretionary powers, purchased cheques drawn on Town Co-Op Bank, Hoskote for huge amounts, for the credit of the Home Loan and Sec. OD accounts. Most of the BPs were returned unpaid. You had failed to report the purchase/returns to Circle Office in AUF-1 and other control returns. You had no routed the returned

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:40233 WP No. 28289 of 2013

¶45

instruments under BP returned unpaid a/c but kept pending for about 2 months in the Bills purchased account and ultimately recovered the amount as cash from the borrowers. Thus you had accommodated the parties and thereby blatantly violated the systems and procedures.

¶46

Charge No.8

¶47

You had failed to monitor the conduct/operations in certain Home Loans accounts and Sec. OD account and failed to take necessary steps for recovery / regulation of these accounts. The repayment in certain home loans were highly irregular and turnover in the Sec. OD accounts was very poor and not commensurate with the limits sanctioned by you. There were no records of follow up by you for recovery and regularization of the accounts. Review/ Renewal was not done periodically. However, you had allowed the facilities to continue even when there were no repayments and huge overdue exist.*

¶48

Charge No.9

¶49

You had encouraged the middlemen in the loans sanctioned during your tenure. Mr. N.S.Siddesh, partner of M/s. Nirman Associates is involved in Sec. OD accounts sanctioned from the stage of introduction of accounts till the disbursement stage.

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:40233 WP No. 28289 of 2013

¶51

Mr.Siddesh was continuously nurtured by you by way of loan facilities to various firms in which he is related as partner, proprietor etc. Three such loan accounts sanctioned by you were conveniently and purposefully closed before your relief from the branch on transfer. This shows that Mr. Siddesh who is engaged in real estate / construction activities was favoured by you throughout your tenure at Sadashiv Nagar Branch as Branch Manager for his financial requirements and to carry out his business activities.

¶52

Charge No.10

¶53

You had allowed the withdrawal of the loan proceeds in various SOD accounts as cash and the cash was received by Mr. N.S.Siddesh and his associates. Even though the loans were taken for different purposes / activities like Photo studio, Garments show room, Construction activities etc., the payments were made to N.S.Siddesh and his associates, which indicates that the beneficiaries are not the borrowers and bank funds were misappropriated by Mr. Siddesh. Thus you had accommodated Mr. N.S.Siddesh.

¶54

Charge No.11

¶55

You had sanctioned and released the limits without conducting pre release audit as per HO guidelines. The pre release audit report available in the records

¶56

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:40233 WP No. 28289 of 2013

¶57

has not covered all the areas that are stipulated by HO. The details viz, independent local enquiries made as to the correctness of the valuation report given by the approved valuer, Advocate Certificate that the title deeds relating to the property were original and not fake, pre sanction visits made by the Branch Manager, Insurance taken on the stocks and EM property, documents contain full particulars and address of all the executants were not verified by the official who had conducted the pre release audit. Thus the very purpose of pre release audit was defeated, as the documentation is incomplete in almost all the accounts and the EM documents, EVRs, and other documents carry many discrepancies. Thus by sanctioning / disbursing the loans without conducting pre release audit, you had violated the HO guidelines.

¶58

Charge No.12

¶59

You had failed to ensure end use of bank funds in eight home loan accounts. Though these loans were sanctioned before your joining the Branch as Branch Manager, you had made subsequent releases in these home loan accounts and you had failed to ensure that the amounts released in stages were utilized fully by conducting personal inspection and by obtaining utilization certificate from the Bank

¶60

10 -

¶61

NC: 2024:KHC:40233 WP No. 28289 of 2013

¶62

approved engineer. Thus you had failed to ensure end use of the Bank funds.

¶63

Charge No.13

¶64

You had failed to ensure the end of funds A/c M/s. Sudha Mess (Sec. OD No.731234585 for Rs.10.00 lakhs). The loan amount was shared by the borrower and the mortgager / guarantor. Thus you had allowed misappropriation of bank funds by the guarantor / mortgager and thereby violated the HO guidelines.

¶65

Charge No.14

¶66

You had failed to register the EM of properties with Sub - Registrar Office in the Sec. OD accounts sanctioned by you. In 6 accounts the EM properties mortgaged to the Bank were subsequently sold to others without the knowledge of the Bank. Thereby you had failed to safeguard the Securities charged to Bank.

¶67

Charge No.15

¶68

You had unduly favoured the parties by sanctioning more than one loan facility to the same party, who is identified with Mr. N.S.Siddesh, when the first loan sanctioned was still existing and the conduct of the

¶69

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:40233 WP No. 28289 of 2013

¶70

account was not satisfactory. Now both the accounts have slipped to NPA and prove difficult of recovery. Thus you had accommodated the parties with more than one facility violating HO guidelines."

¶71

The petitioner submitted his reply to the articles of

¶72

charge. The disciplinary authority not satisfied with the reply, ordered a domestic enquiry and appointed the chief manager as the inquiring authority. The enquiry proceedings culminated in a report whereby the enquiring authority held that all the charges against the petitioner were proved. The report of the enquiry was placed before the disciplinary authority who forwarded a copy to the petitioner for his comments. The petitioner submitted his comments, following which, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 02.04.2011 holding that all charges except charge No.11 were proved and Charge Nos.8 and 14 were held to be partly proved. The disciplinary authority then imposed a major penalty of compulsory retirement of the petitioner.

¶73

Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority which was also dismissed in terms of the order dated 14.07.2011. The

¶74

12 -

¶75

NC: 2024:KHC:40233 WP No. 28289 of 2013

¶76

petitioner then sought review of the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority by filing a review petition before the reviewing authority which also dismissed in terms of the order dated 26.05.2012.

¶77

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶78

Petitioner contends that charge No.1 related to sanctioning secured OD loans to Mr. N.S.Siddesh, Mr. J.Mahadev Mr. N.S.Prasad, Mr. N.S.Chandramohan and M/s. Nirman associates who were involved in one way or the other in sanction of 08 home loans. He contends that it was alleged that the petitioner had relied upon Mr. N.S.Siddesh by preparing the credit reports to borrowers and guarantors. The aforesaid persons were witnesses to various transactions and stood guarantee for certain loan accounts. The petitioner contends that though it is alleged that the petitioner had violated the head office guidelines, they did not mention as to which was the circular or guidelines that the petitioner had violated. He therefore, contends that charge No.1 was vague and not proved. Similarly in respect of charge No.2, no

¶79

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:40233 WP No. 28289 of 2013

¶80

statement was made as to which guideline or circular was violated by the petitioner. In so far as charge No.3 is concerned, he contends that no independent enquiry was conducted to find out the value of the property and the present valuation to check whether it was not adequate to cover the liability. In so far as charge No.4 is concerned, he contends that equitable mortgages were executed in favour of the bank and therefore, the petitioner did not consider it necessary to obtain periodical encumbrance certificates. He contends that charge No.5 was a repetition of charge No.1. He also claim that charge No.6 was vague as all documents were collected.

¶81

He claimed that all the housing loans were sanctioned even before he joined the branch at Sadashivanagar. In some cases, part of the loans were released even before he took charge. He claimed that he had recovered a sum of Rs.2,59,812/- from the account of Mr. Purushotam. In the account of Mr. Kumaran he had recovered a sum of Rs.2,35,219/-. In all other accounts, he had recovered various amounts. He contends that none of these aspects were considered by the enquiry officer. He contends that charge Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 14 related to such

¶82

14 -

¶83

NC: 2024:KHC:40233 WP No. 28289 of 2013

¶84

housing loan accounts and therefore, any irregularities or illegalities committed in the sanction of housing loans were not attributed to him.

¶85

He contends that as against the total loan released

¶86

by him as secured over draft of Rs.1,64,95,000/-, he had recovered a sum of Rs.1,45,00,000/- and also recovered Rs.35,00,000/- of home loan that was sanctioned during his tenure. He therefore contended that none of his acts caused any financial loss to the bank. He claimed that the bank is still in possession of sufficient securities from which, it could recover the remaining amount. He claimed that the proceedings are based on the investigation report of MW.2. MW.2 deposed that he did not meet Mr. N.S.Siddesh and did not record the statements of any of the persons who were mentioned in his report. He did not even speak about the documents collected. He contends that paragraph No.4.4 of the vigilance manual provides for procedure regarding preliminary enquiry, in terms of which, the vigilance officer is bound to collect all documents in support of the allegation and record all oral statements. He contends that MW.2 did not follow any of the protocols. Therefore, the enquiry conducted on the basis of the vigilance

¶87

15 -

¶88

NC: 2024:KHC:40233 WP No. 28289 of 2013

¶89

report is faulty and tardy. He contends that the entire proceedings is in violation of the guidelines issued by the Central Vigilance Commission. Paragraph No.1.7.1 of the Central Vigilance Commission manual specifies that each bank has to set up an internal advisory committee of three members preferably of the level of the general manager to scrutinize the complaints received by the bank and also cases arising out of inspection and audit. He contends that this procedure was not followed, thereby prejudicing him. He alleges that the enquiry proceedings have commenced with a prejudicial intention and principles of natural justice were not followed. He claims that in the charge sheet, though there are allegation that the petitioner had violated several head office circular, no specific circular was referred to. None the less, a finding is recorded that the charges are proved.

¶90

He further contends that the allegation against the petitioner revolves around alleged involvement of Mr. N.S.Siddesh in several accounts. He contends that Mr. N.S.Siddesh is an existing account holder at the branch even before he took charge. He contended that Mr. N.S.Siddesh is a real estate developer and therefore, he was involved in

¶91

16 -

¶92

NC: 2024:KHC:40233 WP No. 28289 of 2013

¶93

various transactions. He contends that in the natural course tripartite agreements were entered between Mr. N.S.Siddesh as a developer of property, owner of the property and the buyer. He contends that MW.2 was fully aware of the nature of the transactions. He contends that these buyers had raised housing loan from the branch of the bank at Sadashivnagar. He contends that this was the common practice followed even before he reported to work at Sadashivnagar.

¶94

He contends that his predecessors in office Mr. Halappa was also issued with a similar charge with identical allegations. However, the enquiry against him ended in imposition of punishment of withholding two increments which was later restored. He therefore contends that he was subjected to hostile discrimination. He contends that the entire enquiry report is based on statement of facts observed by the vigilance officer in his report. He contends that no material is produced to establish the charge and hence the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority, committed an error in holding that the charges are proved. He contends that the appellate authority did not consider the facts in the right context and also did not take into account that Mr. Siddesh was an existing

¶95

17 -

¶96

NC: 2024:KHC:40233 WP No. 28289 of 2013

¶97

customer of repute, who had a high net worth and stood security for the repayment of the loans. He contends that none of the acts alleged against the petitioner had resulted in any financial loss to the bank, but on the other hand substantial portion of the amount lent by the petitioner during his tenure was recovered. He therefore contends that the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority compulsorily retiring him from service is excessive and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

¶98

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions.

¶99

Per contra, the writ petition is opposed by the respondents who has filed statement of objections. It is contended that the most important question to be considered was the method and manner in which the petitioner had allowed current accounts to be opened and thereafter permitting the account holders to avail over draft in the accounts. It is contended that this was done without informing the regional office and without following circular and guidelines issued by the head office. It is contended that the enquiry was

¶100

18 - NC: 2024:KHC:40233 WP No. 28289 of 2013

¶101

not merely based on investigation report, but was based on the documents available with the respondent. It is also claimed that the enquiry proceedings was not in violation of the guidelines issued by Central Vigilance Commission but was examined by the internal advisory committee at its meeting held on 14.07.2011. It is contended that the enquiry was conducted fairly and properly by following the principles of natural justice.

¶102

The learned counsel for the respondents invited the attention of the Court to each of the charges and contended that the petitioner was responsible for exposing the respondent to risk of losing the advances by not following the guidelines as well as circulars issued by the head office from time to time.

¶103

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶104

The first and second charge relate to sanction of secured OD loans violating the head office guidelines. Charge No.3 related to accommodating the parties by accepting equitable mortgages with inflated value and thereby compromising the interest of the bank. Charge No.4 related to

¶105

19 -

¶106

NC: 2024:KHC:40233 WP No. 28289 of 2013

¶107

failure on the part of the petitioner to protect the interest of the bank, in as much as, the mortgage properties were sold twice. Charge No.5 again related to failure to prepare credit reports by making independent enquiries, thereby favoring the parties. Charge No.6 related to sanctioning several secured OD facilities without making any realistic appraisal by obtaining balance sheets, stock statements. The quotations that were furnished were obtained from non-existing entities and therefore, it was accused that the petitioner has failed to verify the genuineness of the quotation and the work orders. Charge No.7 related to the failure on the part of the petitioner to report the purchase/return of BP's to circle office, but kept it pending about two months and later recovered the amount as cash from the borrowers. Charge No.8 related to failure on the part of the petitioner to monitor conduct and operations in certain home loan accounts and secured OD accounts. Charge No.9 accused the petitioner of encouraging middlemen in the loans sanctioned during his tenure. It was alleged that the petitioner had continuously nurtured Mr. N.S.Siddesh by granting loan facilities to various firms in which, he was related as partner/proprietor. Charge No.10 related to withdrawal of loan

¶108

20 - NC: 2024:KHC:40233 WP No. 28289 of 2013

¶109

proceeds in various SOD accounts as cash and paid to Mr. N.S.Siddesh. It is alleged that the loans were taken for different purposes, but the payments were paid to Mr. N.S.Siddesh and his associates, thereby giving an impression that the petitioner had accommodated Mr. N.S.Siddesh. Charge No.11 again related to sanction and release of the loans without conducting pre-release audit as per the head office guidelines and the documentation was incomplete in almost all the accounts and equitable mortgage had many discrepancies. Charge No.12 related to failure on the part of the petitioner to ensure that the amounts released in stages were utilized fully by conducting personal inspection. Charge No.13 related to the failure to ensure the end use of funds in the account of Mr. Sudha Mess. Charge No.14 related to failure to register the equitable mortgage of the property to the Sub-registrar office in respect of which secured OD loans were sanctioned. In six accounts, the equitable mortgage properties were sold to the others without the notice of the bank. Thus, it was alleged that the petitioner failed to safeguard the interest of the bank. Charge No.15 related to favouring Mr. N.S. Siddesh and his associates by sanctioning

¶110

21 -

¶111

NC: 2024:KHC:40233 WP No. 28289 of 2013

¶112

more than one loan facility to the same party and that both the loans had slipped into NPA.

¶113

The petitioner had joined the services of the respondent in the year 1980. He was posted as a branch manager at Sadashivanagar on 12.04.2006, by which time, Mr. N.S.Siddesh was already having an account at Sadashivanagar branch. Likewise his associates also had their respective accounts. Mr. M/s. Nirman associates was the real estate concern established by Mr. N.S. Siddesh and his associates. It is not known whether Mr. N.S.Siddesh had entered into any transactions before the petitioner took over charge as the manager at Sadashivanagar branch. It is not in dispute that a domestic enquiry was ordered against the earlier incumbent from whom the petitioner took charge for alleged lapses which was similar in nature as the one alleged against the petitioner. The investigation seems to be limited only for the period when the petitioner was in service at the branch. Even if all the allegations made against the petitioner were taken on its face value, there is substantial evidence to establish all the over draft loans sanctioned by the petitioner was sufficiently secured by equitable mortgages. It may be that

¶114

22 -

¶115

NC: 2024:KHC:40233 WP No. 28289 of 2013

¶116

some guidelines issued by the head office were violated, however, nothing was produced before enquiry officer to pin point the circular that was violated by the petitioner. Since there is no financial loss caused to the respondent by the alleged acts of petitioner, the major punishment of compulsory retirement is definitely disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

¶117

A punishment of compulsory retirement could be imposed when the petitioner is found to be not suitable to be continued in employment. In the case on hand, the petitioner had transacted with Mr. N.S.Siddesh who was an existing customer of the bank. No doubt, the petitioner has allowed Mr. N.S.Siddesh and his associates to offer guarantee in respect of loans sanctioned to each other and has allowed money to be drawn from current account. He has also withheld many instruments that came for encashment in the accounts of Mr. N.S.Siddesh and associates. These are all the tactics adopted by a manager of the bank to retain a goodwill of a valued customer. Mr. N.S.Siddesh was a real estate developer who had brought in sufficient business for the bank. Therefore in an effort to retain him, the petitioner could have ignore the

¶118

23 -

¶119

NC: 2024:KHC:40233 WP No. 28289 of 2013

¶120

rules or bent the rules backward to accommodate him and his associates. It is definitely a misconduct, as every employee of a bank is bound to comply with the rules and regulations prescribed from the bank from time to time and he is also bound to conduct the transactions in most transparent manner. The enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority has found the petitioner guilty of gross indiscipline in not complying with the guidelines issued by the head office from time to time. This Court is conscious of the fact that it does not sit in appeal over the findings of the enquiry officer. A birds eye view of the facts extracted in the enquiry does show that the petitioner was guilty of some misconduct in the matter of ensuring transparency in transactions brought about by him and also in not ensuring safety and security of the business interest of the bank. This however does not justify imposition of major punishment of compulsory retirement.

¶121

In that view of the matter, though the finding of enquiry authority that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct, cannot be disturbed yet, the punishment imposed which is disproportionate to the misconduct deserves to be reduced. Consequently the following order is followed:

¶122

24 - NC: 2024:KHC:40233 WP No. 28289 of 2013

¶123

ORDER

¶124

(i) The petition is allowed in part.

¶125

(ii) The finding of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority and reviewing authority that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved is not disturbed. However, the punishment of compulsory retirement is modified to reduction of three increments with cumulative effect. As a result, the services of the petitioner shall be notionally restored with continuity of service and all consequential benefits shall be granted. Since the petitioner has retired from service, it is appropriate to direct the respondents to determine the retirement benefits, gratuity, DCRG and other benefits and also determine the pension payable to the petitioner after factoring

¶126

the punishment imposed as above.

¶127

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶128

¶129

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Shri Ranganath v. the Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Ranganath v. the Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.G.Arasaraju Vs the Managing Director

The Canara Port Workers Union Vs Government of India

Kumari K S Tejavathy Vs the Principal Secretary

C. T. Jayakumar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Asianet News Network Private Limited Vs Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Limited

Rani S. Vs State of Karnataka