Prabhakar P Vs the Chairman

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:34316 WP No. 3336 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3336 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PRABHAKAR P S/O NEMIRAJ AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS NO 4-152/11, HAPA HOME REDDY GODOWN ROAD, MARKADA KAVOOR, MANGALORE 575015

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRABHAKAR SHETTY S K., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE CHAIRMAN STATE BANK OF INDIA CENTRAL OFFICE STATE BANK BHAVAN MADAME CAMA ROAD NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400021.

¶14

CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER CUM APPELLATE AUTHORITY CORPORATE CENTRE 8TH FLOOR, STATE BANK BHAVAN MADAME CAMA ROAD NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400021.

¶15

GENERAL MANAGER CUM DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY STATE BANK OF INDIA DISCIPLINE MANAGEMENT HUB, (SOUTH) STATE BANK BUILDING, 7^TH FLOOR

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:34316 WP No. 3336 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

157, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI 600 002. (BY SRI. T P MUTHANNA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED: 30.12.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-E ISSUE BY R2 WITH COVERING LETTER DATED: 04.02.2022 NO.A AND R /SS/1027 AND ORDER PASSED BY THE R3 THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY NO.DMHUB(S)/BEN/MLK/2021.22/1008 DATED 19.07.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-D.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.12.2021 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the order of the Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty of reduction by two stages in the time scale of pay till retirement was upheld.

¶26

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined

¶27

the respondent-State Bank of India as an Armed Guard at

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34316 WP No. 3336 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Hubli Zonal Office. He was promoted to Award Staff Cadre during August 2000 and worked as clerical staff at Mudigere Branch. He was promoted to Officer Cadre during September 2013 and later worked at Karwar Main Branch. He was promoted to the designation of MGS II scale during August 2017 and worked as Branch Manager in Kudrige Branch. Thereafter, he was posted to Bhatkal Branch as Accountant/Joint Custodian. Thereafter, he was transferred to Karwar Branch as Deputy Manager. While he was in service, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. After conducting a detailed enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted the report stating that four allegations had been proved and two allegations had been partly proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, vide Annexure-D dated 19.07.2021, imposed the penalty. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, by order dated 30.12.2021 vide Annexure-E, confirmed the

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:34316 WP No. 3336 of 2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the main allegation against the petitioner is that he shared the password of ADWM-Recycles. He submitted that the allegation relates to a shortage of cash in the ADWM-Recycles, which occurred 03.08.2020. By that time he was transferred to Karwar on 26.06.2020. He further submitted that the entire amount involved in the fraud was recovered from the fraudster official Mr.Y.Krishna Kumar on 02.09.2020.

¶36

He further submitted that despite recovery of the said amount from the said culprit, the petitioner was wrongly included in the charge sheet alleging that he facilitated the fraud by not changing the password of the ADWM-Recycles and consequently not recording the change of password in the Document Register of the branch during his incumbency in Bhatkal Branch as

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34316 WP No. 3336 of 2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

required in discharge of his duties as Accountant/Joint Custodian due to which the fraud could be perpetrated.

¶40

It was further submitted that, vide communication dated 19.12.2019, the petitioner was directed to hand over charge to one Smt.Veena Sudhakar Prabhu. Accordingly, on the same date, he handed over the charge along with the password to Smt.Veena Sudhakar Prabhu. Therefore, he cannot be charged with unauthorized disclosure of the password. The petitioner had taken this defense before the Enquiry Authority.

¶41

However, without considering this aspect of the matter, the report has been submitted that the charges have been proved. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner neither committed any fraud nor misappropriated any funds. It was, in fact, one Mr.Y.Krishna Kumar, who misused the password and misappropriated the funds. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be imposed with any penalty.

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:34316 WP No. 3336 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

It was also contended that the charges levelled against the petitioner are vague and do not specify when the alleged incident occurred. Since the misappropriation was done by another employee, the petitioner cannot be held responsible. Hence, he prayed for allowing the writ petition.

¶45

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that there are six charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner is a Deputy Manager of the Bank and the custodian of the password. He is not supposed to disclose the same to any co-custodian and he is required to change the password regularly. Since he disclosed his password to the co-custodian of the ADWM-Recycles, he was negligent in discharging his duty. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry, submitted a detailed report. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering all the material available on record, imposed the penalty. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶46

7 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:34316 WP No. 3336 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶50

When the petitioner was working as Deputy Manager in the respondent-Bank, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. Six charges were framed against the petitioner. The same are extracted below:

¶51

“(i) The Petitioner failed to follow the Bank's system and procedure in connection with operation of cash recyclers / ADWM. The accounting of excess /shortage of fund in the recyclers of CBS, reconciliation of physical cash and maintenance of secrecy of passwords.

¶52

(ii) The Petitioner failed to keep his password of the Automated Deposit and Withdrawal Machine in a sealed cover and record in Branch document register.

¶53

(iii) The Petitioner failed to maintain the secrecy of password and allowed to use his password by other custodian Sri. Krishnakumar Y, violating extant instructions.

¶54

(iv) The Petitioner failed to reconcile and tally physical cash, admin. Balance and BGL account on a daily basis and also failed to account for short /

¶55

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:34316 WP No. 3336 of 2023

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

excess cash detected as a result fraudulent transaction took place amount to Rs. 21.13 Lakhs.

¶58

(v) The Petitioner failed to comply with extant instructions in regard to the password.

¶59

(vi) The Petitioner allowed the Branch Manager to operate the recyclers on his behalf by compromising secrecy of the password.”

¶60

The petitioner is the joint custodian of the ADWMRecycles password. As per the Bank regulations, he has to change the password at regular intervals and he should not disclose the password to co-custodian of ADWMRecycles. Admittedly, the petitioner has committed this mistake.

¶61

The finding of the Enquiry Officer is that the petitioner has disclosed the password to co-employee and he has not changed the password at regular intervals and also given a finding that he has failed to reconcile and tally physical cash, admin balance and the BGL account (ADWM-RECYCLERS) on a daily basis and failed to account

¶62

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:34316 WP No. 3336 of 2023

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

for short/excess cash, admin balance and BGL account by the CSO. It proves that he has failed to reconcile daily cash, Admin balance & BGL account. After conducting a detailed enquiry and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, the report was submitted and the charges were held to be proved.

¶65

It is not the case of the petitioner before this Court that there was any violation of the principles of natural justice or that the statutory rules prescribed by the Bank were not complied with.

¶66

As far as the departmental enquiry is concerned, the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only examines whether the rules of natural justice have been violated and whether the statutory rules prescribed for conducting the enquiry have been followed or not.

¶67

The Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh and others vs. Chitra Venkata Rao reported in AIR 1975 SC 2151, has held in paragraph No.21 that

¶68

10 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:34316 WP No. 3336 of 2023

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

the scope of Article 226 in dealing with departmental

¶72

inquiries. The same is extracted below:

¶73

“21. The scope of Article 226 in dealing with departmental inquiries has come up before this Court. Two propositions were laid down by this Court in State of A.P v. S. Sree Rama RaoAIR 1963 SC 1723, (1964) 3 SCR 25, (1964) 2 LLJ 150. First, there is no warrant for the view that in considering whether a public officer is guilty of misconduct charged against him, the rule followed in criminal trials that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court must be applied. If that rule be not applied by a domestic tribunal of inquiry the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not competent to declare the order of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry invalid. The High Court is not a court of appeal under Article 226 over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. The Court is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Second, where there is some evidence which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has

¶74

11 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:34316 WP No. 3336 of 2023

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion. The departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there is some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226.”

¶78

In the present case, the Departmental Enquiry has been conducted after following due process of law and

¶79

12 -

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:34316 WP No. 3336 of 2023

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

after giving notice to the petitioner. The findings were given by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of the material available on record. Considering the same, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty. Even the Appellate Authority has confirmed the same.

¶83

There is no error or illegality in the penalty imposed

¶84

by the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, the writ petition is

¶85

dismissed .

¶86

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶87

HA

¶88

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 43

Prabhakar P v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhakar P v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Nityakalyani Vs State of Karnataka

Syed Arif Ulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Vinay Kumar S Vs the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Shri Rajesh D Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Bhagya Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Tanuja R Vs the State of Karnataka