Telangana High Court
V.V.J. Rama Rao vs Telangana Grameena Bank on 3 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.4911 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.4913 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.13749 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.13991 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.17098 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.21759 OF 2020
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.22212 OF 2020
COMMON ORDER
In this batch of 7 Writ Petitions, the petitioners in 6 Writ Petitions, i.e., W.P.Nos.4911, 4913, 13749, 13991, 21759 and 22212 of 2020 are challenging the respective orders of the 1st respondent bank dismissing the petitioners from service and also the orders of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the appeals filed by the respective petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to direct the 1st respondent bank to pay the terminal benefits like gratuity, leave encashment and pension to the petitioners along with interest; while the petitioner in W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch 2 (Total 07 cases) W.P.No.17089 of 2020 is challenging the order of the respondent bank in refusing to release provisional pension to the petitioner therein as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same and to direct the respondent bank to release the provisional pension and to pass such other order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petitions are that the 1st respondent is a Regional Rural Bank established under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 and is sponsored by State Bank of India and the 2nd respondent is the appellate authority constituted under the Service Regulations of the Bank. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.4911, 4913, 17098 and 21759 of 2020 were working as Officers, Scale-II, while the petitioners in W.P.Nos.13749 and 13991 of 2020 were working as Officers, Scale-III and the petitioner in W.P.No.22212 of 2020 was working as Officer, Scale-I. All of them worked in Aziz Nagar Branch.
3. All the petitioners were issued notices dt.17.05.2018 pointing out that certain irregularities were committed by them in Aziz Nagar Branch of the Bank and that the petitioners did not exercise supervisory functions in a diligent manner enabling the Clerk-cum-Cashier of the W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch 3 (Total 07 cases) Bank, one Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy, in causing large scale misappropriation of funds and loss to the Bank. The petitioners submitted their explanations on various dates stating that for the period in which they have worked in Aziz Nagar Branch, the accounts of the branch were audited regularly by the internal audit as well as by the statutory audit party and no irregularities were found/pointed out for the said period. It was further stated that Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy was kept in the same branch for more than 12 years and hence misappropriation of amounts by him cannot be held against the petitioners and held that they failed to work in a diligent manner. However, not being satisfied with the explanation of the petitioners, the Bank has initiated departmental enquiry against all the officers vide letter dt.06.11.2018 and the enquiry proceedings commenced and during the course of the enquiry, the Presenting Officer of the Bank has placed their documents on record and the enquiry officer has marked them as Exs. ME 1 to ME 370. MW1, the officer of the Bank was examined to produce the complainants as the witnesses. MW2 who is also the officer of the Bank was asked to confirm the contents of the documents and MW3 to MW5 were also examined. It is submitted that no evidence was adduced from the side of the Management to explain the contents of the exhibits and to correlate W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch 4 (Total 07 cases) them with reference to the misconduct alleged against the petitioners. Thereafter, the Defence Representative was permitted to cross-examine the Management Witnesses (MWs) and that it was also confined only to the contents of the documents and the enquiry was accordingly closed and the petitioners were asked to submit their brief within a period of 4 days and accordingly, the petitioners submitted their written briefs to the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer submitted his report on 30.04.2019 to the disciplinary authority holding all the petitioners as guilty of the alleged acts of misconduct. The enquiry report was furnished to the petitioners asking them to submit their objections against the findings of the enquiry officer and the petitioners submitted their objections in a detailed manner. The petitioners have raised the specific contention that the exhibits were only photocopies and the originals of the same were not produced and hence the photocopies could not have been marked. The objections submitted by the petitioners were rejected by the disciplinary authority. In the mean time, when some of the petitioners reached the age of superannuation, their services were extended notionally for completion of the disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, the order imposing punishment of recovery of Rs.25,00,000/- from the petitioner in W.P.No.4913 of 2020 was passed, W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch 5 (Total 07 cases) while the petitioners in W.P.Nos.4911 and 21759 of 2020 have been imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service. The orders imposing punishment of dismissal from service were also passed against the petitioners in W.P.Nos.13749, 13991 and 22212 of 2020 while the order rejecting the claim of provisional pension was passed against the petitioner in W.P.No.17098 of 2020.
4. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.4911, 4913, 13749, 13991, 21759 and 22212 of 2020 filed appeals before the appellate authority, i.e., the 2nd respondent, but they were all rejected and therefore, the present Writ Petitions have been filed.
5. The common objections taken by the petitioners in all the above Writ Petitions are as follows:
(a) Whether the photocopies of the Bank records can be marked as exhibits and whether they constitute admissible evidence in the enquiry?
(b) Whether, mere marking of the documents, without proving the contents of the documents would satisfy the requirement of proof of misconduct in the domestic enquiry?
W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch 6 (Total 07 cases)
(c) Whether the charges against the petitioners stood proved in the domestic enquiry keeping in view the nature of the documents filed in the enquiry and also the nature of oral evidence adduced?
(d) Whether the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will be confined merely to see whether the procedure of domestic enquiry was followed by the Bank, more particularly when the charges themselves are not proved?
(e) In case the contentions of the petitioners are found valid, what is the relief the petitioners are entitled to?
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the photocopies of documents do not constitute admissible evidence and failure of the Bank to get the certified copies from the CBI is not explained with any valid reason. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. Assistant General Manager, Syndicate Bank Industrial Relations Cell and others 1, wherein it was held that adducing Photostat copies as evidence is not as per Section 63 of the Evidence Act. He also relied upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of 1 MANU/UP/0669/2007 W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch 7 (Total 07 cases) S.G.Nayak and others Vs. Canara Bank and others2, wherein similar observation was made by the Karnataka High Court. He submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sait Tarajee Khimchand and others Vs. Yelamarti Satyam and others 3, has held that mere marking of an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of documents.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners thus submitted that in this case, the Management Witnesses, except for stating the nature of such documents, did not mention anything about the contents of the documents and as to how they were proof of misappropriation of funds and therefore, the said marking of documents cannot be treated as proof of documents. Thus, according to him, none of the charges leveled against the petitioners have been proved by the Management Witnesses and the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority have only drawn inferences from the exhibits marked in the course of enquiry and it will not amount to proof of misconduct against the petitioners. It is further submitted that since misconduct is not proved in accordance with the procedure and law, power of judicial review of this Court will not be 2 MANU/KA/0575/2004 3 AIR 1971 SC 1865 W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch 8 (Total 07 cases) having any restrictions and the order of punishment is liable to be declared as illegal and unsustainable. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meenglas Tea Estate Vs. Its Workers 4 in support of his contention that a person who is charged with an accusation must not only know about the accusation but also should be made aware of the testimony by which the accusation is supported. Therefore, he submitted that the petitioners should be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of cross examination as he desires. Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsel, since the respondents did not follow the procedure for conduct of the enquiry in accordance with law, the punishments based on such a faulty enquiry report cannot be sustained. He therefore prayed for setting aside of the punishment orders.
8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also filed a copy of the charge sheet filed before the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Gaganvihar, Hyderabad in Charge Sheet No.21 of 2018 dt.03.04.2019 in support of his contention that the petitioners, though were initially included as accused in the FIR, since there were no allegations against 4 AIR 1963 SC 1719 W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch 9 (Total 07 cases) the petitioners in the charge sheet, the charges against the petitioners were also held as not proved in the criminal case. He further submitted that the respondent appellate authority has not addressed the grounds raised by the petitioners herein and has summarily rejected their appeals and therefore, the appellate orders are liable to be set aside. He further submitted that though there is an allegation that Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy is the king pin and he has committed misappropriation of funds, he was not examined by the disciplinary authority during the course of enquiry and therefore, according to him, for this reason also, the orders of dismissal have to be set aside.
9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent bank, however, relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioners have been charged with gross negligence in exercising their supervisory powers in the Bank and accordingly, show-cause notices were issued to them and they were given fair opportunity to make their submissions and also to participate in the enquiry. It is submitted that Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy, Office Assistant was working in the said Branch and the petitioners have allowed him to issue pass books with entries recorded manually in the passbooks with his handwriting though the branch was provided with passbook printers and W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch 10 (Total 07 cases) thus facilitated commission of fraud by him and the petitioners authenticated such entries with their initials which is contrary to the circular guidelines and that they did not verify the same with the entries available in the branch books since they differed. He submitted that such entries were not accounted for and led to misappropriation of funds by Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy. As regards the allegations that the bank continued the Clerk-cum-Cashier at the Branch without transferring him for long period of 12 years, it is submitted that the Head Office transferred the said person to Chevalla branch on completion of 5 years term vide letter No.DGB/RO/927/2012-13 dt.13.09.2012, but since the said order was not implemented by the incharge Branch Manager, Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy continued to overstay in Aziz Nagar Branch and further the said Branch Manager also did not inform about non-compliance of the transfer orders and therefore, the said Branch Manager was also subjected to disciplinary enquiry and vide proceedings dt.04.02.2020, Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy was dismissed from service. As regards the argument of the petitioners that only Xerox copies of the documents were produced and marked and therefore there is no proof of the charges leveled against them, it is submitted that there was a gigantic fraud tuning to the amount of Rs.8.45 crores committed in the Branch and therefore, the original W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch 11 (Total 07 cases) records of the Branch were seized and held by the CBI as part of the ongoing investigation and for this purpose, all attested extracts along with SB passbooks and term deposit receipts were duly verified with the originals held in the custody of the CBI and the same were submitted during the departmental enquiry and other proceedings. He submitted that the Xerox copies are duly certified by the Branch officials affixing the branch seal and therefore, there was no violation of any law and the petitioners cannot dispute their authenticity. It is further submitted that only the Bank officers are authorized to certify the photocopies of the bank records prior to handing them over to the CBI officers and therefore, the objections of the petitioners are not sustainable. It is stated that sufficient opportunity of going through the evidence produced by the Management was given to the petitioners and therefore, there was no violation of principles of natural justice or procedure and hence there was no cause for interference with the punishment orders. It is submitted that the negligence of the petitioners in performing their duties and allowing Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy to make entries in the passbooks in spite of there being passbook printers available in the Bank has been proved and therefore, there was no cause for interference. The learned Standing Counsel has also pointed out to various acts of negligence which have W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch 12 (Total 07 cases) caused misconduct by Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy and huge loss to the 1st respondent bank. Those acts are:
(i) Not checking the passbooks by the petitioners and allowing the Office Assistant Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy to make manual entries in the passbooks,
(ii) Not checking as to how the term deposit receipts which are in the custody of the petitioners in the strong room were being issued and for what amounts the TDRs were issued,
(iii) Not verifying that the Office Assistant has fraudulently issued TDRs without opening savings account with zero balance in the name of the customer and without remitting the actual amount deposited by the customer in the bank and the fraudulent encashment of TDRs,
(iv) Failing to cross check the vouchers, FDRs and other transactions with reference to the VVRs (Voucher Verification Reports) and not submitting the Manager Monthly Certificate about the position of the Branch every month and even in issuing such certificates not pointing out the fraud.
W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch 13 (Total 07 cases) He has drawn the attention of the entries passed by Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy even before and after office hours of the Bank and the complacency of the petitioners in not preventing him from such activity. It is submitted that the petitioners have obviously disclosed their passwords to him, due to which the said Office Assistant utilized the same and has committed fraud and therefore, the petitioners as well as the Office Assistant are all responsible for the fraudulent acts of Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy.
10. He also placed reliance upon the following judgments in support of his contentions.
(1) State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Bhupendra Singh 5 (2) Union of India and others Vs. Subrata Nath 6 (3) Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava 7 (4) M.L.Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank and others 8 (5) Canara Bank Vs. V.K.Awasthy 9 5 2024 LawSuit(SC) 678 6 Civil Appeals No.7939 - 7940 of 2022 of Supreme Court dt.23.11.2022 7 (2021) 2 SCC 612 : AIRONLINE 2021 SC 38 8 (2018) 18 SCC 21 : AIR 2018 SC 4668 9 (2005) 6 SCC 321 W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch 14 (Total 07 cases) (6) Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and others Vs. P.C.Kakkar 10
11. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the foremost question to be decided is whether the photocopies of the Bank records can be marked as exhibits and whether they constitute admissible evidence in the enquiry.
12. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. Assistant General Manager, Syndicate Bank Industrial Relations Cell and others (1 supra) has observed that the photostat copies of the documents relied upon by the enquiry officer would be admissible in evidence and could be taken into consideration by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority provided that the copies are made from original by mechanical process which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies, copies made from or compared with the original and counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them and oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it. The High Court has observed that Section 63 of the Evidence Act makes it clear 10 (2003) 4 SCC 364 W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch 15 (Total 07 cases) that mere filing of photostat copy of the document unless it is proved by other evidence showing that the same is copied or prepared from original documents, the same cannot be treated as secondary evidence and accordingly is not admissible as such in evidence. Similar view was expressed by the Karnataka High Court in the case of S.G.Nayak and others Vs. Canara Bank and others (2 supra) and by the Madras High Court in the case of M. Shahul Hameed Vs. The Managing Director and The Chairman, Board of Directors, The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. 11. The Madras High Court has observed that the legal principles are settled that when serious charges are framed and it is required to be proved to the guilt, as it brings civil and criminal consequences on the employer concerned, he would be liable to be prosecuted and therefore, it cannot be proved on mere probabilities without taking evidence. Therefore, it is clear that the photocopies of the Bank records unless specified to be so by the authority under whose possession the original documents are there, cannot be considered as admissible evidence. In this case, admittedly, the original documents are in the custody of CBI.
11
MANU/TN/2137/2011 W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch 16 (Total 07 cases)
13. As regards the second question, i.e., whether, mere marking of the documents would satisfy the requirement of proof of misconduct in the domestic enquiry, this Court finds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sait Tarajee Khimchand and others Vs. Yelamarti Satyam and others (3 supra) observed that mere marking of an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of documents. Further, in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and another Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen 12, it was observed that mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law.
14. From the enquiry report filed along with the Writ Petitions, it is noticed that the Management witness has only referred to the contents of the documents which are marked, but has failed to state as to how the said documents prove the misconduct of the concerned employee or as to how the said documents prove the misappropriation of funds by the Clerk-cum-Cashier Mr. M. Jaipal Reddy and the role of the petitioners herein in the said misappropriation of funds. Therefore, this question is also answered in favour of the petitioners.
12
(2010) 4 SCC 491 W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch 17 (Total 07 cases)
15. In view of the reply to these questions (a) and (b), the answer to question No.(c) is also in the negative and this view is also supported by the following decisions.
(i) In the case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Rajendra Ram 13, the High Court of Patna has observed in paras 33 and 34 as under:
"33. The reason behind this principle is that not only the Delinquent Officer should know about the charges made against him but should also know the evidence against him so that he is able to submit his reply. In absence of any witness being examined and/or any record being exhibited, the proceeding cannot be said to be a proper one.
34. It is important to note that the statement of all the witnesses should be recorded in the presence of the Delinquent Officer unless there are reasons to act otherwise. If it is examined in the absence of the Delinquent Officer and materials not supplied to him again the procedure is illegal."
(ii) Similar proposition has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha 14 and in the case of Chamoli District Cooperative Bank 13 MANU/BH/0890/2022 14 (2010) 2 SCC 772 W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch 18 (Total 07 cases) Limited through its Secretary/Mahaprabandhak and another Vs. Raghunath Singh and others 15.
(iii) In the case of Meenglas Tea Estate Vs. Its Workers (4 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 4 as under:
"4. The Tribunal held that the enquiry was vitiated because it was not held in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It is contended that this conclusion was erroneous. But we have no doubt about its correctness. The enquiry consisted of putting questions to each workman in turn. No witness was examined in support of the charge before the workman was questioned. It is an elementary principle that a person who is required to answer a charge must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. He must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of cross-examination as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him. This is the barest requirement of an enquiry of this character and this requirement must be substantially fulfilled before the result of the enquiry can be accepted. A departure from this requirement in effect throws the burden upon the person charged to repel the charge without first making it out against him. In the present case neither was any witness examined nor was any statements made by any witness tendered in evidence. The enquiry such as it was, made by Mr. Marshal or Mr. Nichols who were not only in the position of judges but also of prosecutors and witnesses. There was no opportunity to the persons charged to cross- examine them and indeed they drew upon their own knowledge of the 15 (2016) 12 SCC 204 W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch
19 (Total 07 cases) incident and instead cross-examined the persons charged. This was such a travesty of the principles of natural justice that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the findings and asking the Company to prove the allegation against each workmen de novo before it."
16. As regards Question No.(d), whether this Court can interfere in the domestic enquiry under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank and others Vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari16 held that where the disciplinary authority records a finding that is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever or a finding which no reasonable person could have arrived at, the writ court would be justified if not duty-bound to examine the matter and grant relief in appropriate cases. It was observed that the writ court will certainly interfere with disciplinary enquiry or the resultant orders passed by the competent authority on that basis if the enquiry itself was vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice, as alleged in the said case. Non-application of mind by the enquiry officer or disciplinary authority, non-recording of reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by them are also grounds on which the writ courts are justified in interfering with the orders of punishment. In the case of 16 (2017) 2 SCC 308 W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch 20 (Total 07 cases) Commissioner of Police, Delhi and others Vs. Jai Bhagwan 17, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that non-examination of complainant during departmental proceedings and denial of opportunity of cross-examination to delinquent amounts to violation of service rules and also principles of natural justice.
17. In this case, admittedly, the co-delinquent Mr. M. Jaipal Reddy was never examined by the authorities and the petitioners were also not given any opportunity to cross-examine him. Whether some of the employees have been saddled with harsher punishment while some were let off with a lenient view, it has been held time and again that where there is parity among co-delinquents, punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing involvement in co-delinquents who are parties to the transaction or incident. On this ground also, the punishments of dismissal from service have to be set aside.
18. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent bank are on the principle of jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no quarrel with the principle that this 17 (2011) 6 SCC 376 W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch 21 (Total 07 cases) Court should not interfere with the disciplinary proceedings while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India except in certain circumstances which have already been culled out in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The said principles have been taken into consideration while holding that there has been violation of principles of natural justice and the procedure has not been properly followed. Therefore, there is no quarrel about the judgments relied upon by the respondents. In the cases on hand, this Court is not acting as an appellate authority by directing reinstatement of the petitioners but has directed the respondents to re- conduct the enquiry, if necessary from the stage of recording of evidence. Since all the petitioners have attained the age of superannuation and sufficient time has lapsed and therefore to reconsider imposing lesser punishment than the punishment of dismissal from service, this Court is of the opinion that the other judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent bank are not applicable ipso facto to the facts of these cases.
W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch 22 (Total 07 cases) Question No.(e):
19. In view of the above, the impugned orders of dismissal from service are set aside and the respondent authorities are directed to reconsider imposing lesser punishment than dismissal from service or for re-initiating action against the employees by following the due process of law. The respondent authorities are therefore directed to release provisional pension to all the petitioners till a decision is taken as to whether the enquiry is to be re-conducted in accordance with law or if lesser punishment than dismissal from service is to be imposed.
20. With the above directions, all these Writ Petitions are disposed of.
No order as to costs.
21. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 03.03.2025
Svv