Allowed

K.v.Ranga Rao, v. State Bank of India

Telangana HC29 Oct 2013WP/19641/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition challenging the removal of a petitioner from service as a Branch Manager of State Bank of India. The court set aside the removal order, directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as if continued in service until superannuation to calculate retirement benefits, based on the principle 'no work, no pay' and the gross excessiveness of the punishment given the

What did the court decide?

The order of removal from service set aside; petitioner to be treated as continued in service till superannuation for retirement benefits calculation; no back wages.

K.v.Ranga Rao, Vs State Bank of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.19641 of 2000

¶6

Between: K.V.Ranga Rao

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

State Bank of India, rep.by its General Manager (D&PB) and appointing Authority, Local Head Office, Hyderabad and 3 others

¶10

.....RESPONDENTS

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.19641 of 2000

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by the 1^st respondent dated 21.03.1998, removing petitioner from service.

¶16

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶17

The petitioner worked as Branch Manager, Banigandlapadu Branch. He was issued a charge sheet dated 03.10.1994 with the following charges:

¶18

Charge-I While the villages viz., Bhimavaram, Ayyavarigudem, Mamunur and Butchireddipalem were allotted to the Branch for extending finance to the non-target group only, you had sanctioned crop loans to the persons of these villages not falling under the category of nontarget group which is not in order.

¶19

Charge-II You had sanctioned/disbursed several agricultural crop loans to various borrowers belonging to different villages hastily and also on large scale without observing basic formalities/precautions that are required in this regard. You had also failed to ensure the end use of fund in respect of the loans sanctioned by you; with the result, majority of the loans have become bad and the Bank is likely to sustain a huge financial loss. Thus, you had exhibited gross negligence in your actions and failed to safeguard the interests of the Bank. In the process, you had also passed on pecuniary benefits to the concerned borrowers.

¶20

Charge-III

¶21

Charge-IV

¶22

You had increased the liability of the borrowers of four Agricultural term Loan Accounts sanctioned by you for installation of Gobar Gas Plants and passed on pecuniary benefits to the supplier of the relative plants by debiting the accounts with Rs.2,250/- each and crediting the proceeds to the account of the supplier on the same day on which the outstandings in the said four accounts were transferred to protested Bills Account. You had made a noting in the Ryot Pass Book of Shri B.Ratna Reddy (ATL A/c.No.4/250) to the effect that the loan account was closed on 15.03.1990 which may lead to discharge of the borrower from the liability resulting loss to the Bank as the relative ledger abstract shows outstandings in the account.

¶23

Charge-V

¶24

You had sanctioned a Cash Credit limit of Rs.50,000/- to one Shri Ramisetty Ramesh for retail trade exceeding your discretionary powers where as his brother was earlier sanctioned a limit of Rs.15,000/- for the same activity at the same place.

¶25

Charge-VI You had disbursed Rs.40,000/- to a C & I unit viz., M/s.Shree Lakshmi Fertilizers & Pesticides, pending sanction of your proposal for Rs.2 lakhs by the zonal office and the amount includes Rs.20,000/- which was margin money released by SETKHAM. The release of full margin money of Rs.20,000/- to the beneficiary without releasing the proportionate loan amount tantamounts to misutilization of margin money in collusion with the beneficiary.

¶26

Charge-VII You had sanctioned sundry loans to yourself without obtaining prior approval of the appropriate sanctioning authority.

¶27

It is not in dispute that a domestic enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer held that charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved. Then the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from service on the petitioner by order dated 21.03.1998. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. However, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal by order dated 14.08.1998. Though the petitioner seems to have filed a review petition, but in vain.

¶28

The charge sheet allegations go to show that there was nonadherence to the guidelines with regard to financing under service area approach resulting in increase in over dues and loss to the bank. Thus, it is alleged that the petitioner has flouted the instructions on schedule for disbursements in crop loans and not used the discretionary powers vested in him. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner made a representation to the Controlling Authority for enhancement of budgets in advance and that representation is pending with the Controlling Authority.

¶29

According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the Bank incurred a loss of Rs.5 lakh and the amounts were written off, as they

¶30

were doubtful of recovery.

¶31

The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said alleged irregularities occurred prior to June, 1992 and subsequently the petitioner was relieved as Branch Manager, Banigandlapadu in the month of June, 1992, and after lapse of 2 years 4 months, the allegations have been made against the petitioner while he was functioning in different branch. It is further submitted that the respondents failed to appreciate the explanation of the petitioner and material evidence on record. It is also submitted that there were no allegations against the petitioner during his long tenure of his service. It is also submitted that there were no circulars issued by the Reserved Bank of India imposing any restriction that other than the Government loans should not be given in the non-target group villages. It is also submitted that at the time of advancing loans and conducting transactions, there was a regular inspection by way of review by concerned authorities, but at no point of time any objection was raised.

¶32

The only point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the termination of the services of the petitioner is valid. Point:

¶33

Even if it is accepted that all the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved and departmental enquiry was conducted as per the procedure and there is no violation of principles of natural justice, as seen from the allegations and counter allegations, it is clear that the alleged misconduct is only with regard to procedural aspect while sanctioning crop loans. It is also clear that there are no complaints against the petitioner from any public or any objection was raised by the concerned Authority or by any of his superior authorities at the time of disbursement of loans. On the face of it, it appears that the punishment of removal from service is grossly excessive. The 1^st

¶34

respondent, having regard to the past service of the petitioner and the nature of transactions, and having regard to the fact that 90% of the loans have been recovered without any difficulty, should have imposed some other punishment than removal from service. Even with regard to the loans which were written off, there is nothing on record to say that, the respondents had made any required efforts or initiated legal proceedings to recover the same. So the petitoner alone cannot be held responsible for non-recovery of loans of Rs.5 lakhs. Now it is not in dispute that the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation during pendency of this writ petition.

¶35

Basing on the principle “no work – no pay” I am inclined to order as follows:

¶36

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order of removal from service passed by the 1^st respondent dated 21.03.1998, as confirmed by the Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority vide orders dated 14.08.1998 and 30.08.2000 is set aside. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as if continued in service till the date of attaining his age of superannuation and accordingly calculate the retiremental benefits and pay the same to the petitioner, within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled for back wages, however, he shall be entitled to all other attendant benefits and continuity of service. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶37

________________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J

¶38

Date: 29.10.2013 Dsr

K.v.Ranga Rao, v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.Ranga Rao, v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mandla Samba Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Naidu Malakondaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Boya Ramakrishna Vs The State of Ap.

Palganti Surendra Reddy Vs State of Ap.

M.Niranjan Prakash, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ms. G. Kamala Rao, B.Sc., Ll.B. Vs Smt . G. Sunitha Ravindra Reddy, B.Sc.,Ll.B.