Sri C Surendra Hegde Vs Pragathi Gramin Bank — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri C Surendra Hegde Vs Pragathi Gramin Bank — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; both writ petitions dismissed and the dismissal orders upheld — the prayer for reinstatement as Manager with consequential monetary (service) benefits and backwages was refused.

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders of dismissal dated 05.10.2009 passed by the Disciplinary Authority without issuing a show cause notice, serving articles of charge, or affording the petitioner an opportunity to contest the enquiry, and the appellate orders confirming them, are sustainable. +3 more

Court's answer

The Court stated it would have interfered with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority in view of the fact that they were passed by treating the petitioner ex parte.

Ratio / Principle

Under Regulation 39 of the Regulations, 2005, the Disciplinary Authority is entitled to waive the procedure prescribed for imposition of major penalties if an employee has been convicted on a criminal charge.

Key takeaways

The documents produced showed the respondents had taken all measures to inform the petitioner of the enquiry proceedings and of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer; the petitioner had admittedly shifted his family to Mangalore without leaving any information with the bank.ratio¶78
The petitioner's conviction in Spl. CC No.67/2010, as modified in Crl. A No.696/2012 (acquittal under the PC Act; conviction under IPC Sections 120B, 468, 471, 409 and 420 upheld; day's simple imprisonment and enhanced fine of Rs.1,00,000/-), was not challenged and has become final.ratio¶81
Having regard to the nature of the charges alleged against the petitioner and the consequences that have ensued, the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority dismissing the petitioner from service do not merit any interference.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common oral order, High Court of Karnataka (R. Nataraj J), 06.03.2025 — W.P. No.54862/2013 (S-DIS) c/w W.P. No.22327/2011 (S-RES), NC: 2025:KHC:9669. A former Manager of Pragathi Gramin Bank (into which Chitradurga Gramin Bank was amalgamated from 12.09.2005) challenged his dismissal dated 05.10.2009 by the Disciplinary Authority and the appellate confirmations dated 16.07.2010 and 15.11.2012, contending the disciplinary enquiry was conducted wholly ex parte — no show cause notice, articles of charge, enquiry notices, enquiry report or second show cause notice were ever served on him. The respondents invoked Regulation 39 of the Pragathi Gramin Bank [Officers and Employees] Service Regulations, 2005 to waive the Regulation 38 procedure as impracticable, notices having been published in 'Vijaya Karnataka'. The Court observed it would have interfered on the ex parte point, but held that since the petitioner stood convicted in Spl. CC No.67/2010 (PC Act s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2); IPC ss.120B, 468, 471, 409, 420), with Crl. A No.696/2012 allowing the appeal only in part (PC Act acquittal; IPC convictions upheld; sentence modified to a day's simple imprisonment plus Rs.1,00,000/- fine by 15.03.2025) and that judgment unchallenged and final, the Disciplinary Authority was entitled under Regulation 39 to waive the major-penalty procedure upon conviction. Both petitions dismissed; reinstatement and backwages refused. Background: W.P.22327/2011 had been dismissed on 30.01.2012; W.A No.1140/2012 was disposed of by the Division Bench on 11.02.2021, quashing the Single Judge's order and remitting the matter for fresh decision.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Orders dated 05.10.2009 passed by the Chairman/Disciplinary Authority (respondent No.2) dismissing the petitioner from service (Ref. PGB:VIG::Compl.42:422:2009-10 impugned in W.P.54862/2013; Ref. PGB:VIG::Compl.42:423:2009-10 impugned in W.P.22327/2011), together with the appellate orders dated 16.07.2010 and 15.11.2012 passed by respondent No.3 dismissing the petitioner's appeals.¶42
Disciplinary Authority / Appellate Authority, Pragathi Gramin Bank · 05.10.2009
Prior proceeding
Per petitioner: complaint lodged at Holehonnur Police Station; placed under suspension by respondent No.2 with effect from 14.06.2008; suspension order allegedly neither served nor communicated; no subsistence allowance paid.¶51
Prior proceeding
Per respondents: while working as Manager, Harihar branch (16.06.2004 to 06.07.2007), petitioner committed financial irregularities causing loss of Rs.1,51,07,000/- under different loan accounts, absconded, and was suspended on 31.05.2008; five separate charge memos dated 20.02.2009 issued.¶59
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the CBI, Anti-corruption Branch, Bangalore; communications and charge sheet returned unserved; publication in 'Vijaya Karnataka' dated 27.05.2009 drew no response.¶61
Prior proceeding
Disciplinary Authority initiated proceedings under Regulation 38 and waived the enquiry procedure under Regulation 39 of the Regulations, 2005; enquiry noticed for 24.04.2009 (notice dated 13.04.2009; publication dated 15.04.2009), adjourned to 08.05.2009 (publication dated 26.04.2009); petitioner absent on both dates; Presenting Officer examined MWs.1 to 15 and produced Exs.M1 to M126; letter dated 17.07.2009 for hearing on 28.07.2009 returned unserved.¶61
Prior proceeding
Enquiry Officer submitted report on 12.08.2009 holding the petitioner guilty of all charges; copy of findings sent to petitioner returned unserved; notice displayed at the branch where he last worked.¶65
Prior proceeding
Disciplinary Authority held charges proved and passed two separate orders of even date, 05.10.2009, dismissing the petitioner from service (one per writ petition, covering five charge memos dated 20.02.2009).¶68
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed two appeals before respondent No.3 - Appellate Authority; both dismissed (order dated 16.07.2010 impugned in W.P.22327/2011; order dated 15.11.2012 in agenda No.34 at Board meeting No.54 impugned in W.P.54862/2013).¶68
Prior proceeding
W.P. No.22327/2011 was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.01.2012.¶55
Prior proceeding
In W.A No.1140/2012, the Division Bench disposed of the appeal in terms of its judgment dated 11.02.2021 and quashed the order impugned therein passed by the learned Single Judge.¶55
Prior proceeding
The Division Bench remitted the matter to the learned Single Judge to decide afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties; consequently both petitions were taken up for consideration.¶55
Prior proceeding
After suspension, a criminal case was lodged against the petitioner and transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation.¶78
Prior proceeding
Petitioner convicted by the XXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore, in Spl. CC No.67/2010, for offences under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and Sections 120B, 468, 471, 409 and 420 IPC.¶81
Prior proceeding
In Crl. A No.696/2012, this Court allowed the appeal in part: petitioner acquitted under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) PC Act, but his conviction under Sections 120B, 468, 471, 409 and 420 IPC was upheld.¶81
Prior proceeding
Sentence modified: simple imprisonment for the day (till raising of the Court) and enhanced fine of Rs.1,00,000/- payable by or before 15.03.2025, failing which simple imprisonment for one year.¶81