Bhaskar S/O Raghunathji Harle Vs the Deputy General Manager

BHASKAR S/O .RAGHUNATHJI HARLE, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: MANAGER NOW NIL, OF CANARA BANK, KHANAPUR BRANCH, R/O: PLOT NO.24B, DHANASHRI VIHAR, SHEGAON RAHATGAON ROAD, AMARAWATI 444 603, MAHARASHTRA.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

¶14

Digitally signed byVISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court ofKarnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.18 11:21:54 +0530

¶15

THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, APPELLATE AUTHORITY, HEAD OFFICE, CANARA BANK, HUMAN RESOURCE WING, BENGALURU - 56.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER/ DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, CANARA BANK, HUMAN RESOURCES SECTION, CIRCLE OFFICE, HUBBALLI 580 020.

¶17

THE ENQUIRY AUTHORITY/CHIEF MANAGER, CANARA BANK, TILAKWADI BRANCH, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI – 590 006, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:583 WP No. 103072 of 2022

¶20

THE SENIOR MANAGER HRM SECTION, CANARA BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, HUBBALLI – 580 020,

¶21

DIST: DHARWAD.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.COHUB.DA HRM.PRO.BRH.1178.2021 DATED 29.09.2021 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-B. ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.03.2022 PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-A. ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.COHUB.DAHRM.APBH-1739.22 DATED 11.03.2022 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-C. ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO RE-INSTATE THE PETITIONER BACK INTO SERVICE AS THE MANAGER OF CANARA BANK, TILAKWADI BRANCH, BELAGAVI, DIST BELAGAVI WITH FULL BACK WAGES AND SERVICE BENEFITS WITH CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND ETC.,

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC-D:583 WP No. 103072 of 2022

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶30

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 29.09.2021 passed by the disciplinary authority imposing penalty of removal from service and an order of the appellate authority dated 11.03.2022 by which the order of the disciplinary authority imposing penalty of removal from service is confirmed.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel Sri Shriharsh A. Neelopant for the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath representing the respondents-Bank.

¶32

The petitioner joins the service of the respondent-Canara Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bank’, for short) on 11.08.2014. It is the case of the petitioner that he was promoted from time to time and at the relevant point in time, he was working as a senior manager at a branch, of the Bank. On certain omissions and commissions, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 02.02.2021 seeking to show cause as to why

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:583 WP No. 103072 of 2022

¶34

disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner is said to have submitted a representation or a reply to the show cause notice. Not being satisfied with the same, the respondent - disciplinary authority issues a charge sheet, drawing certain allegations against the petitioner and appointing an inquiry officer to conduct departmental enquiry against the petitioner.

¶35

The inquiry officer in terms of his findings dated 24.09.2021, holds the petitioner guilty of the allegations.

¶36

The disciplinary authority then issues a second show cause notice enclosing the report of the inquiry officer. The petitioner submits a detailed reply to the findings of the inquiry officer, which had held him guilty in terms of his reply dated 28.09.2021. The reply results in the impugned order of disciplinary authority dated 29.09.2021, the next day of submission of the reply of the petitioner and the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the disciplinary authority also fails and therefore the petitioner

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:583 WP No. 103072 of 2022

¶38

is at the doors in this Court calling in question the said orders.

¶39

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri.Sriharsh A Neelopant would go to submit that the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority bear no reasons they suffer from non-application of mind. He would emphasize that the petitioner submitted his reply on 28.09.2021 and the disciplinary authority passes an order on the very next day on 29.09.2021. Therefore there is no application of mind to the submissions made by the petitioner in reply to the second show cause notice. The learned counsel would submit that the appellate authority also suffers from the very same vice, of non-application of mind.

¶40

Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath representing the responding-Canara Bank would vehemently refute the submission to contend that the case against the petitioner

¶41

is loss of confidence of the respondent-Bank on the petitioner, for certain acts which would border upon

¶42

6 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC-D:583 WP No. 103072 of 2022

¶44

misappropriation or misutilization of funds. He would submit that the orders of the discipline authority and the appellate authority are reasoned, and this Court should not interfere in the findings of, both the disciplinary authority, or the appellate authority.

¶45

I have given my anxious consideration to the submission by both the learned counsel and have perusal the material on record.

¶46

The afore-narrated facts, link in the chain of events and its dates are not in dispute. They would not require reiteration. The issue that merits consideration at this juncture, in the subject petition, is whether the orders of disciplinary authority or the appellate authority suffer

¶47

from want of application of mind. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to notice the order of the disciplinary authority, which reads as follows:

¶48

“PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASST. GENERAL, MANAGER

¶49

Sub:	In the matter irregularities in loan account of Umesh S Ankalgimath of Khanapur Branch - Lapses on the part of Sri Bhaskar Raghunathji Harie (98911) Manager
Ref:	1. Chargesheet No. COHUB: DAHRM CS-BH:783: 21 dated 02.07.2021

¶50

7 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC-D:583 WP No. 103072 of 2022

¶52

2. IA findings dated: 24.09.2004

¶53

3. Reply of CSO dated: 28.09.2021

¶54

WHEREAS, departmental proceedings were initiated against the subject officer employee by serving on him the above referred chargesheet;

¶55

WHEREAS, an inquiring Authority was appointed by the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the enquiry:

¶56

WHEREAS, the Inquiring Authority, after conducting the enquiry has submitted his report holding the officer employee gulity of the charges leveled against him as enumerated in his findings;

¶57

WHEREAS, a copy of the findings of the Inquiring Authority has been furnished to the officer employee to make his submissions if any;

¶58

WHEREAS, the officer employee has made his submissions vide his letter dt. 28.09.2021

¶59

WHEREAS, the submissions of the officer employee have been examined and duly taken into consideration as enumerated in the orders of the Disciplinary Authority:

¶60

NOW THEREFORE, taking into consideration all the relevant / connected records agreeing with the findings of the Inquiring Authority and holding the officer employee guilty of the charges as enumerated in the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, the punishment of

¶61

"Removal from service, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment"

¶62

as envisaged under Regulation 4(i) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, is hereby imposed on the subject officer employee.

¶63

The orders of the Disciplinary Authority is enclosed.”

¶64

8 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC-D:583 WP No. 103072 of 2022

¶66

The petitioner was proceeded with

¶67

departmentally and the inquiry officer holds the petitioner guilty in terms of its finding dated 24.09.2021. The second show cause notice issued to the petitioner enclosing the report of the inquiry officer. The petitioner has submitted his detailed reply on 28.09.2021, the very next day, the order of removal from service is passed, without considering, even a line of the defence of the petitioner in his detailed reply. Therefore, the order of the disciplinary authority which ought to have considered the submissions

¶68

of the petitioner in his reply, has not considered even an iota of it. The petitioner is imposed penalty of removal from service resulting loss of livelihood, such orders cannot be perfunctory as is passed by the disciplinary authority. It ought to have been reasoned and ought to have borne application of mind, it suffers from want reasons, and application of mind.

¶69

The petitioner then prefers an appeal, before the appellate authority. The order of the appellate authority is no better, it also suffers from want of

¶70

9 -

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC-D:583 WP No. 103072 of 2022

¶72

application of mind. The order of the appellate authority

¶73

reads as follows:

¶74

“Perused the appeal, orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the connected records.

¶75

Sri. Bhaskar Raghunath Harle (98911), Ex-Manager was removed from the services of the Bank vide proceedings dated 29.09.2021.

¶76

Earlier, Sri. Bhaskar Raghunath Harle (98911), worked as Manager at Khanapur branch from 22.04.2019 tο 07.08.2021. During the regular visit to Branch by the Divisional Manager, it is observed that some of the loan papers/documents were kept blank and mortgages were also incomplete. A detailed investigation was entrusted in the matter for ascertaining the facts, it is revealed during the investigation that Sri. Bhaskar Raghunath Harle, EXManager, had sanctioned Kisan Suvidha loan to Sri. Umesh Shivaputrayya Ankalgimath on 02.12.2019. The loan proceeds were credited to the customer first and subsequently transferred to the account of Sri. Raghunath Harle, father of the appellant, by NEFT. For his above act, he was issued with the above referred charge sheet. The lapses/ irregularities committed by him which are more fully described in the above Charge Sheet.

¶77

Upon enquiry, the Inquiring Authority (IA) submitted his findings holding Sri. Bhaskar Raghunath Harle, ExManager gulity of the charges levelled against him to the extent as enumerated in the findings. The Disciplinary Authority, agreeing with the findings of the Inquiring Authority, analyzing the submissions made by the appellant and facts and circumstances of the case had imposed the subject punishment upon Sri. Bhaskar Raghunath Harle.

¶78

Aggrieved by the imposition of the above punishment. Sri. Bhaskar Raghunath Harle, Ex - Manager has preferred the instant appeal which has been duly taken into consideration. He was given personal hearing on 28.01.2022 by the Appellate Authority and his

¶79

10 -

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC-D:583 WP No. 103072 of 2022

¶81

submissions were heard & recorded and duly taken into consideration.

¶82

On a perusal of the records, I observe the following:

¶83

The submission of appellant is that the branch had sanctioned Kisan Suvidha loan of Rs. 2.25 lakhs to Mr. Umesh S Ankalgimath by following the prevailing guidelines of the scheme. To safe guard Bank's interest, branch had obtained mortgage of agricultural land and mortgage formalities were delayed due to some technical issues. Due to staff shortage, branch could not sanction the loan in time and hence a financial arrangement was made from his father and same was returned when loan was sanctioned with due authentication by the borrower. During the branch visit, the Divisional Manager had instructed the branch to close the loan since the borrower is the BC of the branch. Hence, by obeying the lawful orders of superior, the borrower had closed the loan.

¶84

The appellant had failed to produce any evidence to prove that he had made financial arrangement to the borrower from his father. As such his contention that the financial arrangement made from his father was returned by the borrower on sanction of the credit facility is nothing but an afterthought. The proceeds of loan were not utilized for the purpose for which it was sanctioned The appellant has misutilized his official position and loan was sanctioned for accommodative purpose. Further, appellant had closed the loan immediately after the incident came to light. Hence, the contention of the appellant is not tenable.

¶85

The appellant submits that the officer of the credit department was on leave on the day of sanction of loan. As there was no other officer employee available on that day, it is confirmed that there is no violation of extant systems and procedures. The submission is not tenable and cannot be accepted for the fact that the appellant had processed, sanctioned and signed all the loan documents in the absence of the officer. Further, appellant had not reported the matter to controlling office. Hence, appellant had violated system and procedure of the Bank.

¶86

In respect of mortgage of land, appellant submits that there was delay in mortgage formalities due to some technical problems at sub registers office and was

¶87

11 -

¶88

NC: 2025:KHC-D:583 WP No. 103072 of 2022

¶89

completed on 17.12.2019 instead of 02.12.2019. The contention of the appellant cannot be accepted as the mortgage was not done before release of loan, which is violation of system and procedures of the Bank. Further the appellant has not produced any documentary evidence in support of his submissions and no permission from the competent authority is on record in this regard.

¶90

The submission of the appellant that branch had generated CIBIL of the borrower before sanction of the loan but could not take printout from the system due to some technical issues is a mere afterthought. It is observed that the appellant has generated CIC reports after sanctioning of loan which defeats the very purpose of CIBIL report.

¶91

I have gone through all the connected records including the appeal preferred by Sri. Bhaskar Raghunath Harle, Ex-Manager. Considering all the facts of the case, I find no merits in the arguments of the appellant. The appellant has not brought any new extenuating factors in his appeal which warrants my intervention in the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. I am of the view that the Disciplinary Authority has imposed appropriate punishment to the appellant. Hence I dismiss the appeal and confirm the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority.

¶92

This order shall be communicated to Bhaskar Raghunath Harie (98911), Ex-Manager.”

¶93

11. Though the order of the appellate authority

¶94

bears reasons slightly better than what the disciplinary authority has, it would not suffice, in law if the appellate authority would render reasons to reject the appeal, while

¶95

the order of the original authority suffers from want of application of mind. The compliance with the principles of

¶96

12 -

¶97

NC: 2025:KHC-D:583 WP No. 103072 of 2022

¶98

natural justice should be by the original authority not by the appellate authority. Therefore, on the aforesaid score

¶99

that the order of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority bear no application of mind, I deem it appropriate to obliterate them and remit the matter to the hands of the disciplinary authority to reconsider the reply submitted by the petitioner, to the findings of the inquiry officer, and then pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:

¶100

ORDER

¶101

i. Petition is allowed in part.

¶102

ii. The impugned order dated 29.09.2021 passed by the 2^nd respondent vide AnnexureB & the impugned order dated 09.03.2022 issued by the 1^st respondent vide Annexure-

¶103

A, stands quashed.

¶104

NC: 2025:KHC-D:583 WP No. 103072 of 2022

¶105