Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Nagarjuna Grameena Bank vs Mandulla Beerappa on 13 November, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(6)ALD760, 2003(2)ALT180, (2003)ILLJ909AP
JUDGMENT S.R. Nayak, J.
1. This writ appeal is preferred by the Management of Nagarjuna Grameena Bank calling in question the validity of the order of the learned single Judge dated 3-4-1998 in Writ Petition No. 8036 of 1992.
2. The above writ petition was preferred by the respondent herein, who is the delinquent, assailing action taken the validity of the disciplinary proceedings and the resultant disciplinary action taken by the Management of the appellant-Bank dismissing him from service as a disciplinary measure. The respondent while working as Junior Clerk-cum-Cashier at Anjanapalli Branch was issued with a Charge Memo dated 30-12-1986, which reads as follows:
"During your incumbency as Junior Clerk-cum-Cashier at our Anjanapalli Branch, you are reported to have committed several serious irregularities. Those which have come to light are detailed hereunder:
(a) It is alleged that you had on 12th February, 1986 absconded with a cash of Rs. 3,15,000/- drawn from our Anjanapalli Branch intended for remittance into link Bank, State Bank of Hyderabad, Miryalaguda. Thus, you had acted in a way highly detrimental to the interests of the bank.
(b) It is alleged that on 12th February, 1986, you had fraudulently obtained a link bank cheque bearing No. F/11 036900 and withdrew an amount of Rs. 30,000/- by forging the signature of Branch Manager. Thus, you had acted in a way highly detrimental to the interests of the Bank.
(c) It is reported that on 12th February, 1986, you were negligent in not handing over the safe keys to the in charge Cashier and thereby acted in a way prejudicial to the interests of the Bank.
2. Thus, you had violated Regulation Nos. 17, 19 and 30 of the Bank's Staff Service Regulations, 1980.
3. You are, therefore, hereby required to submit to the undersigned a written statement in your defence, if any, in respect of the charges referred to above within 15 days from the date of receipt of this letter. Please also show-cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against you. If no written statement is received from you within the stipulated period, it will be deemed that you have no explanation to offer in your defence and you would be proceeded against accordingly.
4. This charge-sheet is issued to you on the revelations so far made and without prejudice to our issuing further charge-sheet(s) for any additional charges not covered or not included in this charge-sheet."
3. The delinquent submitted his explanation to the charge memo on 17-1-1987. The disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the delinquent proposed to hold a regular departmental enquiry against the respondent-delinquent and accordingly appointed Sri R. Rama Rao, Branch Manager, Nagarjuna Grameena Bank, Enukur Branch as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer held a regular departmental enquiry against the delinquent and submitted his report on 18-4-1991. As reflected in the report the Enquiry Officer found the delinquent guilty of charges 1 and 3 and charge 2 in part. On receipt of the findings from the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority, on consideration of the findings, concurred with the findings and forwarded a copy of the report along with his concurring opinion to the delinquent giving him an opportunity to have his say in the matter. In response to the second show-cause notice, the delinquent submitted his explanation on 27-7-1991. The delinquent was also given a personal hearing by the disciplinary authority. On consideration of the reply of the delinquent and also his submissions during the personal hearing, the disciplinary authority not being satisfied with those explanations and submissions thought it appropriate to dismiss the delinquent from service as a disciplinary measure. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority viz., the Chairman of the Bank passed Proceedings in Ref.No.DPC/112/402/91, dated 4-10-1991 dismissing the delinquent from the services of the Bank as a disciplinary measure. The departmental appeal preferred by the delinquent was also dismissed by the appellate authority and that led the delinquent to prefer the above, writ petition before this Court assailing the validity of the same and the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority.
4. In the writ petition, it was contended by the writ petitioner that the order of the disciplinary authority could not be sustained in law, because, the disciplinary authority pre-judged the issue inasmuch as even before forwarding a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent, the disciplinary authority recorded the finding that the charges are proved and that finding recorded by the disciplinary authority would reflect the closed mind on the part of the disciplinary authority. It was also contended that since the delinquent was acquitted by the criminal Court in respect of the same charge, there was no justification for the Management to take disciplinary action against the delinquent and to pass the impugned order. Both the contentions urged by the writ petitioner were found acceptable to the learned single Judge. The result is that the learned single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition and quash the impugned poceedings. Hence, this wit apeal by the Management of the Nagarjuna Grameena Bank.
5. We have heard Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy, learned senior Counsel for the appellant-Bank assisted by Ms. Uma and Sri Jaipal Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent-delinquent.
6. Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy contended that by no stretch of imagination it could be held that the disciplinary authority pro-judged the issue even before giving an opportunity to the delinquent to have his say in the matter after receipt of the findings from the Enquiry Officer. Elaborating the contention, Sri Srinivasa Murthy contended that after receipt of the findings from the Enquiry Officer, it was imperative on the part of the disciplinary authority to apply his mind to the findings before taking any further steps in the course of the disciplinary proceedings and, therefore, there was nothing wrong on the part of the disciplinary authority in expressing his opinion that he concurred with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Sri Srinivasa Murthy also contended that simply because the delinquent was acquitted by the criminal Court giving benefit of doubt, that circumstance itself would not come in the way of the Management in initiating disciplinary proceedings or pursuing the disciplinary proceedings already initiated against the delinquent. The learned senior Counsel would maintain that the acquittal of the delinquent by the criminal law Court was not honourable and it was on a technical ground. In support of his contentions, Sri Srinivas Murthy relied on the decisions in Managing Director, ECU v. B. Karunakar, , R. Babu Rao v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (DB), Government of A.P. v. C. Muralidhar, , K Srinivas v. Superintendent of Police, Medak District at Sangareddy, (DB), V. Rajamallaiah v. High Court of A.P., , State of U.P. v. Harendra Aroa, 2002 (95) FLR 451, and UCO Bank, Calcutta v. M. Venuranganath, 2002 (95) FLR 603.
7. Sri Jaipal Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, would support the order of the learned single Judge urging the same contentions, which were putforth before the learned single Judge.
8. Although several decisions were cited before us by both the learned Counsel relating to the circumstances under which a disciplinary proceeding could be initiated against the delinquent official despite the acquittal of such delinquent by a criminal Court, we do not wish to burden the case law by referring to all those judgments. Suffice it to state that it is fairly well settled now that mere acquittal of a delinquent by a criminal Court on the ground that the charge is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, would not come in the way of a disciplinary authority either initiating disciplinary proceedings after the acquittal or pursuing the disciplinary proceedings already initiated by the date of acquittal. It is quite clear from the materials placed before us that the respondent-delinquent was acquitted by the criminal Court not honourably, but by giving benefit of doubt. Therefore, there was no bar on the part of the disciplinary authority to pursue the disciplinary proceedings, which were already initiated quite before the acquittal of the delinquent by the criminal Court. In the instant case, the charge memo was issued on 30-12-1986 and the enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 18-4-1991, whereas the respondent was acquitted by the criminal Court only on 30-9-1991.
9. We find force in the contention of Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Counsel for the appellant, that merely because the disciplinary authority while forwarding a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer to the delinquent in his note appended to the notice has stated that he concurs with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, that would not reflect the closer of mind on the part of the disciplinary authority. The very fact that after having concurred with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and having thought it necessary to proceed further against the delinquent, the disciplinary authority issued a second show-cause notice to the delinquent enclosing not only the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer but also his opinion, would clearly go to show that the opinion expressed by the disciplinary authority was only provisional and tentative and not final. The question whether the disciplinary authority has prejudged the matter conclusively before giving an opportunity or not should be decided in the context of the issuance of the second notice and also taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. We are satisfied that it could not be said that the disciplinary authority has pre-judged the issue relating to the misconduct committed by the delinquent even before an opportunity of being heard was given to the delinquent after the receipt of the findings from the Enquiry Officer.
10. It is trite that by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court, the scope of judicial review in the case of disciplinary proceedings is very much circumscribed. Unless the reviewing Court finds that the disciplinary authority has not followed the mandatory provisions governing the conduct of enquiry and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority are not based on any legal evidence and are perverse or where the Court finds that the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is totally disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct and which shocks the conscience of the Court, the Court would not interfere with the disciplinary action. None of these grounds are made out in the instant case for this Court to step in and interfere with the disciplinary action taken by the Management of Nagarjuna Grameena Bank. We have also perused the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and do not find any illegality in the same. In conclusion and with respect we should state that we cannot sustain the order of the learned single Judge.
11. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the learned single Judge is set aside. Writ Petition No. 8036 of 1992 is dismissed with no order as to costs.