Disposed

Telangana Grameena Bank (Tgb) v. Ch. Chandramouli

Telangana HC4 Feb 2025WA/144/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Intra-court appeal against a Single Judge order interfering with an employee's removal after a departmental enquiry into misappropriation. The Division Bench held the writ court's scope is limited and the impugned order was contrary to settled law, set it aside, and remanded the writ petition for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Single Judge order dated 06.12.2024 set aside; Writ Petition No.31412 of 2016 restored to file and remanded for expeditious fresh consideration; no costs.

Telangana Grameena Bank (Tgb) Vs Ch. Chandramouli — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^3/146 I

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^{TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶4

TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY^{OF FEBRUARY}

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE^{THE ACTING CHIEFJUSTICE SUJOY PAUL} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICE RENUKAYARA}

¶8

WRIT APPEALNO:144OF2025

¶9

writ Appeal under clause^{15 of the Lefters Patentappeal preferredagainst} the order dated 06-12-2024^{passed in w.P No. 31412 ot 2016 on the file of the High} Court.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Telanoana Grameena Bank^{(TGB), Chairman/AppellateAuthority'} Hyderabad Farm;rlv bec"rn Grameena'Ban(^{Rep.by its Chairman / Appella} te Authority H.No.21520, Street^{No. 9, Nallakunta Hyderabad'}

¶12

The Disciplinary^{Authority/General} .^{Mana.ger, Administrationand lT'} H.No.21520, Strdet^No. I,^{Nallakunta, Hyderabad.}

¶13

3- The Reoional Manaqer, Telanqana^{Grameena BankFormerly-Deccan}

¶14

Grameeria Bank Regidnal Office lV, Street No. 9, Nallakunta, Hyderabad'.

¶15

The Branch Manager,^{Deccan Grameena Bank, ParigiBranch, Ranga Reddy} District

¶16

-..APPELLANTS

¶17

AND

¶18

Ch. Chandramouli,^{(Since died as per his LR's R2 & 3 herein)}

¶19

Chowdari Mahadevamma,^{wo. Late ch. chandramouliFUo.H.No.18-209,} - 4 ; i s 't Esfrwar Colony, Faroocinagar Mandal, Shadnagar, K'V' Ranga Reddy.

¶20

Chowdari Mahesh,^{Sio. Late Ch. Chandramouli, Ri/o' H'No'7-311, Mandipal'} . K.V.Ranga ReddY District.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶23

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition'the HighCourtmaybe pleased to}

¶24

suspend the order passed in wp No. 31412 0f 2016, Dt.o6-12-2024 0f the Learned Single Judge, pending disposal of the main Writ Appeal.

¶25

Counsel for the Appellants: M/s. S.UDAYASREE, REp. FOR SRI MUJIB KUMAR SADASIVUNI

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V.RAVI KUMAR REDOY

¶27

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶28

'.{

¶29

THE IION'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAT'L

¶30

AND

¶31

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No.144 of2O2S

¶32

JUDGMENT Per the Hon'bte the Acting Chief Justie Sujog paul):

¶33

Ms. S. Udayasree, learned counsel represents Sri Mqiib Kumar Sadasivuni, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri V. Ravi Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioners/ respondents.

¶34

With the consent, frnally heard

¶35

This Intra-Court appeal takes exception to the order dated 06.12.2024 in W.P.No.314l2 of 2Ol6 passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶36

The relevant facts, as projected by learned counsel for the parties, are that respondent No. I /delinquent employee (since deceased) was subjected to disciptinary proceedings. The main allegation against the delinquent employee was regarding misappropriation of money. The delinquent employee submitted his reply to the charge sheet. The disciplinary authority was not satisfied with his reply and accordingly appointed an Enquiry Offrcer. The Enquiry Ofhcer found the charges as proved and after obtaining his report and employee's response, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal from service on

¶37

¶38

15.10.2015.^'The said order was unsuccessfully^challenged 1n appeal.

¶39

Learned counsel for the appellants submits^{that learned} Single Judge has given a frnding that^{punishment of removal} imposed on the delinquent employee^{was harshand} disproportionat-e considering the gravity of the^{miscon duct.No} hnding is recorded as to why Enquiry^{Oflicer'sreport, accepted by} the disciplinan/ authority, should not^{be givenweightage. In other} words, no flaw in the enquiry report was noticed and^recordedby learned Single Judge. In absence of^{recordingany hnding that} Enquiry Offrcer's report was^perverse or^{decision makingprocess} was polluted, there was no scope of interference.

¶40

So far, statement of two customers mentioned in^paragraph No.7 of the impugned order is concerned, it is^projected that^those two customers never entered the witness box on behalf^{of anybody} and in absence thereot zrny representation made by ttrem to^the Enquiry Ofhcer has no evidentiary. value. The impugnr:d order^of removal has not been set aside. Without there^being an1'^prayerfor considering th.e dependant on compassionate^{grounds, learned} Single Judge has directed such direction to consider^{petitionerNo.2} on compassionate grounds which is bad in lau,.

¶41

7 Faced with this, learned counsel for the writ petitioners/ respondents submits that by communication dated

¶42

¶43

15.O5.2O15, the^{customersinformed the EnquiryOffrcerthat there} was some mistake^{relatingto accountnumberand they had no} grievance against^{the delinquentemployee'}

¶44

Parties confined^{their argumentsto the extentindicated} above.

¶45

g. On a specifrc^{query from the Bench' learned counsel for ttre} parties fairly submitted^{that those customers, whoserepresentation} became one^{of the operative reasonsto pass the impugrredorderby} learned Single^{Judge,neverentered the witness box' Since they} never entered^{the witnessbox and deposed their statements'the} makers of^{d.ocumentdated 15'05'2015could not be put to} cross-examination^{and therefore, any such representation has no} Lala Satyanarain^{Prasad v'Gadadhar} evidentiary value^(see Ram1, Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi^{Bagh, Agra v'CITz'} Managing Director,^{U.P' WarehousingCorpn' v' Vijay Narayan} Vajpayees, Director^{Geaeral, IndianCouncil ofMedical} Research v. Dr.^{AnilKumarGhoshaand Chandrakumar} Madhukar Deshmuch^{v. Board of Trusteesof Port of Bombays)'}

¶46

In our opinion,^{it is trite that scope of interference} tn The Writ^{Court is obliged} disciplinary^{proceedings is very limited'}

¶47

'^{ntntgzz sc t46}

¶48

'^{(rssz) r scc osg}

¶49

' {rggo)^{I scc +sg} o (rgge) z scc gz '^{rsgr (r) Lu z06}

¶50

¶51

to examine the decision making process and can interfere with punishment if it shocks the conscious of the co,rt beine extremely harsh and disproportionate. In the event, the Court comes to the conclusion thzrt the punishment is excessive, the Writ Court may set aside the said punishment and remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorit5r to pass appropriate/ suitable punishment (see Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Choprao, Bank of lndia v, T.Jogramz and State of U.p. v. Man Mohan Nath Sinhas).

¶52

I 1 . Before reaching to the conclusion that punishment is harsh/disprop.rtionate, it was imperative for the wril court to examine whether temporary embezzlement is a grave misconduct and can lead to inflicting of punishment of removal from service. Without setting aside the said punishment and order and without remitting the matter back to the disciplinary authority, a direction was issued to consider the dependant of delinquent employee for compassionate appointment. We are unable to give our stamp of approval to the said order which n,,,s contrary to the settled regal position.

¶53

In this vier.r. of the matter, the impugned order ,f learned Single Judge dated O6. 12.2024 in W.p.No.314l2 of 20t6 is set aside. At this stage, learned counsel for the parties fairlv

¶54

'(rssg) I scc zsg

¶55

' 1zoot1 t scc zts

¶56

'^{(zoog) g} scc :ro

¶57

¶58

..-,:.,.

¶59

submitted that since the decision making process of Enquiry and the findings of Enquiry Oflicer were not examined by the learned Single Judge, the matter may be remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration. In the interest of justice, we are inclined to accept this joint prayer

¶60

Resultantly, while setting aside the impugned order of learned Single Judge, the matter is remanded to the Writ Court and the Writ Petition is restored to its original number. The Writ Court is requested to decide the Writ Petition expeditiously.

¶61

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of. No costs.

¶62

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand

¶63

closed.

¶64

SD/-B.SATYAVATHI UTY REGISTRAR

t3. It

To,

//TRUE^COPY//

ECTION OFFICER

The Chairman /^{Appellate Authority, Telangana GrameenaBank(TGB')'} C1i!#"iiAi,riirratl''{ut'no,ir:v,'Hvbti',iOrq^{r*i.rerryDeccan Grameena Bank,} H.No.21520, Street^{No. 9, Nallakunta Hyderabao'}

¶70

The Disciolinarv Authority/General -^{Mana.ger' Administrationand lT'} H.No.21520, Strdet^{No. 9, Nallakunta' Hyderaoao'} The Reqional^{Manager, TelanganaGrameena.BankFormerly} '^Deccan G ;;#;""";"d;^{; k' iiA id;i oiriJ rV s'"til'l o s' r'l at t a xu nta'H vd e ra b ad'}

¶71