Dismissed

S.Raghu Prasad v. Central Bank of India, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad

Telangana HC2 Sept 2025WP/18560/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A dismissed bank manager challenged his dismissal for demanding illegal gratification from a borrower and habitual complaints against staff, alleging breach of natural justice. The Court upheld the enquiry, applied settled law limiting judicial review of disciplinary findings, rejected leniency given the position of trust, and dismissed the writ petition without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

S.Raghu Prasad Vs Central Bank of India, Bank Street… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SECOND^{DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE NAGESHBHEEMAPAKA}

¶6

WRIT PETITIO N NO: 18560 OF²⁰⁰⁹

¶7

Between:

¶8

S.Raohu Prasad, S/o.Siva^{Sastry, Aged 53 years, H.No.46. RajadhaniColony,} Greei Gardens. Gokul Road, Hubti^{- 580028. KarnatakaState.}

¶9

.,...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Central Bank of lndia, Bank^{Street, Koti, Hyderabad, representedby its} Disciplinary Authority-cum-Assistant^{GeneralManager-}

¶12

2 Central Bank of lndia,^{Hyderabad ZonalOffice' Koti, Hyderabad, represented} by Appellate Authority /^{Deputy GeneralManager.}

¶13

Central Bank of lndia,^{Link House, 3, Bahadur Shah, ZafarMarg' New Delhi -}

¶14

110 OO2, represented by^{its Reviewing Authority/ General Manager'}

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition Under Article 226 of^{lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filed the.rewith, the High court may be} pleased to issue an order, direction or writ^{more particularlyone in the nature of} writ of lVandamus or any^{other appropriatewrit (i) declarethe ProceedingsNo.} ZO-HRD-DAD-2008-09-lsl6,Dated2T.g.2OOSinimposingthepunishmentof dismissal from service by the^{Disciplinary Authority as confirmedby the Appellate} Authority vide Proceedings^{No. ZO-HRD-DAD-2007-08-3012,dated30.1.2009} and Review Authority^{Proceedings No.ZOIHRD/DAD-RA/09-10/437,Dated} 15.7.2OOg are illegal, arbitrary^{and in violationof principlesof natural justice and} consequently set aside the^{same with a further directionto the Respondentsto} reinstate the Petitioner into service^{with all consequentialbenefits including the} arrears of salary.

¶17

¶18

l.A.NO:1 oF^{2013WPMP. NO:} 39024 OF 2013

¶19

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit^filed in srpport of the petition, the High court may be pleased to take up out of turn final hr:aring of the writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CH. SRINIVAS

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents : SRI CH.SIVA REDDy

¶22

The Court made the following ORDER

¶23

HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICENAGESH BHEEMAPAKA}

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO .^{1a560 0F 2()09}

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

'lhe prcsent Writ Petition is filed challenging the procecciings of thc^{1.'t responde nt in imposing the punishment} ol tlismissai^{s'hicl-ris a disqualificationlor luture etnplol'ment} uicle orclt:r^{datcd 27 -O9.2OO8; order of the Appellatc Authority} datod 10.0L2o09^{ancl order of the ReviewAuthoritvdatcd} 15.o7.2O09 corrfirming^{thcpunishmentoIdismissailrom} scr-vit t:^{r.r:s illcgzrland arbiLraryancl for consequentialrelicfs'}

¶27

'2. The case of^{petitioneris that he joinr:d the Cenlral} Bzrnk ol lnclii,r^{as AgriculturalAssistant on O7-O8-1978arLrclwas} prom(ltc(l Ltp to^{the rank of Manager on 3 1-03-2002and u'orkecl} as sttch at^{Visakhapatnam Branch While he was workingat} I-[ubii Rranch,^{the Assistant General Manager/ Disciplinary} Arrrlioritr^{r.,iclei\4emo dated 28 12 2006 called Llpon petitioncrtcr} explerin u hv^{disciplinary action shouldno[ be takenalleging} thrcc :rcts o[^{misconcluctviz-, one Sri Narasiml-ra'Proprietor'} Dolphin Chemicals,^{Visakl'rapatnam sought for cnhant'ement'in} limits:rncl that^{petitioner hacl made him to believe thelthe u'as} looking after^{r:rcdit portfolio atthe branchand clemanded} lrrvnurs from^{the saicl party such asdrinks and illcgal} gtrlificittLot't; thatt^{cven afler transfer, he used to telcphonethc}

+:l

said llcrson, d:rnanding^{motrer' :tncl threateninghim;ancl thzri} petitioner $'as ontrLtstccl^{rr'ith tire} -iob^{oI ret:oven.oi b:rcl and} doubtful ass.ctl.r. hot'evcr,^{llc dicl nclt perform his dutieszrs} expected of 1'rim and^{inclr-tlgccl irlaclivities u'hicl'r arc} unbecoming o1 a bank^{olliccr. Petitionersubmittcdexplanation} dated 09-O'.a .OO7 denving^{thcallegations, hou'cver,the} Disciplinary^Aut horitl'/^{Assistarr t (ienc r:rl Manager of I-{yderabad} Zonal Office, is-.ued him^{a Mr:mortrndum of Chargc Shect dated} O1-11 2OO7 anC askcd to^{submit u'rittcn statement ofhis} del-encc lvith irr 7 d:r-r's ol^{rcce ipt. [t u':rs arlsoallegcd that the} Articles of t:harges u'ould^{constitute misconduct under} Regulation 3 (1) rc:id uith^{Regulation 24 ol the CentralBank of} India Officer Enrplovees^{(Condr-rct)Regulations,1976. Petitioner} is stated to ha','c madc reprcsctrtation^{datcdO9- 11 2OO7to give} him a reasot-tzrblc opporturtitr itnrl^{Limcup to 26.012-2007 fot} submission^-r[ iefense statcmerlt:rfter^{verificationof thc records} and also r:or testcd to^{pcrmil him go VisakhapaLnamfor} verification oI docutncnts. BLlt thc^{Disciplinar-vAuthoritl'} appointed anrl directcd^{Prescnting Officerto present Bank's} case and lnrlurring Autl'rorit-r' to^{inqulreinto the chargesalleged} agerinst hrm. l'hen,^{pe[itionerfiled Writ PctitionNo 25177 ol} 2O07, rvherein stzl' of clepartmcntal^{enquiry u'as granted} Therctrfter, pr:Iitioner submittcd cxplanatiorl^{aftcr furnishing}

{

documcnts ref'errc'cl to in Annexure-lll. 'lhereafter. u,hen it v,,as reported rhar peri[ione r submitted explanation on OB 0l 2O0g, the Writ Petrrion rvas dismissed as infructuous. F.urLher, the lnquiring Authoritv u'ithout follorving due procedure ancl without furnishing relc',.ant documents, conducted enquilv in violation of principles of natural justice and submitted report dated 06 09 200i3 holcling charge No. 1 as proved ancl Charge No. 2 p:irtlr pro,.'c:cl. On I 1-9 2OO8, petitioner made dctailcd re quisition clatecl 17 09-2008 to furnish the documents, which lvcre not lurnisht'cl to me on carlier occasion and not to take any dccisurn [;asccl on the report. When, without furnishing thc documents, llesporrdcnls are preparing to pass the final orders, petitioncr filed Writ Petition No. 20498 of 2OOg, wherein interim ordcr d:r ted 2'2 09 -2OOa was passed to consider the reprcsentrltlon clated 26 08 2008 and pass appropriate orders. In terms ttrercof, bzrnk flurnishcd copies of documents rvhich were rcceir.cd b_r. petitioner on 3O-09 2008; even prior thereto, Disciplin:r11 Ar-r rhoritl. issucrl proceedings dated 27 -Og-2OOg imposing the punishment of clismissal lrom service. Aggrieved by the same, pctitioncr lited Writ petition No. 24420 oI 2OOg and obt:rinecl interim suspension by order dated 07- I 1 2008. Thereafter, on the premise that petitioner preferred an Appe:rl to Lhc Appellzrte Authority, the said Writ petition i.r,a s

clisposed^{o[ lrv orcler datecl O2 12 2008 clircctingthe Appellate} Authoritv^{to di;pose ol thc Appe:'r1}

¶40

2.1. Tht: Appellate^{Aurhoritvbr- orclcr datcrl30 01 2009} dismissecl^{thtr Appealchallenging u'hich' [lcvierv[)etition u'as} tzrken^{oul arL'l the said Petition uas erlso clismisseclandthe} same^{wits c:o;.llmunicated to petitione rutd'e lctter clated 29-07 -} )UOa. Hlll, (. rhc^{Writ Pctititrtl'}

¶41

3 \'hilc making^{theabovc subtnisstons'} Iearned counsel^{fc'r petitioncrSri Cfr' Srinivas h:rd relied onthe} lollowing^judSlments:

¶42

a. Roop^{Singh Negi rt' PunjabNationolna1}-- lCiult Appedl} No.'7 4³¹ /^{2 oo 8, sr'ptci tTizg / 2 o o 7 date d 7 9' 1 2' 2 o o I}

¶43

b. Sau;ci^{Singh u' stcLtt if'nic,"than[1986 ScR(z) 954} c. stcrte^{of uttdrp-:rra,zJ|-"'"i"na'in"aff ft1982)2 scc}

¶44

u.?::!""Airtines?.Y;P,ffi 7ffi 'r',?;*y"i:"1ilff1, e. Central^{Bonkof lndit} ,. ?ff"flJ:rtLmar^{Kindra u' Dethi Admi,.istr,.tion[leal} scR^{(1) 866l}

¶45

¶46

I l,earnecl^{SlanclingCottnsel lor the barlk Sri Ch Siva} Reddy,^{bas;:cl on thc coul.rtcr mzrkessubmissionsthat zrfter} ol :rpPe:rring^{bclore theEnqutry} rece iving^{rl otice,instead} thc lct ter^{clated09 l l '2OO7seeking} authoritY,^{pctitioner gave} time Llp^{t<t 26 11-20O7 lor gil'ing hisu'rittcn subrnissions of} dclcnse^{,r'ith intention to del:rv cnquiry procccdings} Wh<:n^Lhe

Enquiry officer ardjourned thc cncluiry from 20. | | .2OO7 to Ol.l2.2OO7, he hlecl Writ Petition No.25I77 of 2OO7,^pursuant to the interim direcrion thcrcit-t, respondent bank^{provided all} the documcnts rn'h icir the pctitioner- has sought^for as^{per the} letter dated 19.12.'2OO7 . Sincc the interim orders werc compliecl with, the Writ Petition n'zrs dismissed as infructuous on 02.O4.2OOa. According to lcarned counscl, the said^{Writ Petition} w.as filed r'r'ith an inlctt[ion to clela,y thc enquiry^proceedings evcn though there '"r'as no pt-zrcLice ol^giving the documents before proceeding for thc cnquiry but only the list of^documents and ',,r'itnesses is provided and opportutnity^{u'ould be givcnto} delinquent emplol ee at the timc of enquiry to^{verify thc} documents r,"'hich are lilcd by the^{management to prepare with} his delense in thc enqr,riry proccedings. Furlher, it^{is submittcd} that during the enquir-r,' proceedings, the^{petitioner was given} ample opportunitl,' to cross examinc the^{witnessesproducedby} the bank, to enE{age dclcnse reprcsentative^{and he rn'as allou'ed} to examine his ou'n r,r'il nesscs and to file the^documcntson which hc u'as relying for his det-ense . Pelitioner^{utilizeda1l the} opporLunitics and aftcr complction of enquiry,^{the Enquiry} Officer submitted his report/findings^{dated 06'09 2OOa holding} that charge^No- I is^provecl ancl c}'rargc^{No.2 is partlyproved-} Petitioner, insteacl oI submitting^{r'vritten submissions,mzrde} /l

EF!

allcgations aqirit'rst bank^{and rcclueslcd thc t'rtattirgcnlenLto} providc so rlanv documents^{as per the list givcll bv himuide} letter dated 17.09.2008^{u'hich have norclervitncv lnLhe} mr:anLirne, pr:ttt ioner^{hled Writ PcLition No- 20'198 ol )OO8Lo sct} aside Lhe enqLIrry report^{ancl this Courtclirc:ctec1rcspondent} bank to cotrsirler the^{Appliczrtior',of Ii'lc pctili'rncr dated} 26.O8.2008 il:cl under the^{Rightto InlormaLionAt't andpass} appropriate oi-ders. Pursuant^{to the said ordcrdatcd} '22.Og.2OO8, bar-rk passed order dated 2'/.O().21)t\t\ irrlorming that the infortrration^{sought for u'as exempteclfroln clisclosure} uncler Sectio;t 8. As there^{u'as t-lo st.t-' inrespectof} rtcpartmental rroceedings, the^{Disciplinary Atltllor-irv passccl} orcler dated 2l -Og.2OO8^{imposing the punishmer-rtol dismissal} from sen'ice.^'lhe Appeal^{prcferreclthercitgairlstu as disrnisscd} on 3O.O 1.2O0!) and the^{Revien' Pctitiol'rlrdr: or-clers dated} 2L).O7 .2009^.

¶60

While making the above subuissiotts,^lc-arned Star-rding Couttsel relied^{on the follou'ing judgmellts:}

¶61

a. union of India u. So,rdor^Bahadur [(1972)^{2 SCR} 2181 b. Ilnion of India u. Parma^Nanda [(1989)^{2 SCC 177]} c. Ilnion o;f India u. Vishuta^Mohan [(1998)^{4 SCC31O]} d,. Chairrrtan & Managing Director,^United Cornrnercial Bank u. P.C. Kakkar [(2OO3)^4SCC s64)i

¶62

e. ?TVCS^{CorpnLtd u' K' Meerabaai{(2oo6)2 SCC 2551} f. The Indiin^{Oil Corporationu' AjitKumarSingh} [2023^{LtveLaw (sQ a78]}

¶63

On perusal^{of the matcrial on recordand on} consiclering^{the argumcnts of learncclcoltnstl' this Court feels it} imperative^{to see the observations ol thc Disciplinary Authority'} Appellate Authoritl'^{and Revier'r'A t rthtlritl'n'hile passingLire} orders against Petitioner'

¶64

¶65

7 . The Disciplinary^{Auttrorit-r'in itsorder datcd} 27 .Og.2OOa^{gavelindingswhich are cxtr:rctedhereunde r:}

¶66

' After carcful^{exalninationofthe evidencc I observe the} follor'ving: Examinatlon^{of the When tht:re is aComplaint regarding} dcmand of^{rllegatgratificationatrcl other {ar'oltrs't1"e Cvitienr:er'vouldbc the} ..irar",",.".""^{rincllxamin,tionancl r:ross cornplainant and otherrvitnesses,} ii-""u, *n"^{havethcknouledgc-l,therctbrc' dist:uss thc circutnstances} appearing^{in the mattcr and lhe e'"'idcnt'c '} MEX'1 shorls^{th" ltttl ollrrlstration thc ChielManager of} Visakhapatnam^{Branch had, rvhcnl.re rccornmctr<led[or transfer of the CSO} f."- tn" Branch^{without asking tbr asubstituteln-norlnalcollrscno} e.u.r.r-, l.l".rug.r^{woukl likc to loie a Managerfor nothing. MDX 5 narrates} ther,voesoftheChiefManagcroftheBrarrch..lhisExhibitdepictstheCSO's conduct in a^{very poo. ligt tMEX 2 isthc t'omp-laintlodged by Shri} C.NarasimhaRao,ProprietorofM/sDolphinChemtcal's[MW-2].Heinforms ;-;;;;G;; things that^{the cSo beha'eil like mentalcloli andshouts openl]} rr.ho came across.hitn^{tIc furtherstated} that he took^bribestrom ""tt-t'l'ott'' that he could^{notexpect suchofficer in th<' L]ank' AlthoughLhesecommcnts} are very harsh^{in nature,no custornerltould lnakcsuchcommer-rtsagainsta} Manager ol thc^{Bank.,,ltt""ht lras aufullr harassetl' In-hisorvn wordsvide} DEX-9 the CSO^{comptainedagainstShii Mohantr' Chiel Manager' Shri} Ramakrishna,^{lnquiring Author"itr, witnessesNarneclin thc Charge Sheet} an<1 finally the^{DisclphnaryAuttioriti lrimst:lt:DDX 50 is the legalnoLicc} *""J tri'rfr" CSO t;^{the DisciplrrratqAuthori[' tbr ti]e charges attegc<1ty} tJrlf "^g.,.^{DEX-5 1 is anottrerlegal ioti<'c issuetl b1 theCSO to Regional} *f'"t-"g.T-["ofi^{tor declining leai'e-D!]X56 isanother letter toZonal} 'r"iI""E".' f-the CSO, tul'erein^{lte lcveled atlcgationsagainst manyof the} staff of the^{Branch whose names \:cre mentionr:d as \itncsses DEX57 is a} "i-ifui^{.o-pfumtsentb!'the CSOlo the CMD ei1111 pank'l'heDefence} Exhibits are [utl^{of such compiaintsagainst one or lhc other emanatcd fiom} the CSO. These^{exhibrts rvould gcneralir.s1o\'the CSO's cornplainingnature'} his prejudicc against^{most orii"toticng"ts and his anguish against the} #-t;i;;,; F".r.tl .o-pttti''tt^{is reccivcdan]' ofticer rvill gct dejccted The} CSO is no^{cxception. Ho$cversuch incidcnts} 'lo^{ilct as an acid tesl for a}

-^x1.l

nfrrson as horr^{ltr:,.roulcl react. At timcs the tiue personalit-r \r'oLtldcomeotlt} l; ,* ;;,';i '.,,.h^{,.' Idents Thc \'av the CSo reactcd atrrph pr-or e liis} oitra.,. i."-,,,rrra,^{itr',1 p,lrsonalitr'- The complainatrts ilarsh corlllllclll thatlll(l} i:so rr.nr,u"a^{li((mc.taI clogdocs nor appc.lrrc] lre_ c::a !1g,rr.rtcrl'Ihc} i,,-pf or.r-r.",^{rrr(lsl h:rve e*peiie nr:r:cl the mavcricksoft lrt: CSO t'rilis} astonishmeDt.^{A custolnerrs thc source ofbusiness for aBirnk'Ila} aa^tpart"irfa^{,rffi,t,,-ir', the rank of Manager bchaves in a rvara Rankcr ts ltol} ;.,;;;J Lo beh:L"e^{\'ith a customer'the customeruoulti} '"'cl^{shock o[ l.tis} lrfc,. ln thc^{dar s tlf ser.creand CLttthroatComfetition in tht' llr.tsttrr.,ss'ttct} ,iii....-,,i,, Ilaik can afford^{tobehave arrogantll} "\rlh^{allirlporl'rlll} cllstomcr.^{'l hal s rlte reason $hv the customertinalllsai<lill'tL hc ('()lll([rlol} "tir".l "".f, oe rsonalitr -^{oilir:r ilthe BaniAll thcse factsgive a piclrrr' ol Lhc CSt)s}

¶71

Ins;ofartheevirlenceisconcerned'thel'Ollasptodrtccrilllt: rlor:utlrcnts iis:crI^{n thc ChargcSheetand cxamincdt[-]er'itrlcsses rvltorl ht'} ii ,,,,ght ,t'ouLa^{Le sttfficienitosubslantiatcthe charg('' 'llrerrlatc!'ial} ,. *,'tJraa" t.e^{tfrlcotnpialnantand the ChiefManagercrrttcet netlIlrlvt:} Llepr)sed in lhi^{{-l (lulr\ ln supPort of thccharge}

¶72

M\ I ie the^{Chief Managcrin charge ol theBrarrch clttr ilgthc} re levant timc^{ccltoscdthat he observedthe cSObcing at gtrnenL:tlrr c} corn^{plainit-rqniltr-lr-c.nol punctual and not sincereirt clischargirlqh1s allottc([} ,tl.til, U. iLrrt.trir^{said thal in sPite of his advice' thi' CSo hitcl trol thattqetl} Itrs altitude^{:rnrl l-Le rvas insistinghim to ptlt him inclrc(li1 l)('l)arlrnent} insteacl ol Ilecor^{r'tr l)epartmentHerethe circumstan(lespoitll Lcl tlrcc'trittqt:} :t.tr" CSO cornnr i ecl certain irregularittes tn his prcvious asstqrlnlt:111^ot Bra,,cl.. Ma,'a3.,'^{ill ttk\ a] Branch,Hervas artarcled a nra!or llcrr:ritr lil.thoSC} lapses, $,hi(rll^{i'i(licate certainmalfidesas can be seen (r-orrr iVItlX 7'tltr} rcceivcd the^{or(l,rrs o[ thc pena]tY on l2 6 20O6'lhe Clriel \lattit3cr r'- f Lhtr} Rranch \.rs on^{icave rrpto14 62005 as stated b\the (lS() hrrIl s' liOrr} i5.(r.2006 thc^{CllO along rvithother two officcrsinciudingortc of htsI)elcnr:t-} witnesscs. srlb,rlitted^{a representationclated15 6.2006 ulrerctrrlhe CISO} r,:presented for [x]sting^{in Credit Department MW-1 slatc(l thal ltre CS()\as} ;;:l*"; lo, 1,o.i i,',g iri^{credit Depar:trnent ThecSo rlas onl'r rrairing lirr lhe:} be a,,:rrded fbr^{hrs cliim ol postingin thc Credit i)ep'irtmcrrtlrl} ;;;;;iii" i i. ..p..""ll,n r',rr^{he clitinot indicatc anY intcntionof lc:trnLng} 'redrt^l)ut .irr-.t'J .-pa.i"tr':c^{as AFOand Branch Manager'Nortnallr ilrl ol-[c(rIl]itl} o,l.,li ."qr.",^{tlie Branr:hIn charge for postingin a departtncrrt fur ''r',r'sLrr''} in rtr" ir,"torr,^{czrsethe CSo not o=nlysubmrtted a \lrittelr r'(il)rt-scllrirli()nl)llt} :rlso rlsiste(l fo]^{suchpostingTheseacts on the part of the (lS()in(li( i1l( llrs} lntentions olllet^{than acadenlrcals'} l'rr'.her thc CSO^{resortedto muclslinginsagarnsl tllc ( hlef} N4anager. No^{cli ttbt the Defcncecan impeacha witness' if his .reclenrials} ....., frr"r,i,r,t,,,lc.^{In the instant case the CSOhasgorteb<'rrrt-tcl t-tlasottablc} Iimits;n rrnp:a:lLil]g^{the MW- 1. MW1 in factstated in lvll'lX5 thar llre CSo} intended to^{l-rr,.rLrrNtercun'Travelsin respectrlf thcir comlltonliscProposal'} For this tht' CliO^{has biarned the MW 1 as if MW Ii'rnt( d lo iitvoLrr thc} [)orro\'cr an( h(^{prevcnted the same' Be it as lt mav' the CS()lnsistc(lirl tire} en(l\lin thar lh(^{clocllmentsln the said a/c u'erc delivercrllo th'r Llorro$ers} rrde EiP 124. liinalll^{it turnedout that the documents$erc irr tact rrith thr:} Ilranch vide IIPP^{l32This shou's the CSOresortetl to rntL(lslinging againsl} MW- 1. Finallr' ' le^CSO, "r'hilc^{trying to $'riggle out of the rness hc crcrttetllot} hirn, statcd thilf^{srnce the a/c MeriuryTrar"els rvas not-a subjccl oi Ciharge} Shcct, he need Irot^{!erif]'and ensureilhetherthe trtle(iceds $cre clclir.ercd} ot- not arrrl htlrlt:r:^{pleasc treatthat there u'asno claimfrortrI)cletict:sicieftrr-}

¶73

¶74

¶75

verification oI EM Rcgister anrl title deeds oI Mercurr^'l-rave]s IEPP 160] Thus his complaint against MW I is found baseless antl intended to malign him.

¶76

Coming to the evidence I obsen'c thiil the t:omplaint rvas a genuine one in as rrruch as the complainant al)l)eared before the lnqurnng Authoritv and deposed in support of the coLnpli,illt. unl-\ controvers-' is aboul [he introduction ol the CSO bv the stiiff member ol Gandhigram Llranch- The CSO questlons non productiorr ul SIrri V.Kishtrn, IJranch Manager, Gandhigram and Shri K.Ramesh Babu The CSO rn fact lried to produce Shri Ramesh Babu, in vain. From the contents of ttrc^(:omplaint and 'the circumstances it is evident [haI the cornP]itin:int mcL the CSO and got introduced to him- It is strictl-' not ncccssar-' to prove aI (hose lnstance the complainant met the CSO. Further the MW 2 tras dcposed on the complaint zrnd coulcl not inform the dates on rvhich the CSO <lt:rnanded favours and the date on rvhich^q,hisky bottles rvcrc supphcd an(l the brands of the u'hiskv etc. The CSO writes lhat if he did nol rerncmbcr the^(l.ites. he should have inlormeri the months as he in[ormed aboLrt his nrccting tith CSO in a given monlh.'I'hc CSO asked MW-2 specificall-r' r1o rott rcnleinl)er the date or month of your approaching rne?' Wrlncss rcplicd th.rt he cticl nor remember thc exact date or month and it might bc December 2005. Whereas in respect of othcr questions the CSO asked the witness lor cxacl clates, lor example, in EPP 179 he asked the Witness,^' do you remcmt)cr ttrc datc !ou had supplied t'vo costlv rvhisky bottlcs to Mr. Raghu Prasad? The Witness r-r:plicd that he did not rememt)er thc dates. Had the CSO askcd him lbr^(l:rt('or rnonthperhaps the Witness would have recalled th(' rnolrttr as it happened in respect of the question mentioned above. It rs not J)rol)er on Lhc part of the CSO nou to s.rv that the Witness shoulcl have lol(l thc rnorrllr il he did not remember the exact datc. Thc ven questioLr ptLr to him uas^rvl.rether he remembered the date. Ilence I do nol find anl cleficiencr in the^(iepositlon of Mw 2. I find from the examination of MW 2 that &lw 2 trad told onh'truth and he intended to complain against onl,'after o-rttclt ]ril.ilssment he suffercd at thc hands of the CSO. In normal course hc u oulcl haNe reportecl to Central Bureau of Investigation to get the CSO trappe<1. ln lacl CSO^questioned the Complainant's action of giving complaint to the Bank instead of approaching Police or CBI. But due to tht: sheer luck o[ tlre CSO, th(' l).rrtgave a complaint to the Bank instead oI approaching the C]RI I firr(l Lhc evidence adequate to substantiate the charge.

¶77

As regards the own deposition ol the CSo as L)efent:e wilncss, the IA has dealt with the matter elaboratel].in his [ioclings. Thc lA concludes that the CSO was intentionally tclling lics ancl rnisleading ancl as such^he held that the self witness ofCSO u,as lacking arrr crcrlibilitl I11 the absencc ol corroboratrve, cohesive and independent sul)porti\e eviclcnces. I also^find the deposition of thc CSO as a cocktail o[ half tnLths ancl lies. I loo find^hrs deposition lacking any credibilit-v in thc lacc of glaring Iies as narrated bv the tA in his findings.

¶78

Further the CSO sought umpteen nulnber of rlocuments during the course of the enquiry and even after it conclusion pttrportediv^to prove that he $'as not associated lvith the sanction o[ limits lo M/s Doiphin Chemicals. He dicl not ascertain the same frorn his \ ilncss(ls or^{utren he} cxamined himself. Thus he intended to call [or severa] scores of^docLrrrrcnts only !,i1h an intention to^prolong the enquirr. If his intentions^{(('ere genLlrne} he u,ould have sought the information from his lr'irnesses or^{soughttl fe[r} relevant documents.

¶79

To recapitulate the above I find^tlr:1t the^{past rccorclo[ thc} CSO rs not etrcouraging: the ME 7 sho\'s trc dId^{not coll(iri.I hirisell propcrhr}

rn respect ol loarr portfolio. IIe u,as ar'r'arded a major penalt\ lor his lapses His cagerness to rlrab the loan portlblio rn Visakhapatnam Rrrinch has corre oLrt vlvrdl'rn th( elidence- llis in\ oi\€mcnt in loans at the Branch one uar or the other has aiso l)een brought out in the enquirv Thc Cl()mplaiuarLs allcllations agilin,jt him \'crc rcilcralcd in the enquin; t)Ltl could rlof bc rei)uttc(l b] tilc :'SO elTir:aciousl-r. The complainant \r'as har.tssed b\ tlic CSO lor itleeal grirtrfica.tiou and gifts I clo not have an,!' hesitietion in holcling that the compla nl is rrue and l-ontents are genuine. l,urrher the nafu.e. clraracter ilnd corlduct ol the CSO are clear from the evidence clcpir:Li g hinL Lrs ilftogaot arrd,lishoLrest, thus leading to believe that tlrc^({)]rt(nts o[ l[)(' <:or[prlainLs iMI.] I arrd aJ) iire true.

¶86

'lircrcforc I agrlt .r itlr ttrr: finding o[ the lA and hold the chargc as proreci CI IAT{GE 2:

¶87

SIL; R:rghu Prasacl rvirs assigncd thc dLLti('rj rn Recoven l)epi]rtment al \l i:l.rkhapalnam Branch Horvever, he did rx,t perlbrrn hrs duties as exp--ctt'cl oI him; insteacl indulged in acti,ities rr,hir:h tr:rc unbecorning of a llank officer- such as frequent complaints :igair-rsr other staff rttcrtrbcrs. cluar rc ling $ rth olher sla[f members, blaming thc Barrk arrcl its Fl,('u llycs^{(itc '}

¶88

'['l-r' [irst part of the charge that Shri RaghLt Prasilc] rtas assigned thc duti:s in Rcco.cr] Dcparlment at Visakhapatnarn Branch a|lcl that hc di(l not l)'rlorn his duties as expected olhim has bc,:n hr'ld as not I)r.j\ed^{b\the II.AllhoLi!:tithcre is ampleevidenceto hold flre chargezLs} prorecl. I rio n,rt r',ish to dif{er rvith lhe IA at this juncturc. I'irt.rcforc I sllrlr rlisr:irssions ol rh: --r'icience pert.lining to this part of the chargc

¶89

PC) l)roduced MEX-3 to 5 and 7 and quoted from DEX.+.1. +.+. -5.1 and 4. He €x.i,uined MW 1.3 and 4. PO argues that thc exhibrts anrl hall the r:nclrrin procer'dings spcak about various complaints ma([c b-'rhc CSo irgainst variou:r c{ cuti\cs ancl staff members.

¶90

(lS;,.) --xaotined .1 'ilr]csscs ir.r his support. He a rgltes thrrt lris \itnesses have gr|r:n hirl clean chit; whereas he impeached 2 uiLnesses lr()tri Mitnagement, $'i o deposed against hrm. The CSO orearrs Lhat thcrr rleposition is not r:liable. ln this connection the CSO asked MW 3, rlo rou remember that I lraye rcfcrred Lo Mr. Mohant)'in your presencc aborrt IoLtr' p|c|iotrs unber:orrr:rrg ac1()n that -vou have broken the gltrss on the talile ollhe then Regional \4allagcr of H_r,dcrabad, Shri Ramachandrat-. clrrrine rrru,:rrr ilgrlation?^{'lh(qLri]stion} \'as not allorved b1' the lA on thr: otr-;r:r:tion ol l)O. Ilouever firsl ieiI]i,rins that thc CSO has impcachcd thc \iltness \trhoLli asking him as 1o its correctness or lvhether any punishmenL $ as arr ardecl Llr hirn lbr tbe all,:gr:J rniscoDduct. The question itself begins rvith the lhct tlrirt the CISO tolrl tri:, Chief l.Ianager about the alleged incident Orrl-r il the itll(fgirtion u trs pr c,r'ecl and punishment a\,arded against I,1W al, the^(lSO .oukl hare lrroLr6',Jrt it in thc enquir],to impeach thc witncss. Irr Ltrc alrserce ol sttch inlorrnat o'r ttIC qucstion is intended to intimidate the \itness lu.i similar manner-]l(i states that of late he came to kno\,that Managenrent h;rs tal(en strirgenL^..r( tion against Mr. Arjun Kumar {MW 4] for his irrequliLr aci(ances i,r Ar-rtr,irLpallr Branch. This comment is rnadc behincl llte bitck ol' M\r^.1 and therefor-c calllnot I)e taken into account.

¶91

"'ur^{ther the CSO resorted} to mudslinging againsL the ['O^:Llso. In his []riei-hc st,rtcs that it \.as egoistic tcndency of PO, Mr. R:rrnri Rao uirc, has not donc ar-r,[hrnE! in Mandapeta Branch asBranch Matraglcr lras aulomaticall,v rlt:rr:-olred.Jealousy agarnst the CSO on sceing his contril)Lrtir)n in Visakhapatrari }Jranch in reduction of NPA and in such a \'a\ rnaintainc(t tht rcco:-cls. It is asLonisitirlEl to notc thc rcmarks nrarlc br tlr( CSO \itltoLLt

¶92

¶93

.i^_

¶94

an-\r basis ancl^{Nithout producing anl/ ef idcnce and in thc mi)s[ irt csJ)onsitJlt]} and irrclevant manner'^{This ii aglaringexamplcol irou lrc cor)ducLed} himscll in rhe Rank,^{althoughhe is the Managerin ivliclclie Nlanagcment} Grade.llctrasdeclaredthechargeasnotproved\it[]otlttlrl\proper evidence in his support.^{The Witnessesexamincd by him on his Lrehalflack} credibilitl' as^{thei;replies incross-examination rvere cvasl!eandnot} appropriatr.

¶95

The LA, in his hndrngs,^{observesthat in pagcNo' lQ of DLIX} '1' Page No.2 ot^{DEX 9, PagcNo 2 of DEX-'I1,Page No''+of DFIX 5';CSO had} atlegerl that in the^{accountM/s. Mercury TravelsCSO hitcl prcparcd a} ao-pao-i"a^{proposal& adviscd C.Mto recover notionalamoullt} 'lue^o[ Rs.85, O0O/- as the^{account ivas coveredb-'coltateral scctttil-rof Rs I0 00} lakhs, but C.M.^{(Mr. P K. Mohanty')had recoveredjusl Rs 55 O00'/ onl'r &} dclivererl thc titlc^{deeds.FurtherinEPP124'CSO himsell harl dernantlctl} supply of Propert!'^{Documer-rts of M/s. Mercury Travt:lsantl ENI rcgist(]r of} ll/'"'. luf"aa".i'fravels^{to shorv that the documenLs u'cre dciirerccl:In E['['-} tJ2 Olli.irti,rg Custodian,^{VisakhapatnamBranch had c:on[itmetl that} Original propcrtl^{documents, whichwere equitabl]mortgage(lLo strctlrc the} l..iir f..ili,i^{granted to M/sMercury Travelsarc availabh rliltr tlle brairch} without beinf deli'ered^{toanyone"On the oflerofPO fr'rirrr'trlgirrEl} verilication oithese^{documents in EPP t60 rvithrefcren(:c l.llrot ccditrgsirr} EPP 1'+O &' ttPP^{150, CSo had declined b1' sa-vingthat it \tts rrot rit'Ittero[} the Charge^{sheetto, ensureas to whetherthe title deeds are(lcli!orccl or nol.} tA has hJld the sub^{charge thatCSO had the habit oI blarninge{(]( Lttr!'cs as} conclusivell^{"PROVED",that too a false complaint wtrhoLlt airl sLrf)slarrce} Further [A observes^{by relerringto DEX '+' t)i]X 3L)EX 9'} DFlx^.l3, DEX^{44,DEX54, DEX55, DEX56, DEX57' CISO had made&} ..p.",J unrvarranteri^{allegations againstthe s[a[[ mcmbcrsn:rmelr (i) Mr'} C.'^g. Itau.,", former^{ChieiManaget,(ii) Mr' MSreeRamlorrrrer Chicl} Morrog.. (iii) Mr.^{P.K. Mohanty,lormer Chief Mlrrr.asc1. (N)) vlR' CISSSU} Bhastlara Rao, Senior^{Manager(v) Mr' G Varada Raiu'N4auarget(\ i) Mr.D} N. A.;,.,,, Kumar,^{Asst. Manager, (vii), Smt K' UmaJanilki'C'l'O (\iii) Mr} MSR Prasada^{Rao, CTO (ix) Mr-. V S Murty, CTO(x) Srnt. G S:rtad:r' Clt'rk (riJ} S V Subramanyam,^Clerk.

¶96

ln EPP-211-215,^{CSOhad contendcdthat \'hiltercrthe} cornplaints^{he made should not be treated as malafide a(ilron} 'rrlcl^shouldbe treaiecl as bonatlde^{actionsonly,all hisactionsof bringiugLlre actiollsol} staff is nothilrg^{but his bonahde actionlA has hcldthl'srrt] cllalge ihat} CSO had the habit^{ofcomplaining agarnst other sta[[ irs c:onclusivel-r} "PROVDD". CSo had been alieged io bi quarrelling^{rithothcr stal'f} 'lnd Utaming Uunt. fhe^{depositiongi"ven by Mr' V S Murt''. CTO DW I in Et'P} 183 & I84 & Mr.^{..J V V Raju,6te.tin EPP 196 is of insigrrrlic:rrr1'illLre& do} ;;i ;.much weight to^{dispro"'e the charge' The.depositiortrtr EI'P 187€t'} iSS gir.,r b-,- Mr.^{Ll Janardhanam,tvtanagerTDW 2 rvho froltls llre prost ol} '.Joi,rI Sec.ciarr, Central Bank of India Ofiiccrs^{Associatiorr-{it(las} pr. Oef lSZ is lackrng^{credibilitysince he harJ, gtren evasivt:ttlriotivalcd} rcphes to PO's Crosslcxaminati'on^such .as.^{Idon r t:ti'"ll'b"f} ::-.fll: questrons of^'Do -vou remember^{that youhad givena joillt rcpres(ll)Lallon} along u,ith CSO^{and other Officer to ChiefManager-'Visakhallarn;rmfor} rotation of scats/^{departments" & 'Had you belongto Lhe sirrire u Lriotrr"ttich} itr" cso^.r,o" ,. -.rnb"a^{of that union duringtllepcrLorl-r'o r.i [r:rr c cieposcrl} Chiet Manager^{of Visakhapatnam Branch i e MW I dciroscrl irr l'lPP1-+7 that} he nad actv[ed cso^{oralty with regardto blamrng_tlrc'bank. stafl-&officrals.} MW'3 Mr SV Subramanlam.^{Clerk in EPP 120' 15 t &i 52 ha(l (l( posed that}

.- :" l

CSO $'as ol corrprlainirrg nature & CISO had commcnted that manl^tlank officials ar c crn--rpt. MW 4 Mr. D. N. Arjun Kumar in EPP- 155 159^haci tft'posed clear l-\ that CSO is of complaintng nature & slLouting at rhe superiors. IA lroL,ls this sub chargc that CSO indutging in quat-relling uith other sta[[ arrri lrLirrniug bank , as^"PROVED" On the r.vhole hc has helcl ihe t:liar ge as partiall\ I)roved

¶103

l r,bsen'e that the CSO has bccn in tlrc habir oi blaming c-{c( uti.es. Banl. other- staff and thc lnquiring Ai.}thoritv hinrsell Initrallr itc blarned thirt rht lA is related to MW 2. After MW 2 denieci ant suclr relationshrp trr: [,^.rr: CSO] sai(l he requires at least one rveek pcriod on offir:ial drri\ to mak(, r:nrq rirics in Krishna District. lt is a vicious con;:laint agai:rsl lhe IA arld ,o.lr)siril-\ it trt: asked for a rvt--ek s limc at Bank s c\pcnse to rlrirke t:nquirics iri .r La,-l.i clistrict like Krishna District. Thc CSO, as it is clear [r()n.r rhe eviden(e, $o ri<l skrop do\rn to anl level in blaming otl.rers.^'lhe entire cvidence slro\ s the nature of the CSO being quarrelsome, arrogant and rrould stoop cLrrrn to anr lcvcl in blaminll othcrs brazenlJ.

¶104

I a3r'ee 11 ith thc findings of the IA and holci the chargc as

¶105

grror ccl.

¶106

¶107

Oonsicler-ing the gravil\ of thc charges I a$'ard the llelo!\ !re n! ione d Dcr irlli,'s. Charge 1: i)rlirriss.rl. s'hich shall ordinaril_r, bc a disqualilication lor futu.e enrplovrnent

¶108

Char gc 2: l)i:;missai, rr hich shal[ ordinaril_r, be a disqualifica tion for lLrtrrre e inplo\ me!r I I rrr iucl the corlsolidated penalry' as under'

¶109

l):r;rnrssal. rrhich shall ordinaril_y be a disclualificatiorl lor iutrlre eml)lo\ mr'rrr in terrls of Regulation 4 lll of the Central Bank of Intlia C)lticer Emplo-r r:es l)iscipline and Appeali Regulations, 1976".

¶110

A; againsl this order, though pe titioner filed Writ Petition No. .1,+420 of 2008, this Court^.by order dzrtcd 07 11 2008 llranted interim suspension. Therealter, on the pr-emise lh:r1 pctitioner prelerred an Appeal to the Appell:rte Authoritr,, tl'rt: Writ Petition was disposed of bl order dated 02- l2-2OOa directing the Appellatc Authonty to dispose of his Appcal. T[rc rlppcllatc Authoritl, uid.e order dated 30.01.2OO9 confirmed thr: ordcr of the Disciplinary Authority and thc relevant porli()n ol lhe same is extracted hereunder:

¶111

i i trre gor-re through the entire record of the departmental cnquirr helcl ,Lgirinst Shri S.Raghu Pr-asacl (hereinafter relerrcd ro as the Appellarrt I At tl c oLrtsel I observc 1.hat thc departfirenlal cnquirl uas

¶112

1.1

¶113

¶114

concluctcd strictlv^{in tcrms of the provisionso[ the Ccntra]Uanko[ lncliu} Ofn."i U,.pfov.es IDiscipline^{and Appeat] Regulations'197(rand [:rrt attcl} reasonable^{opportunit-r-was aftordedto the AppellantThe ApPellanthas} submitted his^{Appeat contatning 16 pagesrvith hcadir.rgssuchas Execrttive} Bricf, Factuat^{disc.cpa.tcies,legal discrepanciei;' proceduraldiscrepancit's} "t".^{i,.,i"',,,of variou-sallcgationsleveled by thc Appeltantin respcctof thc} conduct of the^{clepartmentalenquirlIneed to discuss tlre sam(]\'i1h} ..i..",,." to the^{recor-clsof the departmental enquirl'atlength beltrre I rlisctts} rhe cvidelca^{1';5 2-r'is thc charges'}

¶115

Al the outset I refer^{to the requestmacle ll-v thc Appellanr lor} a personal hcartng^{along u'ith his Advocate bcfore theundersignccliu regarcl} to his Appeat,^{victe his t'etter dated 29 72 2OO8 StLch personal hear-ing \.ith} it-r,, epp.fior'rt^{along n'ith his Advocateis notprovided for in Ihe CenlralIlank} .ri tnaio ol'ficer^{i']rnployees'} IDiscipline^{and Appeal] Regulations'1976} 1ro1 l-.,.tt,.i tfr.^{appeltarithas htia alelaborateappeal' 'lherctbrc I} 'rLn inclined to^{permit such personal hearingincontravenrion of thcszricl} llcguiations.

¶116

llcguiations. I obsenc that the^{Appellant has broughtout in lris Appt:'ala} numtret- of irrelevant^{ancl unconnlited issuesSomc of str<'1t issuesbeat} ,r,oii.. ugui,-t"^{sorne officers /employeesof the Bankt. shalI trrietlrclisct'tss} tri. ."r.r,.r.,t^{issucs raised so as to deal rvith the Appealdrspa ssiorrateh.} For the sake of brevity^{the lnquiring Authorit''thc ['rt:senting} Olficcr arrri thc^{l)isciptinarynuthoriiy are rcterrcd to as lhc IA' lhe irOan([}

¶117

t lre I)A

¶118

Ilntire enquiry^{proceedingsshould be treated as vttratcd srncc} the tA^(1id .or^{zrllo* his quesiionsrclating to MW-2 [Thc C.rnplainatrt] ;trrri} thal cornplainant^{relaLe.lto the IA' The Appellalltdra{:s ml'attentiont() th('} a"po"itio,, ol^{MW 2,rvho happenstobe the complainanlagainstthe} np'p.ttrrt. While^{thervitncssconhrmed the contents of the complaintdatc(l} t5:1-ZOflO lodged^{by him against the Appellantto the Bank inr:ross} examination^{the Appellantsolght to elicit ihe evidencesthe itncsshaditr} ,..g"..r to thc compiaint.^{PO objicted to the questionan'l the In sustairrr:tl tht'} ntl.atio,r. The crux^{of theissue as it appears,is that the Appcllantissttccl a} ,-,,r,i." ,o thc $itness^{(complainant) threateningcriminal case antl llle \itn'ss} r."i ni. reptl'^{to the Appellantwhercin he appears to have satdthitt tllti} cviclcnces that^{he had $'ouldbe prod'uced atappropriat(ltim('itnd} apf.opriate^{place when a need arose This issue is obviouslvoulsrdc tire} p'"i"i.' .f the cl'rarge^{sheet that was issuedto the Appellant blthc tsarrk lt} is thc issue^{bet^'eenthe complainant and the Appellant ancl obviottshrirt: 'J could not dircct^{the rvrtnessio reveal his strategiesin respect ol t6e ct-imitral} casc file<i by the Appellant^{against himFurther the.AppellantsoLtght,to} kno"r the cxact^{days ih.t,h. i.*"ndedbribe; when the dcmantleclrr hiskr} bottles; $'hcn thc^{\rhiskyt oiil." *tt"supplied etc Ther'vitness rc:Plierl rhat} hc coull .ot^{rememberthc exact dates. ieiurthersoughL to kno\r?ls 1o \ tro} i,.rp..t"d^{Lhe Llnit of the ooiitnessTheWitn€ss repliedthat ShnJolrrr} Thomas, Shri^{Ragh u Prasadand Shri Arjun, Kumar \asiledhis rLnit irc'forc} sitnctron ol limits.^{TheAppellantrepeatidlyalleged that the wirness\ irs} related to the tA^{The Witnesshas deposeain theexaminAlior.lin-clricf that} hc di(l not know^{the fa} ".ta^{fot th;first time he ivasseeinq himThc} opp"ii""i rr"" at^{one stage} [on^{9 7 2008 EPP84 and 85] tras goneon sa\ rns} that he rnust be^allorvedtu -"ftt^{enquitiesin Krishna t)istrictthrough his} uncle rvh, was the^{ao.r-.r-rt *1ii.i'inJaggaianpeta, Kris6nirt)istrict Ito} fiou,,^{Li"allegationthatthe lA is relatcclto the Complainantl}}

t-l

I,rL-,seuc thal thc Appellant^{\ias beatilrgaroun(l thc busll to} solne ho\r irring otr tecotrl tlrat the^{IA and the ComplainaLllrvere rclared} u.ithout har in11 a ttt evtdencc. Ilis^{inteotionsin thisrcgarclapPcar dishonesl.} lf his intcntio rs \(re honcst he^{n'ould have producedsomeproof of such} relatlonship or \o-tld^{iraveaske<lthe complainant in ltis crnssexamirlation'} t further obse.,(: ttlitt thc tA^{hasnot allowedonlv lrrclevant qucstionsand} allorvecl all rel(^{ i! rL^{qllestrons. [{ent:c the n ppcliaqt s all('gatiorrsatt-'base]css'} Charges ar( \ aLql^r,i'}

¶123

The i'harges arc ciear and noL^{'.1gueas :Lllegedb5' the} A1)pellant. In l(isl),rct of tlrc llrst^{chargeit \'as madeclcat irr llre AnnexureII} th.1t Shri N-ar:r1s IrLhil^Rao. Proprietor,^{DolphinChcmicalsgavc a complaint} \'rth certain allcllrllrorrs arld as the^general conduct^{oI the Appcllant glvcs} crerlcnce lo^ruc tr complaints^{itwas decidedtoinquireinto thesaid} cornplaint. l\r:r'or-,itngll dePartmcntal cllqurrl^{\as orcleredanrl thc [[quiring} Authoritl afl< r cilreful^{(onsi(lerat)on} of^Lhe evidcnce^{hclC. the chargeas} provecl. Hen.e tir ttlliqatio[ that the charge sheet is^{vagrreis not truc and} correct-

¶124

I.lnquirl rras rot ondLlcted^properl-r'

¶125

'lhc ;rllegarion that the [A encashed the ignorance o[ the Appellant irr irlrr rrtinq i\lalraqemenl Dxhibits^{:rnd verifling tlreiroriginalsis} traseless Thc r:xhlbits^\ cre c\terrsivcl-used b1 the Appcllant ilnd got .llmost all oI thcnr iclenti i(.rl l)\ the relc\ant^\itncsses.

¶126

lI^.ras relied rpon the cvidence^produced tn thr: euquirl^b-l thc l'O anci ttrc^.\ppellanl. The Appcllant^{has produced 69 exhibitsand Lhe} PO produ(:e.l^(:.lribrts. Lloth of^{themexamine<llour eachas theirwitncsses.} Thrs clearii slro,ts the^cxlcrrsive and^{itrtensive participationof the Appellanr} in tlre enqurn^"i:e IA hits arljottrnccl the^{proceeclingsfor the convenienc--r:of} Lhc Appellalll^,r L ser^r-'r zLl occasions. As regards^{non suppll ofcertain} documents. tl e I\ has obscr|ed as^under.

¶127

'JA makes it cle.rr that non suppl-r' of Performance Appraisals of CSO lor !-ears^{2OO+ 01, 8, -20O5Oar had not attestedCSO aclversel5'sincc IA holds thc} charge^"tbat n(^(1i(l nol^per-forrn his dutics^{as expectcd of him as "NOT} PROVED' & noi- sr.rppir ol⁽ⁱ⁾ nrron)morts compiaint^{sent to CcntralOffice (u)} Investigation lleln)rt o1 Cl.ticf Manager⁽ⁱⁱⁱ⁾ lnvestigation^{Reportof Vigilance} Officer, as .1;11sil iri Chicl Marnager in his report dt.^{O1 .06 20O7(MEX 5),hacl} not affecte(i CSO irr ant [ritnncr as neither^PC) nor^{IA rehcd on the sameto} pro\re an\ of tlre |ll;rrgcs

¶128

F-r.rrrr the atrove it is obscn'ecl that the Apllellant^\tr'asnot denied am i)l- ris lcgitimate dernands.^{The charges arc based onlhe} complaints re cr:ir ccl^1rY the borro\ cr and the^{then ChiefManaEaer of tht)} Brunch.^{'lirose -crnPiirints} rrere^producetl in the^{enquiry and bothof them} u<:rc exanrine I ilrrci e\amined in lhe cottrse of^the enquiq.^{AlI the u'itncsses} procluced i)] llrI M.lnagemcnt lvere extensively cross examined by^lhe Appe[ant as r arL lrt seen from thc el)quiry^{proceeclings.}

¶129

AI lrough the Central lJank of India Offr<cr^Emplol'r:cs [)isciplint:^{an-1 r\JrgreailR(igulations,1976 do not provide exchangc of Written} Rriels/Argrrrt rrts. ttre IA, rn order to extcnd further opporturrit]'^allo$ec1the PO's Writlen l3r- ci to thc Appellant and the Appcllant, after^havinggonc through the ['O s writtcn tlrief submltted his olvn^{WritteLr Brief.Thus theIA} has exlendcd ih:r'ancl rcasonable opportunity to the^Appellant.

¶130

A. rcqards his Dcfence he sought the assistarrce oI one^Shri A.V R.rm.1na l,{t rthr, u ho is *rrrking in .Iabalpur Regiott. TIrt: APpellanL was reclLrired ro arrii.-1,( his l)t-fence Reprcsentative. He nou, blames managemcnt h;rs not prorrrlerl hrm thc Delence. Thc IA has observed that Shri Ramantt

¶131

l_5

¶132

-v

¶133

Mrrrthv has not^{even submlttedhis rvilllngness letter- to his controlling} ;;;t;;;,r' ..i;,-in. .u".,,"' o[ cven the consent letter from Shri Ramana nO r*.,"n. - ,n. n""stion o[ his deputation. to .Vr,sit<n]nlli-lnr to defcncl the Annellant did not arise^{tA cannot allo$'the dodging tacticsof theAppellant'} iI5'orp",i^',,^{i*..1r a.f.",r.ahim and as citedabovehe has participated} exarnine<l in-- air"^' "r,qri,-r hls^{o!n , and witnesses produced dcfence docurpents numbering 4' I do noi'find an'r'injustice numbering 69 t:ausedand} to the Appcllant the Appcllant Appcllant^{rn this regard- this regard- regard-} that the^pOusecl

¶134

to the Appcllant the Appcllant Appcllant^{rn this regard- this regard- regard-} that the^pOusecl As regards the^{contL-ntionof the Appellant} his exhibit^{i.e. DE'1 lvhtlc examining MW-1$'hichis againstthe principlcs of} natlLral^{jllsticc,is incorrcctas theD"E-4 is nothing but his explanation to the} ,r'r..-o i"a.,"a^{to him. tn his explarlation he claimed to haveattcndcdto} cerlain tasks,^{the genllincness olrvhich rvas ascertaincd llthe PO from the} ;;i;i'M;,r";.. 1n7w^{tl rne$:itnesswas later cross examinedbr'rht:} irr.u""t ,q3.r.t, h," utttg"iio'''^{doesnot hold water' Further he contends} rrrelevant^{objections raised by po in the crossexamination.} iriit-t,q "r"tui,,.d "l^nawf ""a^{2 andhence it must be treated that cross examination was not} rlone.'lhis^{cor]terltion is prefostcrous in as much as the lA has acted\'ith} ....,r.,rr.i.i Druclettcc^{in cliiall'cu'ing certain rrrelevant} .^{questionsput tothe} t-;',t,,t*.i',,t^{rhe AppellanlAs such I rcjec'lhe allegation'} "' "i; ;.c[; i; the contention of the Appellan t that [A dicl not allo\r statements^{giuenby Shri KRameshBabu and Shri AV.Ramana} 'rui.,rin.:'ir.r ,r.l" .nqiir-"-, I obser"'e that such statements should be furnishcd to ltre PO in^advance ",',.d^{th" atl1hot" of the statementsshouldbc examincd} rn the enqttirr.^{fne,tppe ttani dict not do soHe had no intentiolro[} to- claim othenrisc'^{Furthcrhe has} although t'tt "ta "*"-,"i"g'thern. ;;;,;;ir; ;^{ti-,"-srate,,te'''tJinto the recordsofthe enquiry' ln the rvholeaffair}

¶135

tn" n"pp,,tlnt,, "^{intcntionsdo not appear bonafide'} I observe tnat^{the Ihhasconductedthe enquirfin atalr} rnanncr antl^{adl)erecl to thc piinciplctsof natural justicc scrupulousll"His} allegations^{arc intetrdetl to wriggle u'tnf tht adversesituation hc "vas} ptaced in bi norre othcr^{than himself'} thc altesations^{leveted bv the Appetlant asainst the} i';;;';;;i;;ih DisciptiLrarl^AuthoritY.

¶136

DisciptiLrarl^AuthoritY. The DA stated^{in his ordersthat the disciplinaryaction-had} alrcadv bcen^{undull.dela,veJ.wh...r." it did not happenon accounto[ ttre} Appellant:

¶137

Appellant: The Appellant^{mentions thathe Save his replyto the mcmo.(n]} 9.2.'2Oo7 and^{DA issuedCn"tgtShttt on Il L)O-O7As he rvas notsupplied} rvith the copies^{of the documJnts he approached Hon'ble HighCourt andgol} ;'.;;;. AI,;; vacation^{of siav the pitti-l.'"tyhearing was calledlor on} 5.5.200u. Thus^{ttrerc ut'," u-Jitty of't5 months-.The DA has not attribrrted} ttre del:r-v lo the^{Ilon'ble c".,.i. ir,.interregnumbetlveen thc mcmo and thc} dil"rg. ir-t.",^{is causeddueio collection of comments from the Brauchon} thc contcnts^{of thc exptanat"iontrla f"tt'"texaminatiol'lol the cviclenceancl} circumstances.^{only alterthorough examinationof the whole rssucChargt:} Shcet ltas^{been issuedto tne Appilant'The DA's.commentsabout tlre delal} obvioush appl]^{to thedela'ri oJJ"t"afrom the<lateof Charge Sheetto th(l} conclusion^{o[ the case.case.}

¶138

conclusion^{o[ the case.case.} Furthet thc Appellant^{contends thatMEX-3r'r'asproduce<lin} support of^{Charge 2 a'a ii-!f'o'farlot bc usecl for proving Charge l'is} ^rah^arFr,r,,s^{The I)A has ii",J,f,. documents and not restrictedthemlor} :1"'";'i. :i:,J;.'*Iit^{tJr"tt"t" in tht ttlt"'"tportions or thc cxhibitis}

considere(l as rcicrring to lhe circlrmstantial evidcncc^{insupport of the} principal eviclence irr rcspcct of Cl.rarge I. IIent:e his contenti(,rr^is erroneous. ln ihe Anncrure to tris Appeal he levclcd t:ertain^fhlse alleElations agarnsl thc CIrief Manager i,rr naming^{rlittlcssesl)elongin€ato thc} other union. !'h,-' rr itncsscs named b-r the Chief^{MatragtrrdL-posed irlthe} encluirl ancl¹⁽ e[: cross t:x:rmined b] the Appellant. I^{clo not iln(l anv thinEj} amiss in this. tiind tht:ir depositions also fair. The Appeilant cannot^take shelter Lln(lcr uni,rrr riraltl^.

¶144

FL.ri-Ler the ApJrellant contends that thc Intputation,^u'hich stalcs that thr: gtcncral con(ltrct oI ttrc Appcllar]t^qavst retlencc to^such cornlllaints an I^-r'n(r it rr:rs clecided to inquirc into lhc said complaint,^is predisposition of lhe DA. In fact the DA has rnentioned about thc Past record of rhe Appcllarrt in the Clrarge Sheet as, Shri llagl.tu Prasncl \'as^earlter auarded a penall\ of llc(.luction of Pa-r'bv two stages^vide orrlcrs^ctated6.6.06 fbr certain ircllrlaritir:s r:ourn-tiltccl br Itir-n, u'hile rvor-ktrtg, as^Branch Manager at ltk-ral Bran(h. L)espite thc said disciplinan actiorl taken^against hinr. he did nol rr on(l lus l)chalior. A document to^prov(i tlrc itrfliction of^lhe penaltl has also Lreen nrentroned in thc List of Documents cnclosecl [o the Charge Slreet Ik: rce I do not fintl anr thiug \r,rong aboLlt thr: said mention^tn thc Charge S[iec. In fact in orcler Lo kr..o\l the truth in th(: cotnplaint^a det)a rtmen I al r'nriuirr r.as orclerecl

¶145

As regarrls !ris allcgations abotrt tll(-'maltcr ol ltermitting^him to filc dcf:lrnati()ri case allatnst thc cornplaint, sanctton ol^1r:avc etc^arre outside the purrrcrr oI thc Charge Sheet A11 olher cot]tentions oI the Appellant cont.rinecl in iris apltal are baseless and are dcvoi(l of truth. I ltnd that the dcpar I Lr1('lr t.ll enquiry rvas conducted properh, No material document uas rlericd Lo him. I{anagemen:^(lid nol rel-r rtpon ilnY document, rrlri, lr rras r,,)t l,t, il rcr rl irl 11,-,.n,,,,;,^

¶146

I rL,rrr cliscrrss the chargcs hcreunder:

¶147

Charge I:

¶148

SlLri Raghu Prasad macle the Proprietor ol M/s Dolphin Chemicals L)eLe(' ttrai hc rlas lookitrg after Credit Portfolio at thc Branch anrl dcrnanclecl f:L.,rurs lrom him sur:h as clrinks atrd illegal gratiflcation. Shri Raghu Prasacl in spitc ol his translcr from the Brar]ch 1o Rcgional Office, Hubli, uscd to rlleplrone the Proprielor of ttrc said conccrn, dernanding rnone-v and thrcate nilrg hirn

¶149

'l'l-(: IA has rliscussed at length the evidence in his Report of !-indings. He has hcLd thc charilc as proved.^'l'he DA in his orders has agrced rvith the findir]q r.rl the IA anci held the Charge as provcrl. The Appetlant in his appeal has noL rl::zrlt rr iLh the er.'ident:e, his defence, lindrrrgs ernd the DA s observations charsjc \'isc. IIis gr:ncral ancl specific contentiors trave alread! lreen deall rvitlr alr,rve

¶150

I firrd from the evidence that the Appcllant got [rrmseif involved inro the issLre^(lUr 1o ttre lact that the Gandhigram Branch ollicials advised the borro$cr to al)proach him. When the borro$'er approached him it rvas his simple dutr to leLl rhe borreNer lo approach ttre Chiel Manager, as he $as not looking it-ter the^('redit portfoho. lnstead of doing that lre gave an impressron that 1)( \as also invoh,ed in the [oan portftrlto. Thc other circltmstantial e,,r<1c:nce sho\'s that lhe Appellant had a bati ll.rst rccord in loans portlolio ancl that he r,anted Lo be posted in the Ioans department at the Brancl-r.^'I ht. ei,icicncr: that e mcrged sholvs that he accoirrpanied the officials conccrncrl lbr unit inspection. llis signature in the insrpection report ma,' or tlra,- rlot appear since he was not connected Nith thr: loans del)artmenL.^'l'h.- sc lircLs sLlpport the complainant s 'crs.io]r lhat the

¶151

¶152

Appellanr tlernatrtled^{itlegalgratification and otherfavours 'l'he Cornplainant} JJioo,a in the^{enquiryin supportof his complaint.andrvas very hrm in his} .liti"". t'l,r.rr-t"lt,t^{Lo.io"u"..ivould dcsist from givingu'rittencomplaints} atjout the^{tsank s OI'flcersin respect of such issuesas thcl'u'ould not like to} ".r"g""1r" comiiaints^{,L. in the Uanks event staif,n ofcontinuor-rs ih"itotu"' interest harassment [ [ou'e'rer at the thev hands Sive suchof} ...ui.it.,l.,,t staff.^{'lhess circumstances also corioborate the complaint.The} Appellant has^{resortedto sucll acls evenafter his transfer from the Branch'} ii,f -Co-pf ol"u,rt has \vithdra$'n the complaint on the assurances of the Banksofficials.Ilo\-ever,suchwithdra\'alrvotl]tlnotpreventthcBanklrom p.o."".]r,rg agairlst tlle^{Appellant, as, sLtctractsare uot onl'againstthc} bor-ra.,,,t firtel^{ol rhe Bankbut are also capablco[ tarnishing the image of} fhe Bank in the market.^{The actsof the Appetlant smacks of his malafide} ir',1.rl tiur-t" as^{appcaringfrom the evidence' I r-'oncur rvith the findingand} orders of the^{i)A. I ilsoupholdthe penalt] of Drsmissal' u'hich shall} o.Jir,r.irl^{ire adisqualificaiion for luiureemplol ment'inview ofthtr} seriousness of^{thc dishonestysho{'nb,r' the Appettant and the ag8ravating} circurrtstitttct:s^{appearingin hls past record'} Chargc^2:

¶153

Chargc^2: Shri Raghu^{Prasadrvas assignetl the dutiesinRccovet-r} Department^{at VisakhapatnamBranchHou'ever' he did not performlris} arii"t ". expected^{of himlInstead indutged in- activitiesI'rrhich rtert:} ,r,,rr,.lu,-,lng^{ol ,r llankofhcr:r such as[r equcntcomplaints againstother staff} quarrctting with other^{staff members' blamingthe Bank and its} -"-fr..t, Dxec u tives^et(' Thc LA has cltscussed^{at lcngththe evidence in his Reporto[} Finctings. llc^{has heltl the chargeas partialll' proved.The DA in his orders} tlo. J"^fa "gi,',,.i 1.'irn^tllc '.r irir^{cvidence, the fir-rcling hi" .l"tt"t", of iht ta1-ht indings Appetlant anrl the DAs in his-appeal obser-vationshas ttot} .fro.o" ,,i"".^{tlis general and speciltc contontionshat'c alreadybeendeait} rvilh abort'.

¶154

The evrdence clearly^{sholvs that the Appetlanthad the habitof} blarning e\ecutrves,^{Uanketc.The obserwations of theDA' "theCSO resortcd} i.-,"",ilf i"g",g^{againstthe Po atso ln his Brief he statesthat it was egoistic} tcndcnc\ oi^{ttl,tut.. Rama Rao rvhol-rasnot done anything in Mandapcta} u.",]"tl o. Llritirch^{Manager ilas automaticallydevclopedjcalousyagainstthe-} CSO ,," secing^{his contiibution in VisakhapatnamBranch in reduction of} i'l^pn n.ra in^{such a wa-!maintained the recoids tt is astonishing to note the} ..*...k"madebr.ttreCsowithoutanybasisandwithoutproducinganv eviclencc and^{in the mostirresponsiblc ancl irrelevant manner'This is a} glaring cxiirr,ptr, oI^{how hc condutted himself in the Bank' althoughhe rs the} Managel in^{MicldleManagcmentGradc' This ls the heightsof the Appcllants} ''blanling othcrs" trttitude. He has macle malicious remarks^{against theChief} Managei ar.rd^he himself^{made a mention in the enquiry about his complaints} NAw 3 and Mw-4.^{Flrrther he complainedagainstMw 1 thathe} "g"ir!, .J.,,l.t..a onlr^{Rs55,OOOand detivered title deeds inthe a/cMercury} Travcls. alUroLlgh^{the value ol securi[ywas Rs 10-OO} -lacs^{Whcreasit camc} avail;-.ble "p^{itr-1'n...ria.."ce rr.ith} the^{IJranch, To my that titlc tleerls surprise were not l fincl dclivered and from DE.56 rvere produced b1,theverv mucl.r} npp.tt"rlt, he^{rnade' certain remarks against ShriC S S S'U V BhaskarRao'} Sinior Managcr,^{Shri S.Ramakrishna, Senior Manager'Shri G Varada Raiu'} M;;;g". orri^{sr,., AqunKumar. AsstManager' While in the case of Shri} IShaskar Rao^{I llc' penaltv arvartledto him \vere mentionedt1- him' no such} rnention $its^{thcre in respclcto[ otl-rer trvo officials' [-Ie addressed a letter to}

¶155

,.i

¶156

¶157

C&I,ID of tlre^L3e nk^{vicle DE 57 prodllcctlbr him in the enquin$ hcrein he} comptained a5{ilirst^{:rriolrs officials In Dti-'+.8.6.55etc hc complaincd} against most irl the staff^{ol Visakh.rpatnatn Brarrch'In his r ieu' all most all} siaff mernbers^{()l ttreBrarlch, cxceptln!!hitnare misc'hievous'erroneous and} 1'r-y1'^{q-splni{ied!,arioLls} ac[s^{of nlisconcluct.These are the poinlers to his} complarning n.rt-.re^{IIc requeststhat such (lornplaintssholllclle cotlsidcred} as bona fxli a,:tii^{rt. IJis commcnts agalnsttho POas menlionc(lsrtpramirror} his condLrct an(i,:rltaractcr.^{Withthis kind ol attitudc, rt ciln be pcrceivecl} thal he had tI lr.bit of^{rluarrellingwrlh othcrstaff.In vie\ of the strong} evidcnce plact:cl^rt'tore him^{the IA hashcld the charEle;rs} llirrttailt-^proved, hotcling tiie i'nl)lt tarlt allegalions^{oI tirechargeas prole(l' 'l'he DA has} concurrecl^{\'it r l'rc llnclrng.I agreewith lhc fllrdings andor<lt:rs of tho Dr' I} uphold thc peneltl of Dismissal,^{rr.hich slrnll orrlinarilrLc a ci isqr.ralification} lor future emit,lo.ment awarde.lbr rhe DA

¶158

Ir r ir:u- of the scriotls llature of^{(:hargesatrdthr: dishonestYon} the part ol th( AIrpellanl^{having beett brottglrt our vilidl-r'in ttrc enquiry, I do} not find anl r(ta.ilrt or^rncriLLo lnrxlifr^{Lhep(:nalt\a\'arde(l to thc Appellant"'}

¶159

Bctng unsatisfied^.'r'ith Lhe ordcr^{datcd30-O1.2OO9,} petilioncr had aiso prcferre(l^{Revieu' Petitlon undcr Regulation} 18 of the Ccntral Bank of^{Indi:i Dmplo-vees'(Disciplineand} Conduct) Regulzrtions, 1976^{and thc Revieu'ing Authority, :rfter} careful cor- si(leratlon of thc entlrc^{materi:rlon record, had} dismissecl the Rcvieu' Pctition^{as clevoidol meritalld conlirmed} thc consoli:1eL;cd punishment imposed on petitiorier and^thc re [evant p()rt iotl oI the order of the Revieu'inq^{Ar-tthoritv is}

¶160

extracted h:rt ltnder

¶161

I-,ave called fbr all fhe^papers / documellts^{rclating to the} inquiry, findurgr; ol thc tA, the^orders ol^{DrscipliLranA\rthorit! and Appcllate} Authoritl, an<1 gttte through carefultv^{vis a visrevie\'petitiDnfile<1 b1'CII} Prasa<t & ol)sen',r that the^{principles of DatLlral justice have been observedin} the concluct of ttrc clepartmental enqllirl^{andeachand evert opportunitv has} been t)roride.l ti) lhc petitioncr lo^delerrcl /^{rebut the t:h:rrgesleveilt:d agatnst} him and to c.oris cxamine thc^{Manallerncnt s \'itnessos:ltlcl lo produce tlrc} $'itnesses / cvide^{t tr-t:} s in his orvtr^{rlcfcnceu'hich has also llt'cn trvailedbv the} petitioner. Th.r l)3litior)er him elt^{has deiencledhis case} I arlso obsene that thc^{DisciphnaryAuthorrl'&nppellatc} nulhority have r;.-rictly adhcred to the^{provisions oI Central Bank of lndia} Officer llnrplc'r ccs (I)&A) Regulations,^1976rr hile^{passing the llnalOrclers}

...3.+-.---<.''//

and \rrhile disposlng o[ the appeal of Sh. Prasad I :rlso flnd that the!' have objectivel] aualt'zed t.he cvidences on the record of enquiry proceedings. From the above papers/ docu ments rclating to the inquiry proceedings agarnst Shri S. I?aghu Prasad, I observe that the gist of the ctrarges le!'elc(l against him are as under:

¶167

(i)Shri S, Raghtr Prasad cxerting his influence in a falsc manner demanded favours and illcgal gratrficatron from the proprietor M/S Dolphin Chcmicals (ii) Shri Raglru Prasad rvas assigned the duties o[ Recovery l)epartment an Visakh;rpatnarl Branch rvhcrc instead o[ perlbrming his cluties he indulged in complaininii againsl olhcr sta[[ mcmbers anrl rluarrelLrng wjth thcm he kept blaming the Bank and i(s }ixecutives

¶168

On perusal of the papers placed belore me, I find that the iindings of the arrthorities in respect o[ the charge levelled against Shri Prasad as urrrlcr

¶169

Charge	Irqulfrng AuthorityIIAl	DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY IP4I	APPELLATE AUTHORITY[AAI
No. I	Proved	roved	Proved
No.2	Partlv rovecl	prqeq	Proved

¶170

Shri Prasad has cited tl-re follorving grouncls in his petition dated 06.03.09 [or the appraisal oI the Orclers ol Disciplinary Authority and I har cl rhe Appellare Autho|itr:

¶171

(i) (ii) The Orrier of disrlrissal is erroneous, contrary to la\a.and Iiable to be set asitle. I{is perflormance in the L]ank \vas appreciated in the past by his Higher A u thorities

¶172

(iii) The Management lailed lo produce relevant evidences to subsLantiate the complaint o[ the proprietor of M/S Dolptrin Chemicals

¶173

(iv) The inqtriq' rvas held rn an unfair manner and he r,vas not given the opportunit. to submit his Statement of Defence or submissions over the findings oI lnqu iring Authorrlr

¶174

(vi) Hc rvas not allo*'ed to sLlmmon his rr itncsscs

¶175

'lhe lcttcr datcd 16.08.06 (MEX 6) oI thc cornplainant requesting Zonal Office, Hyderabad to close his complaint dated 13.07.06 (MEX 2), which formed the basis o[ inquiry, !,as not given importance by the authorities (vii) The Management could not substantiate the charge o[ complaining against st.rll members, quarrelling $,ith them and blaming the Bank and its [rxecutives

¶176

(viii) [n contravention of Requlation 7 (2) ol Central Bank o[ [ndia Officer Enplot,ces (Disciplinc & Appcall RegLrlations 1976, the Disciplinary Authority did not record the reasons lor his drsagreement with the findings of lnquir) Authorit-' in respect of Charge No.2

¶177

(L,<) He had to step into Horr'ble CorLr-t of Lall in W.P. 25177 ol 2OO7 , 20494/OB aod 21420/08 lor protcctrng his Fundanental Rrghts Frorn a comparative stlrd-! of lhc hn.lrngs oI Disciplinaw Authorit]: and Appellarc Authorit. I have come to obsene as urrder Chargc N,' I

¶178

Findings of Disciplinary Authority i Fin dings of Appellate Authority IDA] 'lhe conplainant [MW2l himse]I has Shri Prasad had a bacl past record ]^{dcposed beforethc inqLrir_v(hatshri} Gandhgram Branch Olhcrals advrsed L !.q:ql!.q:ql^{behavedlike a mental a mental mentaldo} the borrou.er to approach him for

¶179

L !.q:ql!.q:ql^{behavedlike a mental a mental mentaldo}

¶180

¶181

¶182

I o.G"i. i^r,t' ti^p,oai .^{cd bv Shri} Plasati art'rt1,Lc. rr Lth his

¶183

complainarrts^,gi nrcrnbeTS on staff/ Executivcs,rl thc 'r'rst Bank He trrrangr:d to s(lrc lcgal notice to R.M. Hubli lor clr:.:lining his lcavc H,'rrtranR, d r,' s|rr^e l-qal ll,,li. e l,' I)rs, rplrna r A.tt^,'r itr [or^t lre charges ler.ellcd a garnst him

¶184

He lras cornplaine(l to Zonal Manager I CMD of^{tlte Ha} tr< aqainsl memlrers on staff antL tl,or,,r \ho tlcrc narncd i as r'itnesscs

¶185

Ttre Chief Mar apJr:.- ol lht' Br-trnch and the complainant rave deposed in the ur(Lr-lrr:' in suppol t of the charge

¶186

Charge l{o 2

¶187

i Findings of Disr:iplinary Authority IDA]

¶188

Shri Prasad resor tcd to mlldslinging against lA / Po

¶189

ln his briel he stE 1ed that PO was jealous on seeLr-r;1 lris contriblrtion in Ihe reduction rf li PA irt Visakhapatnarn 0.-ernch

¶190

IIe blamerl tha t l,\ is related to MW 2 FrDrn the De[crrrt Frhibits it is obsened that SLL. I Prasad made un!\arranled⁽ orrrl)laints against as nrarJ as I I m, nrr, rs un slafl Witncsscs in thc Lr.rquin clcposed lhal he u,as of cc, Iplaining nature. He alu,ays L:larre rl his supertors and

¶191

sanction of Ioan but sice shri PrasaLcl r,r,as not conr:ernccl rt ito rhe lhe credit portfolio, he cou [d havc told the borroqeI fo applo,r<:1r the chrcf Manarger lnstea(l

¶192

Tlrc cviclr:nce that t-rrcrgr:rl sho\ ccl thal lrc accornpanied the Ollicials concerncd lor u ni1 inslx-'cLion 'lhe complainart dcposed in thc inquin, in support of Iris cornplailrt and \r'as firm in his rcplics Strri Prasad hiLS rcsor Lri([ to similatacts cven after tr:rnstbr'^,lf his selvices from lhe Brarrr ]r r'"-hich srnacks of his maiatrrl. rntentions

¶193

Findings of Appellate Authority AA

¶194

Shri ['rasad had Lhe lr.rl)il of blaming cxccutives and staI IIe has rcsortt-'d to mrrlslinging against PO in the rn.luin. He made malicious rerrrarks against the Chiea Manager

¶195

In his vierv :rl1 rnost all stit[[ rnen]Lxrrs of the Rranch, except lrirn, are mischievous and have committed various acts oI mis(]orrduct

¶196

Er id.nr, s add,rc'^,1 rrr^'ltc inrluirr havc provcd thirt S}rri lJras:rd possesses a quarreis() rle lrature

¶197

shouted at the ln

¶198

I put nlv obscrva tlons and ordcr as Llnder:

¶199

Cl.rarge No. t

¶200

(1) The Manage rrent rvitness and the ccirnplaitrant [..a|e dr:poscrl in the incluiry in support of the charge

¶201

(ii) 1-he complainrrrt rleposed in the inquin in support of lris r:ornpl.-rint and u :rs firm in hrs re plics

¶202

(iri) The Corrp air ant has gone fo thc extent o[ stating lx]ft)re tlre in.lurn tllat Sh. Prasacl be]rar'ed Iike a mental dog.

¶203

(iv) Shri Prasarl l.riled to adduce anv evidence in the inqllir\ to rc[utc the char-ge levellec at.ainst him

¶204

(v) Thc ch:u-gc h:rs been lbund proved b] the Inquiring Authori!!. Disciphnan Authority and Al)pellate Authoritl has concurred rvith the fintlrngs of DA (vi) The proven E ct of misconduct on the part ol Shri Pr':]sa<l has c'ause I Llnfathomal)lc Ic)ri:l to the Institution as Shri I'rasatl s rlcrn;rncl ol unrlue firvours atrcl illeil'11 grzrtrfication from a borrorver- of thc] Bank ha-s tarnished the image oItlre^{(]rganizalion} al}d brought in ill repute.

{

(vii) Wittl alt lntent lo^givc vent^Lo hi$^{illInotivcs,ShriP'asadin hisfrail} attcrnpt 1o tiissuaclc^{the DisciplinarvAuthoritr',has arrangedto scn'ehim} with a lcgal notice for the^{charges Ievelled agalnsthim} Charge No. 2

¶209

(i) Frim the papers/^docu ments^{relating to the inquil-r' as nellas from ttre} irnclir-rgs of On i fe it is^{obsen'edthal the DctenccD.Khibits arc repletc $ith} unrvar-ranterl complaints^{againstmt-'mlrrsof the Stat[.}

¶210

(ii) tt is also otrservecl liom thc^{ciocurnetrts that hc madc mali(:ious remarks} against the Chief^Manager.

¶211

1iii1^{tfrna itprovcd in thc inquin that Shri Prasad rvaso[ complaining} 4aiure-^{He aiuays ltlamed hissupt-riorsancl shoutedatthem,such} behaviour is out of^{boundsof atrl publicsct--Lor undertakirlg'} {iv)^{Thc AppellateAuthot-it-'in his firrdrngs has obsen'ed lhat in thc vie\'of} Sh., Prasicl all most^{all staffntembt:rs ol the Brzrnch,exccl]t [rim,\'erc} mischievous ancl^have committcd^{!'ariousactsof misconduct'} (v) To refute the depositions^{made bv the Witnessesthat Shri Prasad} possesses quarrelsome nature^{shri Prasacl faileclto producean1 docunlcnt} or $ilness in his^favour.

¶212

The above discussiott^{clcarh substantiatethe chargeslcvelled} against the^{rneml)crin thechargeshcet. IIc l'as given arnple opportunities} to" tead evidcnces^{bothdocumen[arr or oral todtsprovethe charges} othen.isc, but he^{has failed miserabllon this count ln orderto prove his} innocence. ShI-i Prasad has^{resorteclto even nleans lrom muclslingingon tA} /PO^{to scr-viccoI legalnoticcto the complainantaltd Disciplinar]'Authorit]} and the rnotives^{behinclhis such actiottsharcnot bcen honestwhich has} bcerr brought^{,rrt1 vividhitr rhe inquirr.}

¶213

His clernancl Ibr uncirte^{favortraotl illegal gratihcationfrom a} borrower oI the Bank and^{nurnbcro[ (]olnplaint lettcrs against themcmbers} on staff/ exec^{u tive} s o[^{the Bankancl fLlrther sen'ice of legal noti(]e to the} Disciplinary Authorit!' and^{mudsltngingon I'O/ lA, stating vaguel]' thattA} r,vas related to the complainant^{arc all poinlersto his conccitedpersonality'}

¶214

Rcgulation 1{3 of Central^{tsank of tndia Emplovees (Disciptine} and Concluct) Refulations^{1976ar-rthoritlInayat any time withinsix mor thc} from the ctate ol^{thefrnal order. eilher on hisown says inter-alia} " Not,,vithstanding anvthing conlaine.l in these^{regulations, the Reviewing} motlon or othenvisc^{revie$thesaicl orcler'!ihcrlan: nerv matcrialor} eviclcnce^r'vhich coulcl^{not bc produce(l or rvasnot available at thc time of} passrng thc oralcr under^{revierv antl rvhichhas thc effect ot changingthe} nature of the^{case, has comc or has l>ccnbrought to hls noticeand pass} such orders thereon^{as it maydcem ftt:. ... '} While going through the^{petition vis a vis records produced beforeme' it is} observJd tiat^{petiiioner has not broughtin anv new'factin his petitionand} all thc points iaisccl^{b1 the} Pctitiorlcr^{in his petition are dealt$'ith b-v thc} Disciphnary Allthoritl'^{and Apl)ellatcALrthor.it-\claLroratcly.In view of the} abo.re, I am ol^{the opinion that tho consolidated penaltl as imposedlly the} Disciptilral^{Authorlt! andcontirmedbl theAppellateALrthoril\is} commensurate^{\'ith gravity o[ the provcncharges}

¶215

t am of the opiniQn^{that this Revie\l' Petrtion is dcvoid of any} merit and does^{not lvarrant m! inten'entionand I conlirn lhe consolidated} pulri"h-.rrt imposed on^{Shri S'Raghu Prasad inpursrranccof Banks} bharge Sheet vide number^{ZO: I.l RD:DAD:2007 08:18'17 dated01'11'07read} with^"Corrigendum vide^{nurnber ZO:tIRll:DAD 2008 09:583dated 06 06 08} without an,y modification^{rr'hatsocver'}

¶216

¶217

lO. From the conspcctus of the^{observations ofthc} ordcrs pzrsst:d bv the above^{said Authorities,it is axiomaticthat} petitioner's challenge is only on^the _ground^{ol violation of} prrnciirlcs o: It.ll.ural .lustice. C)n^{the othcr lralltl.rcsponclcnls} i'ocifcrousll' c:,)ntcnd that^{principlesof naturai jr-tsticc r'l't rc:} lcrllorvecl scruptrlousiy as such it^{requircs no inlerl'ercnccfrom} this Cor]rt to re orclcrs^{passedby tl'rree authorill( s lvho havr:} l:rkcn a conr:u I-rent viel.

¶218

1 1. [t is obscrvecl that petitioner's^{mzritt.olltcntiorl \ i1::} thi,rt thc enqltiry proccedings are^{vitiatedas lhcInqltLn'} Authority did not allow his^{questionsrelatingto fuIW 2 (1'hc} Cornplainant) and that complainant^{rclalecl to thr' Itrquin'} AuLhoritv. H,:,^rcver, thc witness^{(the complair-ranl) (rontcntsoI} thc con'rpl:rinl dated^{13.O7.2006lodgedb1' himagaritrst} pctitioner tc, the Bank, in cross - examinaLion,^{pctitioncrr srlught} to elicit the evidcnces the^rvilness hand^{inreqarcl tci thc} cornplaint. E'r ) objected Lo thc^{question anc'l thr: lr-rquir-ing} Authorit-,- s,rs, arnecl the objection.^{The gist} of^{thc issue :rs it} :rppears is thzit pctitioner issued notice^{Lo thc s'iLr-ress (the} complainant) tltreatening the criminal^{cascand thc u'ittress sent} his reph' to pt'i,ilioner u,herein he appears^{to havc s:ricl lhnt thc} evirle nces t1.r.. he had rvould be procluced at^{apl)r'nprlatetime} qncl :,rppropr,rrte place u'hcn a need arost:. i'iiis tssue is

w/a

2-l

{

obviously outsidc the^purview o[ thc^{chargeshect that u'as} issued to the petitioner by the Bank. ll is this^{isstte hetrvr:en} the complainant and the petiLioner and^{obviously' Inquiring} Authority could not direct Lhe witness to reveal his^strategiesin respect of the criminal c:rse filecl by pctitioner ergainst^him. Petitioner sought Lo know the exac[ days^{whenhe demanded} bribe, whisky bottlcs, when the^{v,.hiskv bottlesr.vere supplied} etc. The u,itness rcplied lhat hc coulcl^{not remember the exacl} dates. He furthcr soughl to knou'as^{to u'hct inspected thc unit} of u,itness. The r.r'itness replicd that^{Shri ,Jolu'rThomas, Shri} Rarghr-r Prasad and Shri Arjun kumar^{visited his unit bcfbre} sanction of limits. Petitioner repeatedl-v^{zrllegedthat the witness} was related to [he Inquiring Authoritv^{(lA)-Tht: u'ttnesshas} deposed in the examination^{in chiel that he do nol know the IA} and for thc firsl-time he was sceing him.^{At onc stage, he has} gone in saying that he must bc allou'ed to^{makecnquiries in} Krishna District through his uncle who^{r.r'as lhe document} writer in Jaggaiahpeta, Krishna DistricL lo^{prove his allegaLion} that the IA is related^{to the Complainirnt.}

¶223

¶224

¶225

F-rom the abovc, it is^{cle:rr that pe[itioncrtried his} best in^. bringing on rccord that^{IA :rnd the complerinanl were} related wi[hout having^{any evidenceu'hich clearly eslablishes} the fact thal pctitioner^{istr-r,ingLo vitiate thc disciplinary}

'..1

l)rocccdinqs^{\rithialseallcgations against thclnquinng} Authorit-r. lrro:rt thc^{rccord, it is obscn'edtliat thc lA has t'tot} allorvr:ci oniv irrelev:rnt^{qr-restions and allorved allrelevant} questions a'; sltch^{the allegation of pctiiionerthat he \'as not} {iven^{proper ,lpportunityLo crossexelminc thc complzrinant'} p:rlcs into ins;rgnificance^{inthe backgroundr'n'hirt tras been} stit Lecl alrout:.

¶232

F-r^-ther, from ihe record.^{it rs also clcarlreviclent} thzlt pclriiolrcr^{\'.ts not cleniedanv of his lcgitimrtedem:lnds:} Cl.ri,.rgt:s ilpg lr;tscti^{on the complaintsreceiveclbv the borro$'er} anil Lhc^t lic^{r.r Chief Manager of the Branch Thosr: compierit'tts} u e rc prorltl'--crl in rhe enquiry^{and both of themu'r'recxamitre<l} zLnd cross-er:rrrinccl^{in the course of enquiry' All the lriltlesses} proclucerl Lx^t he Management^{we re extensively r:ross examined} ll thc petit iorr,-'r. What^{is to be noted here is, the Ccntral Bank} ol Ir.rclia Et.:'rp-^{lovccs' (Discipline and Appe al) Regulations, 1976} c1o not proviclr:^{cxchange of u'ritten Briefs/Argumen ts; thc IA, in} or-<ler to 1o1i6,.,'^{1-s1"" of principles of naluraljusticchaclallort'eci} tl-rt' PO's^,. rill ctl bricf to^{petitioner,r','ho, aftcr h:rvinggonc} th roush u't'itl,-t.t brief,^{submittedhis orn'n ivritten bricl,:rs sltch} ir citnr-rot bc said that^{the IA has not cxteuded lairancl} reasonable o1:rportunity to^{petitioner.Il is also notcd from lhe} rccorcl that:rs, rcgttrds this^{defense, pctitioncrsought assistance}

q-'7

01- one Shri /r.V. Ramzrna Murthy, u'ho is u'orking in .Iabalpur Rcgion; petitioner was required to arrange his delense rcpresentative. However, hc blamed maflagement as it did not provide him the defense representativc.^'l'he IA also ctbservcd in .his report that Shri Ramana Murthy has not evcn submitted his r','illingness letter to his conlrolling authority. Thcrcfore in the absence of even the consent lcttcr frorn Shri Ramana MurthSr question of his deputation to Visakhap:rtnam to defend petiti()ner does not arise-

¶237

{

¶238

1,4. What is seen from the recorcl is ltrtitiuncr got himself involved in the issue due to the lact that^(]andigram Branch officials ad.,,ised the borrou,er to approach him and vr.hen the borrower approachcd, it was his dut]' lo send Lhe borrorvcr (the complainant) to the Chief Manager, since he rvas not looklng after the credit portfolio. lnstead of doing that, petitioncr gavc an impression that he was involved in the loan portfolio and further as seen from the er.idcnce :rlso, he had a Lrad parst record in loans portfolio and that he u.anted to be postecl in the loans departmcnt at thc Branch- Thus, thc evidencc clinchingly est.rblished the lact th:rt pelitioncr accompanied the officials concerned for unit inspection u;hich corroborates the version of^complainnnt and demand of illegal gratilication and othcr lavours. FurLtrcr, thc complainzrnt's

..1!

cvidencc \11s r.)t^{shilLtc'red in anv manner bv petitioner' The} obsen,ation o'clisciplinary^{authorityin regard to the fact that} unless arcl Lt lrl tircrc^{is pcrsistentharassmenton the part oi} Ihe ban k ollic^i.r ls lor^{ille gal gratilicationsuch tvpe of r:omplaints} u,oulcl noi⁽ !n(^'qa :tlso cannot^{be ignored or pt-lt it aside as the} sume stt ikcr^{, -t'} crucial^{aspeclof the smoolhfunctioning of the} banking sec:i o^t-.

¶245

'l-i s Courr thercfore, comes to thc concluslon th:rt enqurin is n,)L vitiated bf^{irregularitiesand illcgaliticsrnore} particLll.iILI - is Court also^{come s to lhe colrt:lusion tllaI} c()r'rtcnti{)i) ll 1;i'tifioner that^{there is violation of principles ol} naturirl .jr-rsrir',: calnnot bc countenanced^{in an-v m:lnner.It is} also se'.tlccl lrir,' that if the enquiry^{has been propcrllheld, thc} qlLestion oi ii-lcquacv or reliabilitv of^{the evidence cannotbe} gone int,:r b. I-Lc High Court. Further,^{it is also settled 1a$'thurt} il thc lirrriir rg. cl tl'rc Inquiry^{Officer or competerrl ;luthorit-r'are} 1ro1 arbitrril-, I nd^{pcrversc, the samealso cannot bc interfercd} \l,ith bv the CoLLrls. In this regzrrd, il^{is apposite to rel'erto some} oI thc clt't'isiorL; u t-rich actually^{deal u'ith the issue on hand.}

¶246

lb. t'. lJnion of India a. Sardqr Bahqdur^{(1972) 2}

¶247

SCR 27a, it i:; helrl as under:

¶248

' A :liscrpiirat-.^proceeding is not^a criminal^{trial.'l'he slandard} Proof rerltrrrcrl is llr.rr oI^{prepot.rdcr-ance} of^{probabilitl'ancl not} Jlroof^bel'ond rt:irsonalrle^rlr,,rlrt. Il the tnlercncc that lender^{\l'as a persolllikeh'to harc}

¶249

¶250

olficlal dealings with the respondcnt \as^{one whiclt reasonablcocrsort} \r1)uld dra! from the proved facts ofthe case, the High Coutt⁽ annol sit as a court of appcal over a decrsion based on it.^']'he Lcttcrs^Palent Bench had lhe same pou.er of dealing u'ith all questions, either^{of fact or} of Jal arising in the appeal, as the Single Judge of^{ttre High} Court.^{[[ the} t,rrrlrrin has been properly'helcl the^question ofadequacl or^{reliabilitv o[} the evidencc cannot be canvassecl belore the tligh Court. A^finding carrlrot be characterized as^perverse or unsupported^{bY all,\relef illlt} rn:r1c'riais, il-it u'as a reasonable inferencc from^{provr:dftrcts.}

¶251

t7 ln Union oj In.did u. Pdrmd Nanda⁽¹⁹⁸⁹⁾ 2 SCC

¶252

777, it is hclcl at page SCC 189 as under:

¶253

We must unequivocalll, state that thc lurisdi('tiorl^o[ttre 'll itrunai lo interfere with thc disciptinary matters or punishment cannot be e(luatcd riith an appellate^{jurisdiction.The Tribunal canuotlnLerfere} \i(h the frndings of the Inquirv Officer or competent auihoritv^uhcre Lher trrc nol arbitrary or utterly^perversc. It is iippropria[e^{to rcrnelnl]er} tllal lll. Poi\er to imposc penalll' on a^{clelitrcluentoifii:erts conlcrtedoll} ttre compctent authority either by an Act of^{legislatureor rulcs rnacle} under the prouiso to Article 3O9 of^the Constitution^{lf there hasbeen an} enquin consistent u'ith the mles and^{in accordanccrvith principles oI} natrlral juslrce what punishment would meet the^endsol luslice^{is a} rnattcr cxctusivell' rvithin the^{jurisdiction of the competcnt arithorit\ If} the p(:naltv can lawfulll.. be imposed and^{isimposed on the proved} misconduct, tl-re Tribunal has no^porver to substitute^{its o$ n cllscrctioll} 1br ttr.rt of the authority. 1'he adequac-v ol^{pcnalt,r'lttllessit is malafideis} cr:rtainlr l-rot a matter lor the Tribunal to conccrn^{itsclf $ ith. 'l'he} 'I'rrtrrrnal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the lnqLrirl Ollicer or the^{competentauthorityis based on eviderir:ecvetr ii} some oI it is found^{to be irrelevanlor extrancotlslo the maLter-}

¶254

¶255

In Union Bank of India^{u. VishwaMohan (1998)}

¶256

4 SCC 310, this^{Court helcl at page 315 Para12 as under:}

¶257

¶258

Iti

¶259

Att, f Ir';i|rlr!l thc riYiil conlcrttiolls, !,c are of ttre firrn vieq, lhal itll thc ioLl. clrr!r sirr:ets \hich 'oro illclLlircd rDto relalc to serioLts mrsconCu.-r. f1) ra.,i)olldent \ras unable to demonstr;lLc bcirre us irorr' pre3udicc rr irs cnusccl to hirn due lo non-suppl,\ of the enquin illrthorit\ s l(l)'),1 l-ririlir)q:j in the presenI case. [t needs to be crnphasrscrt slr l'^111,;1s' lrtrnl<ing brrsincss at)solute^(le.olion, diligcnce. lnlcgrit_\ illr(i lr,rir,'sti Lreccls to be presen'ed br eve4 bank errrplo,\ ee an(l in p.lrti('uia tlr, fr:rnk olficer- If this 1s not obserwed, the confidence of tht: yrtrblir:irlcP rsLrors irotl]d be impairecl [t is for this reason, \c arre of thc opi|ion 1l ;r, rl,i Fliqh^(-'orrr-t ha(l committed an error \,[rjle setting asiclr: rhc r;:,ir' r;l Lirrrn ssal ot the respondent on tho grortnd of prljuclicc on account !r! r or! l-r-rrrtishing ol- the inqllin report/findings 1o him.'

¶260

l9 Ir- Chairman a.ad Managing Director, United Colrarnercial llank u. P.C. Kakkar (2OO3) 4 SCC 364, this Court helrl i Li l). ria I 4 as under

¶261

'1-1. A Liart!. oi i(l is rr:rlirir-r:il to exe|cise higher stardarcls of ltonest_' arrd intcgrit. . Iic rlo;r]s \ ilh monev of the depositors and tht: r:rrstomr:rs Even oflicer /trrlrlort--e oIthe Bzrnk rs rc<lurred to Lake all possible steps Lo protc(i []r( i rri'rlrsrs oi ttrr' tsarrk anrl to discharge his duties u'ith lrLmost lrtcqr r\ . l.on('sl-'. clcvotion and cliligence alrd to do nothing 'rr hich rs unr)c,iiililng ()1 a lJank officer. Goocl conduct and discipline are insr:parablc iro r tirc lLln.tionins of er.erv offic'cr/ cmplo\ ec ol thc Rank As rras oirsrr',.trl i)\ ilris Clouil Irr Disr:iplinary Authorit-\ cLtrn Regional Manager r Nri rrra Iliirari I'rltnaik (1996) 9 SCC 69, it is no ilel-eDce ar-ailablt lo sa\ tirilt lhere $as no loss or profit resulted io casc, u,he! the oflicer/'( rnt,lorcc- itcLccl rrithout authoritl,. The vcrl disciplitrc of arr organizallon rrr,.ir',: partir:rrlarh a Bank is clependent upon each oI its officers LrrrL o ir^(rs a(iting and ollcraling ,,r'ithin therr allottcd spherc. Actiog be\or(i oi1{'s aLrthorit\ is b-r'itself a brcach of discipline and is a rnisconducl. I 'r' r'ltargt:s ilgaliosf the emplol'ee ',verc not casual in nature :rrrl \rr', sr,l r()Lls^'fhcsr' aspc(-_ts do not appear to ha.,e been kept in rie$ lrr ll (, il :rit a-oLlir.

+_.-

2o lrr Regional Manager, U.P. SI?TC, Etqwqh u

¶266

Hoti Lal (2OO3) 3 SCC 605, it was pointed out as under

¶267

ll-the chargccl emplotee holds a position of trust rr,here honest-\ and inlcgrilr are inbuilt rerluirements o[ functioning, it r!.ould nol be proper lo^(lcal \r ith the matter lenientl_v. Miscon(luct in such cases has to bc deirlt \ ith iron hands. Where the person deals u'itlr pLrblic monev or rs engagetl in financial transactions or acts in a flducian capacity, highest clegr-ec of rrrtegrit.and trust['orthiness is a must and u nexceptionablc.^"

¶268

¶269

Thintgnanasa.nband.am (2OOS) 3 SCC 241 this Court hcirl

¶270

rh tr s:

¶271

It is no! a ur:ll scltlcd principle of lau. that the principles of tl.rc Elrrlerrce Act ha!c no application in a domestic inquiry,

¶272

'22 In The Indian Oil Corporation u. Ajit Kurnar Singh (2023 Live Laut (SC) 478) dt Pdrd 6 and 7 held as

¶273

under:

¶274

"6- The ia('ls o[ the case leading to the issuance of chargesheer, initiation ol dcpartmenlal inquiry, the report of the inquiry officer and thc pLrnishrrent inflrcted upon respondent no.1 have alreadl. been llarratecl rn th<-' prcceding paragraphs. It is not in dispute that during thc cour-sr: ol inquir-r,, fair opportunity of hearing rvas affordcd to tl-re: respou(tent no. i at every stage. This ,r,as even found b-v the learnecl Surgl(' ,Judge uhilc- dismissing the^\,ri t^petition challenging the purish ment inflicted upon him. The .iudgme nt^passed b,v the Division IJench ol f he Hrgh Court shoq's that matter^rvas dealt lvith rD a manner as if 1l u,as the first stage ol the^{case,nameir',} the inquirr. 'as being t:oDclucterl and inqr.rir',' .eport^,\as being^preparecl, \,hich is not the scope in jurlicial rcvrcrv-^{'i'he viervs expressed} [.r-1'this Court on tlre scope

¶275

¶276

of -ludicial r(''r( \r in ill i)lr1.r^(-:!x(r,L I },lirtr.rg.r. !11p. llafc A -rtho! it\ {1ai Irtlllrll^{slr',1si,rtitrel)orte(l ill} l2o21l^{)SCC 612. areexlracted} belorr':

¶277

"2-1. It rs i[r-.]!j settl.rd tirilt^{thcporler ol} -iudir:ial^{t-evie$, ofttre} constitutionill .orLrfs, is c'.itlttilliorl oI^{Lhe dec:isiontnakttlgprocessand} not the rncrits^,rf llii' ciccisiotr ltsell.^{[t is Io ct-lstl]-elatrness in tl catmenl} anal not to crLrjure fairtress of t'onclusion.^{Thc coult/tribunal ma1} intcrfere in Ltr,: protr:erlings held against the^{(lclirlqtientif itis, in an1} rnanncr. lncon.lstcilt uitlr tht'^lLilcs ol^{niituraljusticc ol irr violalton of} the statutor'\ tLtlcs presctibitrq rll('^{luode of cnquin orrvhere the} conclusiori or li rriinq .ca.hcd l)\ lirc drscrplinarl^{attLlloritlis based on} no evrdt:ncc l lht' concl\tsion or^{finditlqbc srrch as no reasonable} person \ oL irl irar c ever rt :rc'hed ol^{1 here the coLlcluslorls^tlpon consiclcratr,:rLL at rh(' cviLlcnce^{itrtclLccllllthc clisciplinar-r auLhorltYar:c)} perwerse or r;uitrr lrorn patr:nt crror olr thc iace of record or^based on^uo evidence ilt illl.:r \rrll o[certiorarl^{coLtl<ibe isstlcd'L'o sum up, the scoptl} of .ludrr:ial revrc\⁽ i1nl-loL^lte crtt'ntit:rl to the^{.\zlmination ol correctness} or reasonat)lcr'.c;s ol a rlet'tsion oI aLlthoriLas} a matlcr^{oI fact.}

¶278

28.^'lhe <:onst Iutional court rrhile erercisiug^{its jurisdiction ofjudicral} revierv urtcier l11r'lr' 22ir or.\1i!1! I.li) of the^{Constitlrtiorl ivould nol} intcrfcrc $ltil I'^r-. lirrriirrr:s^<r1 iitr'1^;r:r-irr:il itt tn the^{(lcp:1rtlnIntalenquin} Proceetlings^{e)rr:'l)t in i1 case ol mirlatlcle s or pcn'crsitvi e. \'here there} is no eviderr:c lo support a findrng or^{lherea finding is su,:h thatt-to} man acting^r-e,: sona^lri-', :rrid $itlr objectlvit\ could^{havc arrive(l at thos(l} Iindings anr s: I0ttg its^L1!( r('is sortrc^{evtrlt'ncc to} support^{the conclusion} arrived al b1 t^{-( (lcpiil-tlrl()ltal} aLrtllotit. thc^sarnc l)as^{lo bc sllstained."}

¶279

Similar r.ie$ ,iis exprcss.(l ln tho iater^{jLtdgmcntof thisCourt in frx} C Dnst I)\ ! it1-!, i!t-t! tlt i!t!!t l1i!i!,i-r t- ! s l-,!1qrr ql]]td i{ .l!fd !)Is--reporlerl ln (2023) S( C t)nlrrrc SCI -27

¶280

23 IrL i,icr.r, of thc sL.ttle.l lar.r, citec'l supra, the^judEimcnts reliecl on br, lerLr-ned c()lrnsel lor pelitioner \'ould not come to the rescue of paLii l(rlrc!: ill an\ mannef

I {

Clonfronted u'ith facls ancl position of lau,, lc:rrncd counsel lor pctitioner submitted thaL leniency may bc shown to petitioncr har.ing regard to long years^'of scrvicc rendered by him. This Clor-rrt is unable to countenance such submission- As alrcady said, petitioner being a bank ofhcer holds a position of trust r,r,here honestJ' and integrity' are inbuilt requirements o[ functioning an<l it r,r'ould not be proper to deal with the mattcr lenien tl-r., I'ctitioner vras a Manager of the Bank and it neecls to be emphzrsized t hat ir-r tl'rc banking business, absolute dcvotion, diligent--e, intcgritl':rnd honest,v needs to be preserved by cvcry bank emplo-\ cc :rncl in particular the bank officer so that thc conficiencc o[ p^r-r blic I clcposi tors is not impaired. II is for this reason that u'hen a bank officer commits miscbnduct, as in thc present c:rse, frrr his personal ends and against the interest of the bank nnd tht: depositors, hc must be dealt wiLh iron hands. 25. In this connection, it is relevant to Iook into the judgment irr T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. u. K, Meerabai (2006) 2 SCC 255 r"r'herein it u'as held at para 29 as under:

¶286

¶287

Mr. t"ran|is triso stilrrnittt:d []ral a sum of Rs. 3zt,'136.85^{being 5"1, ot} the toteil loss oi Rs, 6,88,735/ is sottght to be^{recovcreclfromthe} respondcnt rur(l that the prcsent departmental^{proceedingsis thc onlv} kno\'n allcgalion against lhe respondent and there was nr,^sLtt'h allegation earlier and, thereft)re,.r lcnient^vierv should^be takerl^{bv this} Colrrt irn(1 rclicf pra,\cd for b\ both the parties can^{be surtabl-' rnoulded} b\ this CoLrrt. We ar-t-' un:rble to agree with the above submission^{u lticl-r,}

¶288

¶289

¶290

in our opinioll.^{hrts tlo [otccl.Tllt: scopr'' ol} -jllcii''le'1 'evlc\^{ls venlitrlitt:cl'} Sr nrpathr- oI-^{gcll, rosit\ as il litctor ts irlrpe'rrtlissiLrlclrr oLtr tit'rr" loss of} conliclence is^{l repl imall iactor :rilr1 n('i iilc iinr'rtllll ofr r"Il''-'ntis} approprratc(l llr^{l-ile instantcasc. respotlllt:ut eniplo\ec is ftrutrd gttilt-l of} rris zrppropr^{atir:qthc Corporation lrtnds''l'hcreis rrl)t[ring \]ong in thc} (lorporation lostttil cttlrlidetrce 0r lait ll itl srtt'h^{irrrcrnrrllc"'ee alrd} au arcling ptttrishttrerlr^{rtI disntissai.iitsttcit<'lrscs,lherc l:; llc' placr:for} gr:rerosilv or ntis placerl^{s mpathl^{ol) tlro} l)ti11^{oI the} .;''tc1it:ial^lorums an(l intclferi:g therefor^{withthe (ltlarnlLlnlllpunts[trnent;lrtardedb.l'} Ihe drsciplintrn antl^{AppeliaLe Attthot itr.'}}

¶291

26 In r, icrv of' the calegorical^{[irtciings in} rcgard to the enqlliry proc(lo(tings^{againstpetLttrJner Irl} r hr' afore said paragraphs. this Court^{linds thnt the prcsenr} writ Petition is dcvoid of an, rr crit, as such^{thc s.tmc is liable} to l>e dismissed and is accorditrldv^{tlismissed.No cosls.}

¶292