Karnataka High Court
M Jayaramaiah vs Central Bank Of India on 7 September, 2009
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 7%" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 20Q9 BEFORE: THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND WRIT PETITION No.1.0574"O'F«2QO.4 (S--'Dis%)iit A BETWEEN: M. J ayararnaiah, Aged about 55 years, I S/0. M. Venkatasubbaiah;'~.. Earlier working as Manager, E' V 1 y q An Officer in Middle M,ana.gement.., ' V Grade Scale -_~,I}?at-Cenitral,B_ar1i<_of.i'fi._V ' A India, M_iV1Ie'1=sV Brar'1c,h',--i * , Bangalore 'Since ii1ié§ga11y'»re1noved"'V Fromservice.andfResidi'1ig' at :' ' Fiat No.«2i2, Skyline Apartments, C--'W.i.I'1g, Barigaiore --"5600"f'2 PETITIONER Sii'ri,Pias_anna ifuorshri. P.S. Rajagopai, Advocate) C;=;':i:i~ai':13ai:ii of India, A Body 'constituted under the "Banking Companies (Acquisition E' 'A.nd.~'Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, _ "Represented by its Deputy is ...General Manager, Zonal Office, g Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad »-~ 500 095 RESPONDENT
(By Shri.Anandai*am. K, Advocate for M/s. Sundvarasiwparny Ramdas and Anaiid) p' This Writ Petition is filed under Artic1es"2-:6. iii: zzvsfisfis the Constitution of India praying topqitiash.orcier"datei:1 25.10.2003 vide Annexure -- W p=ass;é'di."by'it»the~ _Discip~li.fiary Authority and order dated 2.8_.01.20047..vide_Anne7{ure. 4 Zr, passed by the Appeilate Autliority and"'direc_t the "respondent 2*» ' bank to reinstate the petitioner'"'int'o the serxfices of the bank forthwith with all consequentia-i------be'nefit.s incliidivngpayment of arrears of salary, seniority, prorr3votion_'of"'3\/iiddle Management Grade Scale -- HZ by giVing;_e'ffesc.t5to' theii'resuilt.i<ept in the sealed cover and all other servi.ce:'Vibe~nefits "i.n"a:id'ition to granting interest at 18% tperfanniim on',.'theisarrefars. of salary from the date of remova1'of'--serizi'ce till «date of._reiin.stateinent, etc. on for hearing this day, the Court made the' following;
e°0RDER AV' " p -It{4{eardi.éti1e_Counsel for the petitioner and respondent. ~vThe petitioner had joined the services of the it "respondent--Bank' as a Clerk in the year 1972. He was promoted
-- AA'-asan officer in Junior Management Grade Scale -- I in the year 3 3 1979 and thereafter as Manager in Middle. Management Grade Scale ---~ II with effect from 01.12.1988. Though he was successful in the process for promotion to Middle Management Grade Scale -- II}, he was denied promotion and the revs~tilt.._of_the process for consideration for promotion to Middl.e:~Man'agemfe-at Grade Scale ---- III was kept in a sealedpcovervléonlaccoiirtt 'ofl' certain disciplinary proceedings, wh'ic_h'-are inde-ed~thi.s "s.ii'eject_ matter of the petition. It is tl'lE}'*4_>I::lC3titi0nel",.S.V cofiteiitiolnllthat he bad service records spannin_gi. three vdecades of "blemishless service and he was due to Vreti_re,..had h'e.co-nfinaed in service. s it during the period 01.06.1995 to 29.0l.i9§'?--,._Vil the ._petitilolr1er worked as an Officer at V.i:sh.kapatnam l§ranch<of the respondent-bank. The branch was .:Senior Manager who was an Officer in Middle l\rIalnagenie:1:;t'Grade Scale -- III. In respect of certain events that are siaidt' to have occurred in the year 1995 and early I996. '--..VP--ursuant to an investigation, a memo was issued to the 5 petitioner alleging that the petitioner while functioning as Manager of the bank has sanctioned credit limits to_-Ceitairi borrowal accounts without proper assessment of ->finiancvi.a1 requirement, to which the petitioner had filed andiit V' was pointed that he was not the Head of'itheiBranch: aridV:pa1'l_th:e credit limits in question were sanctioned by its ofhc.iaI up;eriors* pg after their inspection of the crederitiais. of the-accountfgholders. It was only in respect 'of ones' acciouint namely M/s. Silver Sports, he had_r'-sanctionedlithe" whilie functioning as officiating andithieiiliability of the said account has been ufu~1lp3i/ recoi'.iered~~and.idenied all other aiiegations. the..__.D.isciplinary Authority had come to a V V'cor1elusioniVi"aAiid. though there was no reason to initiate any disiciplivnarjiflproceedings, at the instance of Branch Manager the Bank" referred the matter to the Central Vigilance A' Coriimission for its advise, which in its turn directed the Bank .-to initiate discipliiiargg proceedings and thereafter the proceedings were initiated and a charge--sheet was issued to the petitioner in October 1998.
An Enquiry Officer was appointed in was replaced by yet another. An enquiry was 'conducted iby is Conatnissioner of Departmental Enqzuiriesanda report holding that certain charges wei'e__proyed iwhilewerle ; The petitioner was called upon to"rnal<.e submiissiori 'against the findings of the Enquiry "Officer, ti/liuici1.igthe'petitioner had done. The Disciplinary' Authoirityi'thiei'e.afteri'. i a View that the petitioneiriivvasliiabiie'tojibeyigipilnishedi"with reduction of pay scale by six 'stages in of pay for a period of two years with curnulative effect} p ~ Howe;/er, insofar as proposal to impose this punishment 'proceeded to consult the Central Vigilance Corrirnissiori. The said Commission, however, opined that the npunishment proposed in respect of the charges which were 'established was not commensurate and that the petitioner ought 3 6 to be visited with "stiff" major penalty such as dismissal or compulsory retirement. Pursuant to this, the Bisciplinary Authority had proposed to remove the petitioner fromservices and accordingly issued a notice to the petitioner, replied to.
The Disciplinary Authority, thereafter punishment, modified its ea1=l.ie1* proposals imposing punishment of removalifroni servie_e~;_i'and the petitioner is before this Court, A
-. The "Cotinseli"for"*the "i petitioner would among other grounds ceantendiithat'ltheeatire proceedings are vitiated by the re,_fei:ence _to th'e...__.Central Vigilance Commission. Under of Central Bank of India Disciplinary and Appeal §{egulatioincs1,_*vs/hich provides that cases involving a vigilance angle' to be subject to consultation with the Commission. V-,.pChai'ge no.1 and 3 brought against the petitioner, which allege .--exhibition of unwarrantecginterest in certain proposals and deiiberately omitted certain information incorporating certain fake and fictitious figures deiiberateiy were infact hetdinot to have been proved against the petitioner. In the§'_:if'ace_'v---of:_ accepted finding that the case didinot invoi'v'e" -a:1'_i§/ii'vig'i1ance' * angle and in the circumstance that:.&the_'_'veryi"referencei"to'the Commission was not wararahted a"nd'_ vt1;ér,ef'e_1}e'-~ 4.3 they disadvantage of the petitioner. , S'ec.o_ndIy,i_the Commission in its turn having opined that theitpropos.ed.fp1irii_shment was not adequate and thatfan izextrenae of removal from service otight.;:i"t_oVb'e »i4niptosed...t--on'v.; the petitioner, has been mecha.nica1'ly.iiiniposcd"*by"--.. the respondent~bank. It is this primary is sought to be highlighted by the counse1_ii'whiie taking___this Court through the materiai on record pi Vfitidingst. airr-ived at by the Enquiry Officer and the gravity of which were heid proved.
C' order to demonstrate that the extreme punishment of reduction of basic pay by six stages for a period of two years 3 with cumulative effect, has been compounded. The Commission having directed the Bank to impose the 'eiitreme punishment of removal from service, which ;"'was,'~~..tiota.Ily disproportionate and unjust, when the _very:f»punishrrient"
proposed by the Bank was of a magnitude, :which~is' what was warranted, even i'i°_ti*teV charges were proved.' against the petitioner.
It is in this-vein that-the C'ottn_se]."for"the. petitioner would seek to contend péain reading the sequence of the eventsfand' theV'ite'ii.ort soscalied recommendation of the Cornrnissiion, .,which'A,_i'sV__i'..a clear directive, that has been v adopted. and implemented by the respondentwbank has' resuiitedttwinv injustice.
practice has been frowned upon by the Apex Court ini-the judgement in the case of Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi ars_.':'i.-'Syndicate Bank, 1991(3) sec 219, which has been 2 9 subsequently referred to and relied upon in the judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court and would submit that the petition be allowed especially in the light of the fact' petitioner has during th_e pendency of the petitiolril attained the age of superannuation and iltl1C_1"t.--}ll€.;f that _he'Vv'ouid ultimately secure is minimal and no prejudice hardshipu/ill--.,p be caused to the respondent-banliuifthe petition is allowed. While the Counsel"~~for wovuldlivehernently a oppose the petition and t--hev.ls'tatenient of objections wouldlcointendvthaltlthefacts asvlniarrated by the petitioner are incomplete' and to supplement the actual subject matter of the. charges" bought against the petitioner and the iii<._._which the enquiry has been conducted to ._deniofIsti"ate there was no infirmity involved, insofar as the entpiirv proceedings were concerned and that insofar as the iseeondfll stage advise tendered by the Central Vigilance "Commission is concerned, the petitioner seeking to characterize Z 10 the same as a direction issued by the Commission, which the respondent--bank has mechanically implemented incorrect. ll
6. The Disciplinary Authority, assessment of the entire maier'i~al on 'record, twplu15sea,ntV to their second stage advise tendered aincl having regard to the gravity the' =c_omm_itted by the petitioner has.' of removal from service, wliilleli:,£t~isio" not disqualify him for futurev'i'emp'loy'me:nffV cannot be said that the petitioner: has with the extreme punishment of remgmzal from service justification.
':Thelii'€entral Vigilance Commission in its_ view having .he'l_dsitha:t'~thecharges frarned against the petitioner involved a vigilance 'angle would certainly be an opinion within its to "discretion to have been expressed and it is incorrect on the part 2 ll of the petitioner to contend that the charges which are held proved against him did not involve any vigilance angle; The Central Vigilance Commission has provided under Regulation 19 and the~i'e.spon.§1eni;ban1{iiisi.inot"in ii a position to lightly negate or disiinisisiany reco'mrneirdation_ made by the Central Vigilance Cron1missio'n, iItV.isj"withiitliisii sense of responsibility that the reSpon'dejnt--l3ank had initiated the punishment as against the levelled against petitioner that .petit'ioner ought to be visited with o_f*».v.:'rerr1ovali from service without disqualification' of 'f1:1Utre,_e'inp'loyment and therefore there is no infirmity or .i,llega'lity* the order of punishment that is V for the respondent would go on to meet the"'otl1eripe'tition averments in great detail. As evident from the "statement of objections, the primary controversy that centers iiarotind is whether the punisgient imposed on the petitioner 12 was disproportionate and whether it was prompted by the advise of the Central Vigilance Commission, which has been mechanically adopted by the respondent~ban1< as urged»..b'y_V_the petitioner and whether such penalty was warranted; C C " ff '7' Given the facts _and circumsta_nce,s_ of t_he"case_,. as already' "
stated herein above, of the several lcharlgesiilbrought:agariunstltvhe petitioner, it was certain chargesilwhichhlwere been" C established as pointed by the:C'o'tinsell"=for the "petitioner. The more serious charges involving"vigil_a.nce':alngle as understood both \_l/'ig.ilance_"V'Commission and respondent- bank are charge no.2. Whereas the charges that are held proved 'against the petitioner are other charges, which ,c¢fta.in'l'v wlonld not a involve vigilance angle. i..n=.this view of the matter, the respondent--bank having-..'proposed a "stif" major penalty of reduction in basic "pay. six stages for a period of two years with cumulative A"'e1l°i'fect, the Central Vigilance Commission superdmposing its 2 l3 opinion that the major penalty proposed was inadequate and that it ought to have been the greater punishment of rernoval or _ compulsory retirement from service, which was in"'so"4-many words spelt out that has been implemented by :~i bank. ~ The respondent having chosen toiidehioinstrate 'haja independently reassessed its Veai_f4l'ie_1f opinion' th.ere'afier had" i come to an independen--t,opinio'n' isiVt_:dif1"icult of accepted. On the face it, the punishment iproiposed" respondenbbank couldynot"befitaidii sieivete punishment in respect of charge'-sthat against the petitioner as rightly opined by the .ba11l<.v;' . in thegfirst 'instance the punishment was adequate and gtprcpgorttlionatelftohthe charges brought against the petitioner. The res'pont1ent~banl< in its anxiety not to disagree with the opinion H with the Central Vigilance Commission though it would deny ii'-thatiiit was not in any manner being influenced by the Central 14 Vigilance Commission, going by the subsequent events,_ where the respondent--bank has made an attempt to demonstrate*that it has independently appiied its mind in making a rea'ssessme'nt"of the proposed punishment, has prnereiy "_imp1eirnentedT.» the 4-' recommendation of the Central Vigiiance C_ornmi=ss1on--~_Voi.u removing the petitioner from se'1'vViCe without idisquaiifyning him V for future employmentfffhis eannot to be an independent decision about by the opinion Commission. As held case of Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagicvs. 3 SCC 219, in the following terms: A C V 3 V. uCot.ir1;se}.____fQrv the Bank however, submits that A n_oitvJithsitanding the advice of the Centrai Vigiiance VCoitneniissVio,n:~'and the directive dated July 2.E,198:~<1 of the of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (BVa:.1.king Division), the case of the petitioner has " 4_ received the fuiiest consideration from the disciplinary hand appellate authorities. They have independentiy considered the material on record both on the articles of 5 15 charges and also on the appropriate punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner. The orders of the authorities do not refer to the circulars of the Bank, nor to the punishment proposed by the Ce_'nt.ra'l..._4ii~.._ Vigilance Commission. It is therefore illegitin'Ia'te.."top contend that the punishment imposed on the petitio'r1er' i has been vitiated by extraneous intiuences.
I5. We are not even remotely:irhpressedfig 'they arguments of counsel for tli._e:"Bank. iFi.rstly,p itself seems to have felt as al.les§ed_ hey. the petitioner and not denied by thet._.i:§3an;t_ in .i'iis_".counter that the compulsory retirement 'i'reCor_t1nien»:ied'--il§3r__i_lthe Central V.igilance..C'oni_mission tooiharshi and excessive on the petitioner iiv'iew'»._o'f his _ieiXeellent performance and unblemished' ariteceden_t"iservice. The Bank appears to havernade two representations; one in 1986 and another in 1.987ito.tjhe'Cent'ral 'Vigilance Commission for taking ii'ai.jlen1ent view"""of the matter and to advice lesser to the petitioner. Apparently, those if =..t'reprcis_et1tations were not accepted by the Commission. Theidisciplinary authority and the appellate authority therefore have no choice in the matter. They had to "gimpose the punishment of compulsory retirement as " advised by the Central Vigilance Commission. The advice was binding on the authorities in view of the said % 16 directive of the Ministry of Finance, followed by two circulars issued by the successive Chief Executives of the Bank. The disciplinary and the appellate authorities.» might not have referred to the directive of the Min'istry"*<.Vg. of Finance or the Bank circulars. They might__aot"ha§';§.,, ;_. ' stated in their orders that they were punishment proposed by the Cientral Commission. But it is reasonably"fore-s_eeable"and~needsfiv 9' no elaboration that they not*~have. _igr1or'ed<*v--.the--' advice of the Cornmissiont _CU1lu1d Ilothaiveiimpfosed a lesser punishmenit"*Vwith_outV_concurrence of the Commission. Indeed, could;'havei'ignore_d the advice of the Con";rriission:"and' rimposevd_'aV'-lesser punishment only at their . C' '' :The_potvezsHioi7__%'ih_e . punishing authorities in depa"rtmental"'proceedings is regulated by the statutory ;'Regt1lations_.V'Regulation 4 merely prescribes diverse €'punish'ment vvhiichiimay be imposed upon delinquent C' offic'er_s';t'Regulation 4 does not provide specific h'---.t'punishments for different misdemeanours expect classifyiing the punishments as minor or major. Regulations leave it to the discretion of the punishing V Kauthority to select the appropriate punishment having H regard to the gravity of the misconduct proved in the case. Under Regulation 17, the appellate authority may 3 37 pass an order confirming, enhancing, reducing or completely setting aside the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority. He has also power to express his Own views on the merits of the matter and irnp0se4.any"i.i't..t_ appropriate punishment on the delinquent officer.---l_tui_s_l"'.j' quasijudicial power and is unrestricted. But itVh__as i completed fettered by the direction' "
Ministry of Finance. The Bankihas 'd punishment advised by ,__the d"Ce1';trai .
Commission in every case dofyiiidiscipiinasjy"proceedings should be strictly adheredt-'tc;--..iandV"-not todbe. altered without prior concuuri'ence.L :.the«VtiVCeritral Vigilance Cornrnission and the ,M.i_nistry --0f..»Finance;~--", * isivci'eEtif., tha§tVi'the"«e_ase onwhand would fall within the mischief as has tbeein'--he'ld. the Supreme Court in the above case.' Hence; it is appropriate that the petition be allowed. . petition is allowed.
- W and Z are quashed and stands modified to hold that the petitioner's punishment shall stand reduced from iteraoval of service without disqualification for future 2 18 employment to that of basic reduction. in time scale by six stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect. The petitioner would therefore be entitled:
consequential benefits flowing from the same, f1'o__i:a .tj'neldalteV_'of his removal from service till the date hea'ttained~:sugjerannuation and shall be entitled to such :o_ther benefits entitled to in the usual course.