A dismissed Indian Bank branch manager petitioned to quash disciplinary dismissal for fraudulent staff-loan debits, misappropriation and RTGS/NEFT fund transfers. The court found overwhelming documentary evidence, his written confession, and enquiry evasion; it upheld the disciplinary and appellate decisions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 51232 OF 2017 (S-DE)
BETWEEN
K GUNASAGAR S/O K. KANNAN AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS EARLIER WORKING AS AN OFFICER IN MIDDLE MANAGEMENT GRADE SCALE-II INDIAN BANK SINCE ILLEGALLY DISMISSED FROM SERVICE AND RESIDING AT NO.7 M GANDHINAGAR II CROSS MARATHAHALLI POST BENGALURU-560 037.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIKRAM A. HUILGOL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUVARNA M.L., ADVOCATE)
AND
INDIAN BANK A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1970 HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.254-260 AVVAI SHANMUGAM ROAD ROYAPETTA, CHENNAI-600 014
2
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT)
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. YOGESHA KUMARA, ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO THE ORDER DTD 30.09.2015 AND 27.02.2017. QUASH (i) ORDER OF THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY COMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER VIDE COMMUNICATION DTD 30.09.2015 VIDE ANNX-EE. AND ETC.
THIS W.P. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 10.04.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed assailing the penalty of dismissal from service passed by the disciplinary authority vide Annexure-“AE” dated 30.09.2015 and confirmed by appellate authority vide order dated 17.02.2017 as per Annexure-“AL”.
3
Bank, is subjected to departmental enquiry initiated by respondent-Bank concerning irregularities purportedly committed by petitioner while serving as Manager at Kuppam Branch. The allegations against the petitioner includes unauthorized and fraudulent debits in six staff housing loan accounts, vehicle loan accounts, misappropriation of bank funds and misuse of official position for transferring funds through RTGS/NEFT.
4
subsequently, recommending for dismissal from
service.
the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority, citing sufficient evidence of petitioner’s involvement in fraudulent activities and evasion of enquiry process.
grounds would contend that the penalty of dismissal of service inflicted by the disciplinary authority is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Referring to rejoinder to the statement of objections, he would contend that the disciplinary authority has acted on an advice of Chief Vigilance Officer and therefore, would contend that the said advice contravenes the procedure and transparency pursuant to issuance of second show-cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority.
5
I have given my anxious consideration to the material on record.
6
accounts, revealing unauthorized credits amounting to lakhs of rupees. These funds were surreptitiously diverted into the petitioner's personal investments in the share market, underscoring a deliberate and premeditated act of financial misappropriation.
7
In light of the overwhelming evidence presented by the management, the petitioner's claim of unfair treatment holds no merit.
8
dismissal of the petitioner does not hold sway in the context of the disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary authority, vested with the responsibility of issuing show cause notices and conducting impartial enquiries, meticulously examined the evidence presented before arriving at the decision to dismiss the petitioner from service. The authority's decision was founded upon an independent assessment of the enquiry report and documentary evidence, with due regard for procedural fairness and transparency.
9
as under:
“I am deeply regret to state that for land disputes and land development and family problem. I have withdrawn amount around Rs.1.3 crore from Staff and other Loan accounts above the sanction limit. For all my transaction no body in the branch are involved and all are purely innocent and nothing to do with this issue. I am solely responsible for the transaction.
10
I am very well aware of the total staff loan liabilities with the bank. In this regard I request you that I am willing to offer my mother’s 11000 square feet vacant land located in Bangalore at Marthahalli area which is market value around Rs.4.50 crores. If the bank is ready to accept the proposal as additional security for my staff home loan I will arrange for the same and within 2 months. I will dispose my mother’s property and adjust and close all my staff loan.
I wish to state that I never withdrawn any amount from any customer account or from branch other BGC Head. I have withdrawn the amount from my staff loan account which is I am suppose to close before my retirement.
Further all transaction done in office without there knowledge and my mother is willing to offer the vacant land of 11000 square feet as additional security for the job and all my staff loan are for executing the necessary documents.
This is the voluntary statement given by me without anybodies compulsion.
This above submission has given by Mr.K. Gunasagar in my presence on his own”
Despite the damning evidence provided by the bank documents, the petitioner failed to mount a defense or
counter the allegations leveled against him. His
11
admission of guilt, coupled with his failure to contest the evidence presented, serves as a tacit acknowledgment of his involvement in the fraudulent activities.
12
principles of justice and accountability, particularly in matters involving financial misconduct within the banking sector. The petitioner's actions, characterized by deceit, evasion, and admission of guilt, leave no room for leniency or mitigating circumstances. The penalty of dismissal from service, imposed by the disciplinary authority and upheld by the appellate authorities is justified and necessary to preserve the integrity of the banking profession and safeguard the interests of depositors and stakeholders.
13
proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
*alb/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the dismissal of a bank manager following an exparte departmental enquiry for fraudulent debits and fund misappropriation violated principles of natural justice and warranted judicial review?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K Gunasagar
Indian Bank
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
