Karnataka High Court
K I Vidya vs State Bank Of India on 4 July, 2024
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:25737
WP No. 23938 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 23938 OF 2012 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
K I VIDYA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O ISMALAPPA,
EARLIER WORKING AS AN OFFICER
IN MIDDLE MANAGEMENT GRADE SCALE-III
AT STATE BANK OF INDIA SINCE ILLEGALLY
DISMISSED FROM SERVICE AND RESIDING
AT C/O B.VIJAYAKUMAR, HOUSE NO.59,
6TH CROSS BANASHANKARI III STAGE,
DATTATREYANAGAR, HOSKERIHALLI,
BANGALORE-560062
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA R DESAI AND
SRI. SAGAR B.B. ADVOCATES)
Digitally
signed by AND:
ANAND N
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF STATE BANK OF INDIA
KARNATAKA A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE
STATE BANK OF INDIA ACT, 1955
HAVING ITS LOCAL HEAD OFFICE
AT NO.65, ST.MARKS ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED
BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRADEEP S. SAWKAR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:25737
WP No. 23938 of 2012
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 25.6.2011 PASSED BY THE
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY VIDE ANNEXURE-K,
COMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER BY COVERING
LETTER DATED 25.6.2011 AND ORDER DATED 5.1.2012
PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY VIDE
ANNEXURE-N, AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL
BENEFITS INCLUDING REINSTATEMENT INTO SERVICE
FORTHWITH, PAYMENT OF ARREARS OF SALARY FROM
THE DATE OF REMOVAL FROM SERVICE TILL THE
DATE OF REINSTATEMENT, PROMOTIONS, LEAVE etc.
THAT FLOW FROM QUASHING OF ANNEXURES-K & N.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL
DISPOSAL, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, who was in employment with the respondent [a Bank] as a Manager, is aggrieved by the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings with his "Removal from Service" - a major penalty that is contemplated under Rule 67(i) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992 [for short, 'the 1992 Rules']. As such, the petitioner has impugned the Disciplinary Authority's order dated 25.06.2011 [Annexure-K] and the Appellate Authority's order dated 05.01.2012 [Annexure-N] with a prayer for -3- NC: 2024:KHC:25737 WP No. 23938 of 2012 grant of consequential benefits, including the reinstatement into service. However, the petitioner, admittedly, has attained the age of superannuation and even if he succeeds in the petition, the relief would be limited to notional reinstatement with consequential benefits.
2. The petitioner, at the first instance, is served with the notice of Serious Irregularities dated 18.03.2009 [Annexure-B] listing a set of transactions describing these transactions as committed by the petitioner while discharging his duties as a Manager. The petitioner has responded to such Show Cause Notice by his reply dated 05.05.2009 [Annexure-B1]. The petitioner, in this reply, has justified the transactions adverting to different appreciation letters and certificates received by him and specifically contending that he has, at no point of time, caused any loss to the Bank and a lenient view must be taken.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:25737 WP No. 23938 of 2012
3. Thereafter, the petitioner on 18.01.2010 [Annexure-C] is served with Statement of Imputation comprising of certain annexures. The Annexure-I which is appended to this Statement of Imputation dated 18.01.2010 is a description of the charges, and Annexure-II is the details of the allegations based on which imputations are made. With the Inquiry Officer being appointed, the petitioner is also informed of the same. The Bank has examined its Officers to prove the charges. The petitioner has cross examined these witnesses but has not examined himself.
4. The petitioner has filed his defense brief which is essentially in the nature of a written submission on why the evidence presented by the Bank's representative must not be accepted. The petitioner has not even stated the evidence that he would rely upon. The Inquiry Officer has found most of the charges levied against the petitioner are proved and holding that some charges are partially proved. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:25737 WP No. 23938 of 2012 The Disciplinary Authority, after due notice to the petitioner on 08.01.2011 and the petitioner's response thereto on 29.01.2011, has by the first impugned order imposed the punishment of "Removal from Service". The Disciplinary Authority in this order has essentially extracted the description of the charge and the allegations based upon which such charges are levied. The Disciplinary Authority's findings on each of these charges are ultimately in opining that the respective charges proved beyond doubt or not proved. The petitioner's appeal is also disposed of by a similar order.
5. Sri. Sagar B. B., the learned counsel for the petitioner who is assisted by his colleague, Sri. Raghavendra R Desai, canvasses the following as the threshold grounds in support of the petitioner's grievance as against the impugned orders of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:25737 WP No. 23938 of 2012 5.1 The Inquiry proceedings are predetermined:
The Inquiry proceedings are preceded by a predetermined notice, and because the proceedings are preceded by a predetermined notice, the entire inquiry proceedings are vitiated. In that event, the orders of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities must yield. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in Oryx Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Others1.
5.2 The inquiry proceedings are based on an anonymous/pseudonymous complaint: The petitioner is served with the Show Cause Notice and Articles of Charge/Statement of Imputation on 18.03.2009 and 18.01.2010 without disclosing the reason for initiation of the proceedings. Therefore, it is indisputable that the initiation is because of anonymous, or a possibly pseudonymous complaint.
If initiation is because of a complaint of that nature, 1 (2010) 13 Supreme Court Cases 427 -7- NC: 2024:KHC:25737 WP No. 23938 of 2012 the settled proposition is that proceedings cannot be initiated, and even if initiated must fail. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Union of India and Anr Vs. Vineet Ohri2.
6. Sri. Pradeep S. Sawkar, the learned counsel for the Bank refutes these grounds, and his submissions in this regard as follows.
6.1 As against the contention that the proceedings are predetermined: The Show Cause Notice dated 18.03.2009 is issued after routine inspection conducted as is scheduled in terms of the prevailing Bank's norms. This notice is not by the Disciplinary Authority as is emphasized by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but it is by the petitioner's Superior Officer calling for explanation as against a series of transactions described as Serious Irregularities. The petitioner has responded to this 2 decided on 10.07.2009 -8- NC: 2024:KHC:25737 WP No. 23938 of 2012 notice but without even contending that this notice is pursuant to a predetermined decision to remove the petitioner from service.
6.2 The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the petitioner's reply and being satisfied that there is prima facie material, has served on the petitioner the Statement of Imputations with necessary appendixes putting the petitioner on notice that a prima facie case is found, that he has failed to discharge his duty with utmost honesty, integrity or devotion and the punishment would be imposed only if the charges are proved. These two circumstances demonstrate that the inquiry was not predetermined and therefore, the petitioner cannot succeed on such ground.
6.3 As against the contention that the inquiry
proceedings are based on an
anonymous/pseudonymous complaint: The petitioner has not contended even in the pleadings before this -9- NC: 2024:KHC:25737 WP No. 23938 of 2012 Court that the proceedings are initiated on the basis of an anonymous or a pseudonymous complaint, nor has he pleaded that the inquiry proceedings are initiated as an empty ceremony with the issuance of notice by an incompetent officer. If this defense is not taken at the first instance or not even pleaded, such contentions cannot be entertained given the limited scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority will be the final arbiters of facts.
7. If this is the first segment of the controversy, the next segment of the controversy is because of these following canvasses by Sri. Sagar B. B. The learned counsel also endeavors to persuade this Court to accept that the Bank has removed the petitioner from service without evidence and this decision is so disproportionate that it must shock the judicial conscience justifying interference leading to
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25737 WP No. 23938 of 2012 appropriate orders for notional reinstatement and all consequential benefits.
7.1 The allegation of failure to maintain high standard of conduct cannot be misconduct: The Bank has alleged that the petitioner has committed irregularities essentially with reference to what is expected as a Good Conduct from a Bank Officer, and if there is any breach of what is expected, that cannot be construed as misconduct, especially given the provisions of Rules 50 and 66 of the 1992 Rules. The reliance is upon the decision of the Apex Court in A. L. Kalra Vs. Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd.3 to contend that mere failure to keep high standard of moral, ethical or decorous behaviour befitting an officer of the company by itself cannot constitute misconduct, and the Bank cannot ex-post facto label a particular conduct of failure as amounting to misconduct.
3 [1984] 3 Supreme Court Cases 316
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25737 WP No. 23938 of 2012 7.2 The Disciplinary Authority should have assigned reasons: The Disciplinary Authority could not have, after just extracting the description of charges and the allegations based on which such charges are made and the Inquiry Authority's opinion, concluded in a sentence that the charges against the petitioner are either proved or not proved. As is expected of every quasi-judicial and Administrative Authority entrusted with the task of passing orders which affect individuals, the Disciplinary Authority ought to have assigned reasons to substantiate the decision and the failure to assign reasons has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. To buttress this argument, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in G. Vallikumari Vs. Andhra Education Society and Others4.
4 [2010] 2 Supreme Court Cases 497
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25737 WP No. 23938 of 2012
8. As against the contention that the failure to maintain high standard of conduct cannot be misconduct: Sri. Pradeep S. Sawkar, as regards the assertion that the allegations are about the petitioner's failure to observe good conduct, discipline, diligence, fidelity, integrity and that failure to keep such standards by itself would not amount to misconduct, submits the following.
[i] The provisions of Rule 50(4) of the 1992 Rules is invoked against the petitioner, and this Rule is specific in stipulating that every officer shall, at all times, take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25737 WP No. 23938 of 2012 and do nothing which is unbecoming of an officer.
[ii] The Statement of Charges specifically refers to the 1992 Rules. The Rules do not define 'misconduct', but Rule 66 of the 1992 Rules states in unequivocal terms that a breach of any of the provisions of these rules shall be deemed to constitute misconduct, and the Note appended to this Rule only refers to Rules 51, 52, 56, 59 and 62 for the purposes of understanding the expression "family" for these Rules.
Therefore, the operation of the Rule 50 of the 1992 Rules cannot be curtailed by reference to this Note.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25737 WP No. 23938 of 2012 8.1 As regards the reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in A. L. Kalra Vs., Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., (supra), Sri Pradeep S. Sawkar submits that such decision is in the context of PEC Employees' (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 wherein Rule 4 listed General Conduct and Rule 5 specifically listed instances that would constitute misconduct.
8.2 The Apex Court, considering this arrangement of general responsibilities and specific duties [with breach of specific duties resulting in misconduct], has opined that failure to keep such high standard of moral, ethical or decorous behaviour befitting an officer of the company by itself cannot constitute misconduct unless the conduct falls in any of the enumerated misconduct while also observing that any attempt to telescope Rule 4 and Rule 5 would visit or expose employees to vagaries of subjective evaluation.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25737 WP No. 23938 of 2012 8.3 In the present case, this exposition must be differentiated and that in any event, the Apex Court, as observed in Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd and Others Vs. T. K. Raju5, has emphasized that on more than one occasion it is reiterated that the decision in A. L. Kalra Vs., Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., (supra) does not lay any inflexible rule and each case must be examined on its own merits.
8.4 As against the contention that the Disciplinary Authority should have assigned reasons:
Sri. Pradeep S. Sawkar canvasses that the proposition in G. Vallikumari Vs. Andhra Education Society and Others (supra) that a Disciplinary Authority, like every quasi-judicial or administrative authority must accord reasons lest their orders be in violation of rules of natural justice, is in the light of the specific Rules [Delhi School 5 (2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases 143
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25737 WP No. 23938 of 2012 Education Rules, 1973] which stipulate that the Disciplinary Authority shall consider the record of Inquiry and record its finding on each charge. The learned counsel submits that this proposition cannot be invoked in the present case because the provisions of 1992 Rules are distinct and the settled proposition is, as emphasized by the Apex Court in Boloram Bordoloi Vs. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank and Others6, that if the disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and passes an order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment.
9. Sri. Pradeep S. Sawkar lastly argues that there may not be any interference on the grounds that the inquiry proceedings are vitiated because they are commenced pursuant to a defective and a predetermined Show Cause Notice or that the allegations against the petitioner are for non- 6 (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases 806
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25737 WP No. 23938 of 2012 observance of general behavior of certain standard or because the Disciplinary Authority has not offered detailed reasons. The learned counsel is emphatic that the petitioner has not made out a case for interference even otherwise under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. In the light of the rival submissions, the question for consideration is:
Whether this Court must interfere with the impugned order/s on all afore grounds or any of the afore grounds.
11. On proceedings being premeditated. The petitioner's superiors have issued notice about a variety of transactions being irregular. The Disciplinary Authority, upon considering the reasons for which such notice is issued to the petitioner and the petitioner's response thereto, has recorded a prima facie opinion that the petitioner is guilty of discharging his duties with honesty and integrity and
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25737 WP No. 23938 of 2012 is persuaded to serve Statement of Imputations with detailed Charges and Imputations putting the petitioner on notice that if these are proved, punishment would be imposed.
11.1 The petitioner has not placed on record any material to justify an inference that the proceedings are premeditated. This Court must observe that the petitioner's contention that the initiation of the inquiry proceedings after the notice dated 18.03.2009 is tenuous. Further, this Court must conclude that there are strong circumstances which undermine any reasonable interference about the initiation being only because of the notice dated 18.03.2009 or that the initiation is intended for a ceremonial inquiry.
12. This Court also finds considerable force in the submission that the defense in this regard must be taken at the first instance, and if it is not taken at the first instance, the petitioner cannot be permitted
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25737 WP No. 23938 of 2012 to raise such ground at the final stage. This Court's attention is not invited to any record in the inquiry proceedings or before the Disciplinary Authority or in the present petition, to opine that this defense is not taken for the first time during the course of argument.
13. On the proceedings being because of anonymous/pseudonymous complaint: This Court, for the reasons mentioned above, must also conclude that it is not reasonable to opine that the proceedings must stand vitiated because it is based on an anonymous complaint. Further, the petitioner himself has placed material to indicate that there was some preliminary inquiry by his superior with the issuance of notice to him on 18.03.2009. This Court must also observe that the petitioner cannot justifiably rely upon the decision in Union of India and Anr Vs. Vineet Ohri (supra) by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in this regard. This decision,
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25737 WP No. 23938 of 2012 unlike in the present circumstances, is rendered taking note of the fact that the application was filed before the Tribunal calling in question the charge sheet at the very first instance i.e., even before the commencement of the proceedings.
14. On the petitioner's case that failure to maintain high standard of conduct cannot be misconduct: The State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992, in Chapter XI Section 1 [under the heading Conduct,] has listed good conduct, discipline, integrity, diligence and fidelity for general observance by every officer. The provisions of Rule 50 (4) of the Rules are as under:
"50(4) Every Officer shall, at all times, take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of an officer."
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25737 WP No. 23938 of 2012 It is undisputed that except this enumeration of the conduct for general observance, the 1992 Rules does not define what is Misconduct. The provision of Rule 66 is categorical in that the stipulation that any breach of the provisions of 1992 Rules shall be deemed to constitute Misconduct punishable under Section 67 of the 1992 Rules. This provision reads as under:
"66. A breach of any of the provisions of these rules shall be deemed to constitute misconduct punishable under rule 67.
Note: For the purpose of rules 51, 52, 56, 59 and 62, "family" shall mean: -
(i) In the case of a male officer, his wife, whether residing with him or not, but does not include legally separated wife and in the case of a female officer, her husband, whether residing with her or not, but does not include a legally separated husband;
(ii) Children or step-children of the officer, whether residing with the officer or not, and wholly dependent on such officer but does not include a child or step-child of whose custody
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25737 WP No. 23938 of 2012 the officer has been deprived of by or under any law; and
(iii) any other person related by blood or marriage, to the officer or to his spouse and wholly dependent on such officer." 14.1 As rightly argued by Sri Pradeep S Sawkar, the Apex Court in Disciplinary Authority cum Regional Manager and others vs Nikunja Bihari Patnaik7 while considering concerned Regulation 3 and Regulation 24, which are very similar to Rules 50 and 66 of the 1992 Rules, has opined that the employees with a Bank, for it to function effectively and properly, must observe prescribed norms and discipline and that acting beyond authority over a sufficiently long period involving innumerable instances by itself would be a Misconduct.
14.2 In the present case, misconduct is described as breach of any of the provisions of the 7 [1996] 9 SCC 69
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25737 WP No. 23938 of 2012 1992 Rules, which would irrefutably include breach of Rule 50(4), and such breach can result in penalty contemplated under Rule 67 thereof because of the provisions of Rule 66. The penalty of removal from service is one of the penalties contemplated under Rule 67. In the light of these provisions, this Court must opine that if there are constant transgressions over a sufficiently long period, that would by itself constitute Misconduct. This Court must also opine that because of the peculiar circumstances of the case and the distinct Rules of the Bank, the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India and Anr Vs. Vineet Ohri (supra) would not be applicable.
15 On the petitioner's case that the Disciplinary Authority should have assigned reasons:
This Court, to answer this contention must refer to the exposition in Boloram Bordoloi Vs. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank and Others [supra] while observing that the decision in G. Vallikumari Vs. Andhra Education Society and Others (supra) is in the
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25737 WP No. 23938 of 2012 context of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 as argued by Sri. Pradeep Sawkar. The exposition referred to above is as follows:
Further, it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and passes an order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment. The punishment is imposed based on the findings recorded in the enquiry report, as such, no further elaborate reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary authority.
16 The charges against the petitioner are based on the allegations such as deliberately delaying repayment of housing loan and certain other loans, permitting transactions with daughter and his niece in respect of credits given to them as against the loans availed by them, encashment of leave, leave fare concession without actually utilizing the same and a consistent over withdrawal on the personal
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25737 WP No. 23938 of 2012 account over a period of two years are indicative of the sustained approach of the responsibilities to maintain integrity and honesty. The petitioner has not lead in any evidence and having not lead in any evidence with the material placed on record by the Bank, this Court cannot take any exception with the disciplinary proceedings culminating in his removal. This Court is also not persuaded to opine that the removal from service is disproportionate to shock this Court's judicial conscience.
Hence, the petition stands rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE RB, NV