Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Chairman/Pres.Hyd.Dist.Coop.Cen.Bank ... vs K.Tata Babu (D) By Lr on 13 July, 2023
Author: J.K. Maheshwari
Bench: J.K. Maheshwari
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 138 OF 2011
CHAIRMAN/PRESIDENT, HYDERABAD DISTRICT
COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED Appellant(s)
VERSUS
K.TATA BABU (D) BY LR & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
(1) Challenging the order dated 27.08.2009 passed in W.A. No. 44 of 2004 setting aside the order of penalty of dismissal from service passed against the original appellant (now deceased through legal representative), this appeal has been preferred.
(2) We have gone through the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench in detail.
(3) The Division Bench recorded the following findings: -
“Another aspect which arises for consideration is whether, having held the appellant innocent of both the charges, it was open to the Enquiry Officer to go beyond the charter given to him and give a finding with regard to a charge of major misconduct in discharge of his duties by the appellant. The scope of the enquiry against the appellant was demarcated by the charge sheet dated 31.8.1990. As stated above, the Enquiry Officer absolved the Signature Not Verified appellant of culpability under both the charges. However, it is the contention of the Bank that the Digitally signed by Nidhi Ahuja Date: 2023.07.27 charge sheet would have to be read as a whole and 13:58:40 IST Reason: the allegations in support of the charges would also 1 CA NO. 138/ 2011 constitute a part of the charge. A reading of charge 2 and the allegations in support thereof clearly show that the two are altogether separate and unconnected. Charge 2 alleges that the appellant failed to ensure disbursement of loans to the proper persons, whereas the allegations are completely different and speak of negligence on the part of the appellant in furnishing a false report of verification of the loan application; that the appellant cheated the Bank and colluded with the office bearers of the society for personal gain. These allegations have nothing whatsoever to do with the charge with regard to the disbursement of loans to proper persons. It is relevant to note that a similar charge had been framed against the appellant under charge 1 in respect of the earlier loan under loan A/c No. 1002. Nothing prevented the bank from framing the same charge in respect of loan A/c No. 1010 under charge 2. The fact remains that the Bank chose to frame a charge only with regard to the ‘disbursement’ of the loan and did not formulate the charge framed by it in respect of the earlier loan, in so far as loan A/c No. 1010 is concerned.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Be that as it may, the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer and the vagueness of the charge sheet in this regard clearly vitiate the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in respect of the unframed charge of misconduct on the part of the appellant in the discharge of his duties.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. This is clearly a case of ‘no evidence’ in so far as the actual charges framed against the appellant are concerned and even with regard to the unframed charge formulated on the basis of allegations in support of the actual charge, there was no evidence worth its name, acceptable to a ‘reasonable man’ to hold that the appellant’s role was crucial in the sanction of loan or that he was negligent in the discharge of his duties. That apart, in the light of the minimal role played by him and the kid-gloved treatment meted out to his superiors, we have no hesitation in holding that the dismissal from service of the appellant alone is shockingly 2 CA NO. 138/ 2011 disproportionate. The charges themselves being silent on the issues which were ultimately found against the appellant, the findings of the Enquiry Officer traversing beyond the charge sheet are clearly untenable in law.” (4) In our considered opinion, we do not find any reason and ground to interfere with the order impugned passed by Division Bench of the High Court. Accordingly, the civil appeal is dismissed.
……………………………………………………………., J. [ J.K. MAHESHWARI ] ……………………………………………………………., J. [ K.V. VISWANATHAN ] New Delhi;
July 13, 2023.
3 CA NO. 138/ 2011 ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.13 SECTION XII-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No. 138/2011
CHAIRMAN/PRESIDENT, HYDERABAD DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED Appellant(s) VERSUS K.TATA BABU (D) BY LR & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 13-07-2023 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN For Appellant(s) Mr. D. Ramakrishna Reddy, Adv.
Ms. D. Tejaswi Reddy, Adv.
Mr. Hrithik Manchanda, Adv.
Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Adv.
Mr. Arjun D. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aayush, Adv.
Mr. Rajat Srivastava, Adv.
Ms. Simran Gupta, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The civil appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
(NIDHI AHUJA) (VIRENDER SINGH)
AR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER
[Signed order is placed on the file.] 4