Dismissed

C.J.Chacko v. Syndicate Bank

Kerala HC24 Feb 2023WP(C)/29081/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Private appeal dismissed. This judgment details the procedure for judicial review of disciplinary proceedings and holds that courts cannot interfere with fact or reasonableness unless findings are based on no evidence or are perverse. Consequently, the discharge of the Secretary of a public company charging a violation of debt recovery was unlawful.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

C.J.Chacko Vs Syndicate Bank — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(C).No.29081 of 2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1944

¶7

WP(C) NO. 29081 OF 2016

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

C.J.CHACKO AGED 65 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH(LATE),CHATHANATT HOUSE,35/2806 D,AISWARYA LANE,THAMMANAM.P.O,KOCHI,KERALA6892032.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND (SR.) SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN PARACKAL SMT.LATHA ANAND SRI.M.N.RADHAKRISHNA MENON

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 SYNDICATE BANK

¶13

CORPORATE OFFICE,GANDHI NAGAR 2ND CROSS,BANGALORE560 009,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR. CORRECTED * CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, 112 JC ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002.

¶14

2 CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶15

THE SYNDICATE BANK,CORPORATE OFFICE,GANDHI NAGAR 2ND CROSS,BANGALORE-560009.CORRECTED * CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, 112 JC ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002.

¶16

3 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

¶17

THE SYNDICATE BANK,HEAD OFFICE,MANIPAL,KARNATAKA576104. CORRECTED * EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, 112 JC ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002.

¶18

W.P.(C).No.29081 of 2016

¶19

¶20

4 GENERAL MANAGER THE SYNDICATE BANK,HEAD OFFICE,MANIPAL,KERNATAKA576104.CORRECTED * GENERAL MANAGER, CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, 112 JC ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002. " AS PER ORDER DATED 14-07-2021 IN IA 2/21.

¶21

BY ADV R.S.KALKURA

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.01.2023, THE COURT ON 24.02.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

W.P.(C).No.29081 of 2016

¶24

¶25

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶26

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(c).No.29081 of 2016

¶27

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24^th day of February, 2023

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

1.This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶30

“(a) Call for records leading to Ext.P7, P10, P19 and P33 orders and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction setting aside the same.

¶31

(b) Set aside the award of censure imposed on the petitioner by the respondent No.2, appellate authority.

¶32

¶33

(d) To direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of General Manager from the date of vacancy.

¶34

(e) To direct the respondents to pay all the salary arrears in lieu of the illegal denial of promotion to the petitioner and also to pay the retirement benefits due after re-fixing the petitioners pay scale.”

¶35

2.The grounds raised in the writ petition are primarily on four

¶36

counts:

¶37

W.P.(C).No.29081 of 2016

¶38

¶39

It is contended that the partial finding of guilt recorded in Ext.P7 enquiry report against the petitioner on two charges is not supported by the materials on record in the enquiry.

¶40

2.It is contended that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner forwarding the enquiry report and proposing to differ from the findings of the enquiring officer does not state the specific reasons for differing from the findings in the enquiry and therefore the said proceedings are bad in law.

¶41

Thirdly it is contended that the punishment imposed on the petitioner by Ext.P10 order is only reduction of one stage in the time scale of pay for one year with immediate effect and therefore the punishment was a minor punishment and the petitioner’s claim for promotion as DGM ought to have been considered.

¶42

4.It is also contended that the findings contained in Ext.P19 order in appeal having virtually exonerated the petitioner, there was absolutely no reason whatsoever to uphold the finding of guilt against him to impose the penalty of censure and that the exercise was only to deny the due promotion to the petitioner.

¶43

W.P.(C).No.29081 of 2016

¶44

¶45

3.Detailed pleadings are on record. Ext.P2 is the charge sheet issued to the petitioner on 02.07.2008 alleging 14 lapses. Ext.P3 is the reply. Ext.P7 is the enquiry report which finds that all but two of the charges have not been proved and that only two charges are partially proved. By Ext.P8, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and issued notice to the petitioner requiring him to show cause why the charges against him excluding charge No.12 should not be treated as proved. The petitioner submitted Ext.P9 detailed reply on each of the charges. However, Ext.P10 order was passed on 31.10.2009 holding that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct and ordering as follows :

¶46

“ORDER

¶47

“For breach of Regulation No.3(1) read with Reg.No.24 of Syndicate Bank Officer Employees’(Conduct) Regulations, 1976, the Basic Pay of Sri.C.J. Chacko be and is hereby reduced by ONE stage in the time scale of his pay for a period of ONE year with immediate effect.”

¶48

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was subjected to an interview on 28.07.2008 for selection to the post of DGM and the result of the interview

¶49

W.P.(C).No.29081 of 2016

¶50

¶51

was kept in a sealed cover due to the existence of disciplinary proceedings initiated by Ext.P2 charge sheet. Since the petitioner was not exonerated in the enquiry, the sealed cover was not opened. Thereafter, on 07.12.2009, he was again called for an interview. But he was not allowed to participate in the same on the ground that a major penalty was inflicted against him. It is submitted that the petitioner had submitted an appeal against the imposition of the penalty which was not considered till the exercise for promotion was completed and the petitioner's juniors were promoted. Thereafter Exhibit P19 order was passed, which was communicated only on 5.8.2010 reducing the punishment to one of censure.

¶52

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the penalty inflicted on the petitioner was not a major penalty at all and even if the contentions are accepted, the findings in Ext.P19 would show that all the contentions of the petitioner had been accepted by the disciplinary authority and therefore there was no material to hold the petitioner guilty of any wrong doing. It is submitted that it is only by the appellate order it is stated

¶53

W.P.(C).No.29081 of 2016

¶54

¶55

that what was inflicted on the petitioner was a major penalty. However, the penalty was reduced as censure, which is admittedly a minor penalty and is not liable to be considered as a disqualification for promotion. Therefore there is no reason for not considering the petitioner for promotion as DGM in the selections held in 2008 and 2009 respectively. It is contended that the entire exercise was intended only to deny the due promotions to the petitioner since there is absolutely no allegation of loss of any kind.

¶56

6.The learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the enquiry had admittedly proceeded in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Relying on the decisions in Allahabad Bank and Others v. Krishna Narayan Tewari [AIR 2017 SC 330] and that of a Division Bench of this Court in Jino K.R. v. State of Kerala and Others [2022 (1) KHC 113] it is contended that the writ court, considering a challenge to a disciplinary proceedings, cannot interfere with the findings of facts recorded by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority so long as the findings are not based on no evidence

¶57

W.P.(C).No.29081 of 2016

¶58

¶59

or the findings are so perverse as to render the proceedings vitiated.

¶60

7.In the instant case it is contended that an enquiry had been conducted complying with the principles of natural justice and a finding of partial guilt of the petitioner had been recorded in the enquiry proceedings itself. The disciplinary authority had differed from the findings of the enquiry officer on the innocence of the petitioner on valid reasons which were put to the petitioner in the show cause notice. Thereafter, after considering all the relevant aspects, a punishment of reduction of pay was also imposed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the question whether the punishment imposed was a major punishment or not is no longer relevant, since the punishment has been reduced to one of censure. However, it is contended that since the petitioner was never fully exonerated of the charges levelled against him, he would not be entitled to contend that the denial of promotion was completely without justification.

¶61

W.P.(C).No.29081 of 2016

¶62

¶63

8.I have heard the contentions advanced with reference to the documents relied on, I notice that the petitioner had been subjected to a full disciplinary enquiry in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The enquiry officer had found that the petitioner was partially guilty on two counts. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the said findings of the enquiry officer also, I am of the opinion that since this is admittedly not a case of where the finding is based on no evidence, such a challenge to findings of the enquiry officer in a disciplinary proceedings after giving a full opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the same are not justified. With regard to the disciplinary authority differing with the enquiry officer also, I find that the reasons for differing with the findings in the enquiry on each of the charges is specifically mentioned in Ext.P8.

¶64

9.In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the contention raised by the petitioner that the order passed by the disciplinary authority was vitiated and unsustainable cannot be accepted. The further contention that the appellate

¶65

W.P.(C).No.29081 of 2016

¶66

¶67

order was also intended only to deny a full exoneration to the petitioner and thus to deny a consideration of his promotion as DGM also cannot be accepted, since the order imposing penalty as well as the appellate order are speaking orders which specify that the petitioner cannot be found to be completely exonerated of the charges levelled against him which are in the nature of supervisory lapse. In the nature of the punishments imposed on the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the orders impugned in these proceedings are not liable to be interfered with.

¶68

10.In any view of the matter, the punishment imposed was only a reduction of pay. The question whether such reduction was with cumulative effect or not may not be relevant at this distance of time for any other purpose, except the question of consideration of the entitlement of the petitioner for promotion. The punishment has been reduced to one of censure. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the question is one of principle and that the petitioner ought to have been promoted as DGM in 2008 itself

¶69

W.P.(C).No.29081 of 2016

¶70

¶71

on the basis of his participation in the selection procedure or at least in the next year, i.e. 2009, I am of the opinion that in view of the admitted fact that the disciplinary proceedings were, as a matter of fact, pending against the petitioner and since he was never fully exonerated of the charges raised against him, the contention of the petitioner that the denial of promotion was completely vitiated cannot be accepted. The prayers, as sought for, in the writ petition, therefore, cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶72

Sd/-

¶73

Anu Sivaraman, Judge

¶74

¶75

W.P.(C).No.29081 of 2016

¶76

¶77

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29081/2016

¶78

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶79

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF EVENTS CONNECTED TO THE EXTENSION OF CREDIT FACILITY
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 2.7.2008
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DATED 18.07.2008
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF ATTENDANCE CERTIFICATE THE PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT OF THE RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5	TURE COPY OF LETTER OF INITIATION OF DEPARTMENT ENQUIRY DATED 23.08.2008
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF WITNESSES FILED BY THE PRESENTING OFFICER DATED 11.10.2008
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 27.01.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 2.4.2009
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 18.4.2009.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF PUNISHMENT ORDER DATED 31.10.2009
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 20.11.2009
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE IMPELEMENTATION OF IR PROCEEDINGS DATED 2.12.2009

¶80

W.P.(C).No.29081 of 2016

¶81

¶82

EXHIBIT	P13 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 7-12-
	2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT	P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.12.2009
EXHIBIT	P15 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULR DATED 21.05.2008 ISSUED BY THE BANK
EXHIBIT	P16 TRUE COPY OF THE SYNDICATE BANK OFFICER EMPLOYEES (DISCIPLINE & APPEAL)REGULATIONS 1976
EXHIBIT	P17 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 9-12-2009
EXHIBIT	P18 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.12.2009 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P19 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2010 PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY
EXHIBIT	P20 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 05.08.2010
EXHIBIT	P21 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.09.2010
EXHIBIT	P22 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.09.2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P23 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 06.10.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2NS RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P24 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 19.10.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P25 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶83

W.P.(C).No.29081 of 2016

¶84

¶85

EXHIBIT P26	TRUE COPY OF REVIEW PETITION DATED 14.6.2011
EXIBIT P27	TRUE COPY OF REMINDER DATED 17.05.2014 SENT BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P28	TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 3.6.2015 UNDER RTI SENT BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P29	TRUE COPY OF INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
EXHIBIT P30	TRUE COPY OF THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER RTI ACT
EXHIBIT P31	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.8.2015 OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT
EXHIBIT P32	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 10.07.2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P33	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 2.9.2015 OF THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
EXHIBIT P34	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.11.2015
EXHIBIT P35	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.11.2015.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.11.2015.
EXHIBIT R1(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 24.01.2009.

¶86

W.P.(C).No.29081 of 2016

¶87

¶88

EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.292/PD:IRD/DA-6 DATED 31.10.2009 ISSUED BY THE DICIPLINARY AUTHORITY TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO.118-2008-BC-PD-28-HRD DATED 21.05.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶89

True copy

¶90

PS to Judge

C.J.Chacko v. Syndicate Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.J.Chacko v. Syndicate Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biju P.K Vs the Secretary

M/S Kinalur Rock Sand Vs the Secretary

Sammad Vs District Collector

Abdul Gaffoor Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala, Vs C.M.Andrews

K.O. Thomas Vs the State of Kerala