Sri N Sathyanarayana Prabhu Vs the Pragathikrishna Grameena Bank

THE PRAGATHIKRISHNA GRAMEENA BANK BANKING COMPANY, CONSTITUTED UNDER THE REGIONAL RURAL BANK ACT 1976, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE GANDHINAGAR, BELLARY-583103, (REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR)

¶29

…RESPONDENT

¶30

(BY SRI. HARSH DESAI, ADVOCATE)

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, LEADING TO THE ORDER BEARING NO.PWIR 2374:2004/05, AND PWIR 2373:2004/05 DATED 29.12.2004 VIDE ANNEXURE-X AND Y AND THE ORDER PASSED IN APPEAL BEARING NO.HO PW IR APL 1173 OF 2011-12, DATED 18.2.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-AB PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ETC.

¶32

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

¶33

3 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC-D:695 WP No. 54283 of 2013

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

The original petitioner had approached this Court calling in question the disciplinary order dated 29.12.2004 and the appellate order dated 18.02.2012, whereby the petitioner an employee of the respondent-bank was dismissed from service on proven charges of misconduct.

¶39

Brief facts:

¶40

The petitioner joined the services of the

¶41

respondent-bank in the year 1979 and was later promoted as an officer. While working at Somalapura Branch, the petitioner was issued a charge sheet dated 29.05.2003 alleging grave misconduct relating to (i) demand and acceptance of illegal gratification for sanctioning loan, (ii) interfering with customers / complainants and pressurizing them to withdraw complaints and (iii) acts unbecoming of an bank officer in violation of the bank regulations.

¶42

4 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC-D:695 WP No. 54283 of 2013

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

A departmental enquiry was conducted. Based on

¶46

the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 29.12.2004 imposing major penalties i.e., (i) dismissal from service in respect of charge Nos.1 and 2, (ii) withholding of increments in respect of charge No.3.

¶47

The petitioner's statutory appeal before

¶48

the Board of Directors was rejected on 13.07.2005. Earlier in W.P.No.294 of 2008, this Court quashed the appellate order and remanded the matter. However

¶49

upon reconsideration, the Board again rejected the appeal by order dated 18.02.2012 leading to the present petition.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire enquiry is vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice as (i) no opportunity was given to submit a reply to the charge sheet, (ii) the defence representative was denied participation on crucial dates and (iii) the enquiry officer acted as a presenting officer tutoring witnesses and rejecting defence documents.

¶51

5 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC-D:695 WP No. 54283 of 2013

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

It is contended that the allegations are based on

¶55

hear-se evidence, with no legally acceptable proof of demand or acceptance of bribe. It is contended that the mandatory procedure under the service regulation and vigilance norms, are not followed before initiating disciplinary action. It is further contended that the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate and arbitrary.

¶56

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner has a blemished service record. In 1998 he faced suspension and disciplinary action for 12 serious charges (misappropriation, excess in interest collection, misuse of official position). Though the dismissal was proposed a lenient penalty was imposed on his assurance of good conduct.

¶57

In 2003, while working as a Field Officer at

¶58

Somalapur Branch, the bank issued two charge sheets on 29.05.2003 alleging (i) demand and acceptance of illegal

¶59

6 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:695 WP No. 54283 of 2013

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

gratification from multiple borrowers (ii) pressurizing complainants to withdraw complaints (iii) unauthorized contact with customers in violation of instructions (iv) keeping loan documents blank and (v) sanctioning / disbursing loans during the manager's leave, amounting to deliberate insubordination.

¶62

It is further contended that a full-fledged departmental enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with the Staff Service Regulations. The petitioner was given documents, opportunities to cross-examine witnesses, to engage a defence representative, and to make submissions.

¶63

It is contended that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity. It is further argued that key witnesses MW1, MW4 MW5 deposed regarding payment of bribes, their evidence was tested in the cross-examination and accepted by the enquiry officer. The charges of corruption and misconduct were held proved. After show cause notice and personal hearing, the disciplinary authority

¶64

7 -

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC-D:695 WP No. 54283 of 2013

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

imposed penalty of dismissal from service for major corruption charges and withholding of to increment with cumulative effect for other misconduct. The appellate authority after careful consideration of the entire material confirmed the dismissal, and submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit warranting no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in properly conducted disciplinary enquiry.

¶68

In support of his contention learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava¹ (“Ajai Kumar Srivastava” for short) .

¶69

This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

¶70

The law is well settled that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matter is limited. The Court

¶71

1 (2021) 2 SCC 612

¶72

8 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:695 WP No. 54283 of 2013

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

does not sit as an Appellate Authority to re-appreciate evidence but only examines whether (i) the enquiry was conducted by a competent authority, (ii) principles of natural justice were complied with, (iii) the findings are supported by some evidence.

¶75

In the present case, the record clearly discloses that a proper departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the service regulations. The charge sheet clearly set out imputations of misconduct. During the course of departmental enquiry, the management examined the material witnesses MW1 who was then working as a clerk in Tungabhadra Grameen Bank, Somalapur Branch, spoke abut the loan transaction, bank procedures and the petitioner's role, MW4 -borrower/complainant deposed regarding demand and payment of illegal gratification by the petitioner in connection with the loan sanction. MW5- the Branch Manager, Somalapur Branch deposed regarding irregular sanction and disbursement of loans, violation of instructions and branch records. MW5, officer

¶76

9 -

¶77

NC: 2026:KHC-D:695 WP No. 54283 of 2013

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

connected with the preliminary investigation/vigilance aspects, who spoke about inspection, findings and supporting the records.

¶80

In addition to the above, the documentary evidence such as loan files, vouchers, internal correspondence, inspection reports and complaint letters were marked to these witnesses and relied upon by the enquiry officer.

¶81

The petitioner was afforded an adequate opportunity to participate in the enquiry. He cross-examined the management witnesses and was given an opportunity to produce defence evidence. Significantly, the petitioner did not produce any documentary material to rebut the incriminatory evidence placed on record. The contention of the petitioner is that he was denied permission to engage a co-worker as his defence representative, is unsupported by the record. The enquiry proceedings disclosed that the petitioner was informed well in advance of the dates of

¶82

10 -

¶83

NC: 2026:KHC-D:695 WP No. 54283 of 2013

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

enquiry and was at liberty to engage a defence representative in accordance with the service regulations.

¶86

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the co-worker could not assist the petitioner as the defence representative, as the co-worker was posted at a different station, is untenable, as the record shows that the co-worker was on training for only two days and the petitioner was free to engage any other eligible defence representative as permitted under the service regulations. Significantly, the petitioner neither sought substitution of the defence representative nor requested adjournment even after the said co-worker returned from the training.

¶87

Having participated in the enquiry proceedings without demur and having cross-examined the management witness, the petitioner cannot subsequently contend that the enquiry stood vitiated on this ground. No prejudice is demonstrated.

¶88

11 -

¶89

NC: 2026:KHC-D:695 WP No. 54283 of 2013

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

The Enquiry Officer, upon a detailed appreciation of the entire evidence, recorded reasoned findings holding that the charges proved. The disciplinary authority thereafter examined the enquiry report, the evidence adduced and the petitioner's reply to the showcause notice and concurred with the findings of guilt.

¶92

The appellate authority on reconsideration pursuant to the earlier order of this Court, has independently assessed the material on record and assigned reasons while confirming the punishment imposed. The misconduct proved against the petitioner pertains to lack of integrity and honesty in banking operations which goes to the root of the employer's confidence.

¶93

The Apex Court in the case of Ajai Kumar Srivastava has held at paragraph Nos.25, 26 and 42 as under:

¶94

12 -

¶95

NC: 2026:KHC-D:695 WP No. 54283 of 2013

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

25. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine:

¶98

(i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority;

¶99

(ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with;

¶100

(iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.

¶101

26. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry.

¶102

42. Before we conclude, we need to emphasise that in banking business absolute devotion, integrity and honesty is a sine qua non for every bank

¶103

13 -

¶104

NC: 2026:KHC-D:695 WP No. 54283 of 2013

¶105

HC-KAR

¶106

employee. It requires the employee to maintain good conduct and discipline and he deals with money of the depositors and the customers and if it is not observed, the confidence of the public/depositors would be impaired. It is for this additional reason, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed an apparent error in setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent dated 24-7-1999 confirmed in departmental appeal by order dated 1511-1999.”

¶107

The Apex Court has emphasized that in banking business absolute devotion, integrity and honesty is a sine qua non for every bank employee. It requires the employee to maintain good conduct and discipline as he deals with money of the depositors and customers and if it is not observed, the confidence of the public / depositors would be impaired and thus the scope of judicial review does not extend to the re-appreciation of evidence or to the questioning the correctness of conclusion arrived by the disciplinary or the appellate authority, so long as the decision making process is fair and supported by evidence. The contentions of the petitioner that the punishment

¶108

14 -

¶109

NC: 2026:KHC-D:695 WP No. 54283 of 2013

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

imposed is grossly disproportionate and arbitrary cannot be accepted.

¶112

The law is well settled that the quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters lies primarily within the domain of the disciplinary authority, an interference by the constitutional Court is warranted only when the punishment shocks the conscience of the Court. As held by the Apex Court in Ajai Kumar Srivastava , in cases of grave misconduct involving integrity, particularly in banking institution, dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the punishment of dismissal imposed on the petitioner does not shock the conscience of this Court and cannot be categorized as arbitrary.

¶113

In the absence of any perversity, mala fides or violation of principles of natural justice, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders and accordingly this Court pass the following:

¶114

NC: 2026:KHC-D:695 WP No. 54283 of 2013

¶115