Allowed

L.S.R.Murthy v. The Uco Bank

Telangana HC19 Dec 2013WP/4965/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge allowed a writ petition against a bank employee's disciplinary punishment, holding that the rejection of witnesses to be examined was arbitrary. This Division Bench set aside that order and held the witnesses were relevant, remanding the inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of penalty set aside with liberty to respondents to proceed with enquiry after affording petitioner opportunity to examine witnesses.

L.S.R.Murthy Vs The Uco Bank — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Writ Petition No.4965 of 2001

¶2

Date: 19.12.2013

¶3

Between: L.S.R. Murthy, s/o. Viswanadha Sastry, Age: 49 years, Manager, UCO Bank, Hyderabad, R/o.F-3, UCO ARCADE, Navodaya Colony, Srinagar Colony Extension, Hyderabad-500 073.

¶4

AND The UCO Bank, rep.by its Chairman & Managing Director, 10, B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata-700 001, and 3 others. … Respondents

¶5

O0HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR

¶6

Writ Petition No.4965 of 2001

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

The petitioner sought for a Writ of Certiorari to set aside the orders of the third respondent dated 31.07.1999 in respect of the Disciplinary Enquiry held against the petitioner vide charge sheet dated 21.09.1995 as unlawful and arbitrary and for consequential relief.

¶9

2. On 19.01.2007 a learned single Judge of this Court allowed the Writ Petition No.4965 of 2001 and set aside the impugned order of punishment. The learned

¶10

Judge held that the respondent-bank may, however, take action against the petitioner in accordance with the Regulations after according reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. The order passed by the learned Judge was assailed by the respondents in Writ Appeal No.1647 of 2008. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the Writ Appeal through judgment dated 30.12.2008. The order passed by the learned single Judge was set aside. The case was remitted for fresh consideration by a single Judge. Thus, the case came up before me for consideration.

¶11

3. The petitioner worked as Manager of UCO BANK in Patighanpur branch, Medak District from 22.05.1987 till 21.02.1990. On 21.01.1995 the petitioner was charge sheeted for alleged irregularities occurred in Patighanpur branch of the bank during the tenure of the petitioner as Manager with specific reference to the account of one of the customers by name M/s. Geekay Wires Pvt. Ltd. The response of the petitioner was not satisfactory to the Management, so much so, enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. During the course of the enquiry, the petitioner sought the direction of the Enquiry Officer to call seven witnesses and also called for several documents. The Enquiry Officer passed orders on 28.11.1997. Considering the request of the petitioner unjustified, the Enquiry Officer rejected the same.

¶12

He, however, permitted the petitioner to call one Sri Devadanam, the Manager of Patighanpur branch at the time of the enquiry. The petitioner challenged the order of the Enquiry Officer rejecting to call witnesses through a representation dated 05.12.1997. On 28.07.1998 the Enquiry Officer rejected the representation also.

¶13

4. After completion of the enquiry, final orders were passed on 09.08.1999. Penalty of reduction of pay by eight stages for a period of one year during which period the petitioner would not earn any increment was passed. The order was to the effect of reduction of pay by eight stages with cumulative effect. Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred departmental appeal which was dismissed on 04.12.2000. Consequently, the petitioner presented the writ petition.

¶14

5. The primary contention of Sri B. Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity to examine witnesses to prove his innocence. The petitioner submitted a representation on 19.11.1997 calling for eight witnesses. The Enquiry Officer turned down the request through orders dated 28.11.1997. The learned single Judge who allowed the writ petition initially concluded that the Enquiry Officer has no power to reject the request of the petitioner to summon witnesses, in view of UCO Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (Discipline

¶15

Regulations, for short) and consequently allowed the writ petition. The Division Bench interpreted the Regulations holding that the Enquiry Officer indeed is entitled to examine the request after due consideration of the request of the Delinquent Officer. It was observed that Regulation 6 (10)(b)(ii) of Disciplinary Regulations makes it clear that the charged employee shall establish the relevancy of the witnesses proposed to be examined by him. The Division Bench further observed that the learned single Judge did not consider the relevancy of the witnesses as proposed by the petitioner with reference to the charges framed against him. The question, therefore, is whether the witnesses sought to be examined by the petitioner are relevant for the purpose of enquiry.

¶16

6. I may point out that on 28.11.1997 the Enquiry Officer passed orders holding that the evidence of proposed witnesses was not relevant and that they were merely to repeat the evidence of the first witness. Beyond that he did not consider the relevancy of the proposed witnesses. The order dated 28.07.1998 by the Enquiry Officer is even more perfunctory so far as the documents are concerned. The request was turned down on the ground that the documents sought for were irrelevant.

¶17

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the witnesses proposed to be

¶18

examined and the documents sought to be marked are relevant.

¶19

8. The claim of the bank may be noticed:

¶20

a) M/s. Geekay Wires Industries is a customer of UCO Bank, Patighanpur branch. The petitioner while he was working as the Manager of the branch allowed overdrawing of the account of M/s. Geekay Wires Industries far in excess of the sanctioned Cash Credit Limit of Rs.2.75 lakhs. By 01.08.1989, the overdraft permitted was to a tune of Rs.6.5 lakhs which is far over and above the sanctioned limit. Further, the petitioner released certain equitable mortgaged properties of M/s. Geekay Wires Industries to be substituted by other properties without the consent or approval of sanctioning authority. The petitioner allegedly failed to obtain proper documents and letters in respect of the mortgaged properties.

¶21

b) The petitioner allegedly recommended further enhancement of the overdraft limit without appropriate study of the conduct and operation of the account of M/s. Geekay Wires Pvt. Ltd., so much so, overdraft facility to an ad hoc limit of Rs.40 lakhs was released. The petitioner allegedly failed to take steps for the extension of the securities from the customer for the enhanced ad hoc limit of overdraft facility. He allegedly failed to get the charge

¶22

over the properties registered with the Registrar of Companies in respect of the assets of M/s. Geekay Wires Pvt. Ltd., within the stipulated period of 30 days from the date of creation of charge. He allegedly committed other irregularities with reference to the account of M/s. Geekay Wires Pvt. Ltd.

¶23

9. When the charges were levelled against him and after completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held that all the nine charges were proved. Inter alia, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the very proceeding of the enquiry is vitiated as reasonable opportunity had not been accorded to the petitioner to examine his witnesses. The Division Bench more or less considered that a single Judge should examine whether the witnesses sought to be examined by the petitioner are relevant for the purpose of enquiry. The result of this case depends upon the relevancy of the witnesses where the petitioner proposes to examine the witnesses at the time of the enquiry, with reference to the enquiry. If the witnesses sought for by the petitioner are relevant, the enquiry from that stage would stand vitiated. On the other hand, if the witnesses sought to be examined by the petitioner are not relevant for the purpose of enquiry, the petitioner should fail in the writ petition.

¶24

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶25

that the witnesses proposed to be examined by the petitioner are relevant for the purpose of the enquiry. The first of the proposed witnesses is Rashid Mannon, DCO (Credit) during the relevant period. He was sought to be examined by the petitioner to speak about processing the proposal and the activity of the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the witness is relevant in respect of charges 1, 2, 4 and 5. The 2^nd witness,

¶26

by name Sri N.B.Surti, it is claimed by the petitioner, is relevant to disprove charges 1, 2 and 4 to 7. Similarly, the petitioner contended that each of the persons mentioned in the application of the petitioner dated 19-11-1997 is a relevant witness to disprove some of the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner has briefly stated as to the purpose of these witnesses in his application. He dealt elaborately in the Affidavit accompanying the Writ Petition as to how these witnesses are relevant. I am afraid that it is not proper to go into the details as to the evidence that is expected of these witnesses before the Enquiry Officer since it would be within the realm of the Enquiry Authority. Suffice it to notice that the petitioner has furnished sufficient details in his application dated 19-11-1997 as well as in his Affidavit as to the purpose of these proposed witnesses. I am satisfied with the contention of the petitioner that these witnesses are relevant. Smothering the petitioner from letting any evidence on his side attempting to satisfy the

¶27

Enquiry Authority that he is not guilty of the charges levelled against him is not justified and is also against the principles of natural justice. Where the proposed witnesses would fairly appear to be relevant for the purpose of enquiry and do not appear to be witnesses duplicating the evidence Sri Devadanam,

¶28

I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to examine these witnesses. In such circumstances, there is no alternative but to set aside the impugned order with liberty to the respondents-Bank to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the Rules and Regulations by according reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself by examining the proposed witnesses.

¶29

11. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed.

¶30

The impugned order imposing penalties against the petitioner for various charges is set aside. It however is made clear that the respondents-Bank are at liberty to proceed with the enquiry in accordance with the Rules and Regulations by affording an opportunity to the petitioner to examine the witnesses proposed by him and by permitting him to exhibit the documents which he seeks to exhibit. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶31

_____________________ Dr. K.G.SHANKAR, J. 19^th December, 2013.

¶32

Isn/Ak

L.S.R.Murthy v. The Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.S.R.Murthy v. The Uco Bank

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

G. Sammaiah S/o Venkataiah, Vs The Chief General Manager, (Hrd)

Konda Veera Shiva Prasad Vs Arya Vysya Sangham

J.Hachiya, Vs The Commandant 2 Signal Bn

Smt. P.Bhavani Vs The Commissioner of Intermediate Education

P.Bhavani Vs The Govt of A.P.

Laxmana Swamy Sirpur Kagaznagar Adilabad Vs a.P.Forest Dev.Cor.Ltd HYDAND3 Ors.