Karnataka High Court
Shri R Lakshminarayanappa vs Reviewing Committee/Directors on 6 October, 2023
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:36381
WP No. 35824 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 35824 OF 2011 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI R LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA
S/O LATE RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/A NO.30, AMRUTHA,
COCONUT GURU LAYOUT,
HORAMAVU,
BANGALORE-560043.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.G.N.NAVEEN KUMAR FOR M/s S.B.MUKKANNAPPA AND
ASSOCIATES)
AND:
1. REVIEWING COMMITTEE/DIRECTORS
COMMITTEE, DISCIPLINARY DEPARTMENT
STATE BANK OF MYSORE HEAD OFFICE,
Digitally
signed by PB.NO.9727MYSORE BANK CIRCLE,
PANKAJA S KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE-560009.
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA STATE BANK OF MYSORE, HEAD OFFICE,
P.B.NO.9727, MYSORE BANK CIRCLE,
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE-560009.
3. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
STATE BANK OF MYSORE HEAD OFFICE,
P.B.NO.9727MYSORE BANK CIRCLE,
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE560009
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.N. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:36381
WP No. 35824 of 2011
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.12.1009 PASSED BY
THE THIRD RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE G, AND ORDER DATED
07.04.2010 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT AT
ANNEXURE J, AND ORDER DATED 21.04.2011 PASSED BY THE
FIRST RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE L TO THE WRIT PETITION
UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the imposition of the penalty of reduction to a lower grade from SMGS-IV to MMGS-III, and fixing his pay at the first stage of his basic pay, along with the confirmation of this punishment in appeal, has filed this writ petition.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that three charges were leveled against him as per Annexure 'A', which read as follows :
"CHARGE-I:-
You have failed to:
a) Follow the KYC norms while issuing TDR/RID for Rs.50.00 lacs on 28.09.2005 in favour of M/s Zeenath Transport Company, Bellary. -3-
NC: 2023:KHC:36381 WP No. 35824 of 2011
b) Obtain names and specimen signature of the authorized signatories of the company.
c) Accede to the request of the company to keep the funds for three months, instead, the TDR/RID was issued for six months.
d) You have closed the TDR of Rs.50.00 lacs prematurely without obtaining duly discharged TDR and without ascertaining the authenticity of the letter of M/s Zeenath Transport Company. The proceeds were credited to the current account of M/s Naz Properties and Developers and utilized to close the current account overdraft and Term Loan account for Rs.15.00 lacs
e) Though TDS amounting to Rs.25,338/- was recovered from the proceeds of RDR, you have declined to issue TDS Certificate to the depositor viz., M/s Zeenath Transport Company, even after a specific request by the Company.
CHARGE-II
a) You have released a Term Loan Limit for Rs.15.00 lacs to M/s Naz Properties and Developers on 03.09.2005, without obtaining sanction from the Controlling Authorities. -4-
NC: 2023:KHC:36381 WP No. 35824 of 2011
b) You have not obtained the confirmation letter in respect of Equitable Mortgage created over landed properties, belonging to different individuals, to cover the limit of Rs.15.00 lacs, released to M/s Naz Properties and Developers.
c) You have obtained Xerox copies of the title deeds as per the recital register.
d) The copies of title deeds of the different properties were released to Mr.Jabir Ashgar, Proprietor, M/s Naz Properties and Developers. CHARGE-III:-
In excess of the discretionary powers you have allowed Temporary Overdraft in current account of M/s Naz Properties and Developers up to Rs.29.83 lacs and also failed to report the same to Regional Office.
On account of the Charge-I above, the depositor has complained to the Banking Ombudsman and there is a likely financial loss of Rs.50.00 lacs plus interest.
Thus, you have acted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the Bank.
The above charges if established, will amount to violation of Regulations 50(1) and 50(4) of -5- NC: 2023:KHC:36381 WP No. 35824 of 2011 State Bank of Mysore Officers' Service Regulations 1979 and deemed as misconduct in terms of Regulation 68(2) ibid.
You are advised to submit your replies to the Charge Sheet within 15 days from the date of its receipt, failing which, it will be deemed that you have no reply to submit and the matter will be dealt with, without further reference to you."
3. It is his case that despite the fact that the Regulations required the respondent--Bank to furnish him with the copy of the documents and the list of witnesses along with the charge-sheet, neither contained the list of documents nor the list of witnesses for him to submit an effective defence.
4. It is submitted that since there is a contravention of the specific Regulation which required the Bank to furnish the list of documents along with the copy of the documents and list of witnesses, the entire proceedings would stand vitiated.
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:36381 WP No. 35824 of 2011
5. The petitioner has also produced Annexure 'C', which is the copy of the proceedings. These proceedings indicate that all the documents which the Bank relied upon, were produced only during the course of the enquiry and the petitioner was not furnished with the copy of the documents at the time of filing of the charge-sheet.
6. In Statement of Objections that are filed in this writ petition by respondent No.3, it is stated as follows:
"3. It is submitted that the witnesses in the enquiry were deposing with reference to the records produced therein and as such the question of recording any evidence in detail did not arise. ... ..."
7. In the light of this stand of the Bank, it is clear that the records were produced during the course of the enquiry and were not furnished to the petitioner at the time of serving the Article of Charges on him. Since, this is a contravention of the Regulations, which seriously prejudices the petitioner, inasmuch as, he could not render an effective defence, in my view, the impugned order -7- NC: 2023:KHC:36381 WP No. 35824 of 2011 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and its confirmation cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly quashed.
8. Since the impugned order is set aside on the ground of non-adherence of the Regulations, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has retired form service, the Bank is at liberty to furnish a copy of all the documents that it seeks to rely upon and also to furnish the list of witnesses afresh to the petitioner and proceed with the matter, if the Bank so desires.
9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RK CT: SN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3