Karnataka High Court
Sri T R Raghu Kumar S/O Sri. T.S. ... vs The Management Of on 20 May, 2010
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H N Nagamohan Das
IN THE HIGH COURT OP KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20*" DAY OF MAY, 2QO11Cif:I.
BEFORE .
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE IILNSQ
W.P.No. g0484/20tS)S7fS¥}§.lA3S) * ' S
BETWEEN: K' S S 3
Sri. TRRAGHUKUMAR'~~.__ M % _
S/O.TSRAMAKRIsHN'ANI. r_ A I
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS - _ '
R/A. SNEHALADYA,NO:."303'f I. A A
BANK EMPLOYEES' HSG; COLONY' A
10"' CROSS; 5?" ROAD I
BOGADHI,_M'-fSDRE'+570jO26'.~~' ..PETIT1ONER
(By SH; SI'§S'i\§.;I'aV'_I.(_7r_'VIiSI,VS?--l{!j1\:i--_z'§R, PARTY IN PERSON)
1. . A 1. THE MANAGEMENT OF
~ UNION B'ANK__QF INDIA
UNION BANK BHAVAN
--2,39I,jYIDHAN BHAVAN MARG-
'N}%IRIhf;'AN POINT, MUMBAI -- 400 021
REE'; GENERAL MANAGER (HRM)
2. 2 .. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY
S UNION BANK OE INDIA
'S UNION BAN K BI-IAVAN
239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG
NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI -- 400 021. .RESPONDENTS
(By M/SJCASTURI ASSOCIATES, ADVS., ) THIS WRIT PETITION FILED U/A 226 & 227 OP CoN'STI_TUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHRTHE ORDER 31.8.2006 PASSED BY THE DISC'IPLI'NVARY AUTHORITY AND ORDER DATED 12.5.2007 PAS;S'EI);B_Y APPELLATE AUTHORITY VIDE ANNEXURE-Rf AND U "AND ETC. I THIS PETITION HAVING EEEPNOV, iiEARD"»...,_E.~._ND RESERVED EOR ORDERS, H.N'.NAGAMOH,A3~l, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOW INO;
In this writ petitionthe. for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quashirtje dated 31.08.2006 and the order. 05.06.2007 compulsorily retiringgthe petiti'onfer..frorni'Ser'V'ice§ 2_.A'ReSpon'cient_._i_S a nationalised bank engaged in the business ' ban}cing.:'Pe'titioner joined the services of respondent -- Bank in tlfieyear I9i?8VI'iSVAgricu1tura1 Field Officer. Petitioner was promoted from tirne. to time and he was working as Senior Manager between A 1998 and May 2003 in Cantonment branch and Industrial Finance Branch at Banga1ore(for short 'IFB'). The respondent -« Bank noticed certain irregularities, manipulation of accounting 6/t_0'~=?'"""' entries, violation of banking procedure etc., alleged to have been committed by petitioner. Consequently the respondent a memorandum dated 10.03.2004 as per Annexure"«'./iii the petitioner to submit his explanation; to the rni~sco.nduct.eQm'rnitte:i by him. The petitioner submitted hislreplygon Annexure B. Since the explanation. of the, petitioner was not satisfactory, the respond'e1it_ »-- viisstIjéVd.,particleshoiivcharges on 02.04.2005. The petitioneripsu-brnitteti 10.05.2005. Since the reply of the not the respondent »-- Bank initiated Officer submitted his reportflalshlperi' stating that some of the charges'asvjproyedeisorrie charges as partly proved and some of the eh-arges as vnt)t'p'roVe'd.h;l."he Disciplinary Authority by accepting 0 .tl;ie" report an order of penalty dated 31.08.2006 A picornpnl-s4o'rilVy' retiring the petitioner from the services. Aggrieved by this. order penalty the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Simultaneously the petitioner also filed a Vfpeiiien under the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal " 0-'Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full ?artici.pation) Act, 1995.
<::§"W"
3. The appeal filed by the petitioner came to by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.05,:2eo7.:
Annexure E. Against the order of Authyoi'i.ty_and the order of Appellate Authority the peti.Iioi1er hasy_"_;filevd'* petition.
4. Heard argumehbtg./,pn both. ..side'uand perused the entire writ papers.
It in :Vdisptijtei..that_tlie petitioner was hale, healthy and physically fit _whcn_ joiVn'e.d."the service of the respondent -- Bank in the year 1978.' A F'urther is not in dispute that the petitioner ydevevloped yistial disahility in the year 1991. The visual disability A .re.s_ulted.i'nyloss' vision of -right eye. Despite the best treatment, the visual di'sabil"ity continued. The doctors warned that the infection to the right eye may spread to the left eye aiso. In View of this ";_developm'ent of visual disability the petitioner requested the " - "respondent M Bank, by his letter dated 03.06.1991, to transfer him to any of the branches or adrnih.istrat.ive offices at Bangalore so that he we can take treatment and save his left eye. Despite the best treatment the petitioner had taken, he lost the vision of left-,eyeW.aiso. Acknowledging the visual disability suffered by respondent -- Bank granted 5% olf'lmbas1cs_ pay-yas:"'iaconvveyanc.e allowance by order dated 04.()3._1994. 'Further on th'ere'quest=--:.ofv petitioner he was not subjected to"rou*tine trarisfelrroutside Bangalore on the ground that he Thus therespondent _ Bank was aware of the Despite the knowledge of respondent _ Bank posted hinr sle'ction°from 1997 to .1998. In the year work in stationery section and in the sa:ne'year :_'ti=ain'sferred to audit and accounts sections. Further in the s.year'l'20()l?~ the petitioner was transferred to work in start tr'ai'11ing.¢_college. It is seen from the record that there is no .rnecha11.is'm:orfmethodoiogy in the respondent -- Bank as to how a blind persorrcan work in accounts section and attend to regular work i' ..ir,r_a branch. Petitioner contends that on several occasions he made "'._or'a'rand written requests to the respondent -- Bank to give him a "suitable post having regard to his visual disability. On the other hand the respondent --- Bank denies that they received any such request gigs from the petitioner. Even if there is no such request from the petitioner, the respondent --- Bank is aware of the visual petitioner was under an obligation to provide him astiitable"woi*l<T_orli' lesser work as per Section 47 of the"l'"WD« Act. Thev're_spond«ent"',~ i Bank by entrusting the work of accountsand regular~work.'.in.pit'he, branches to the petitioner, whichlheiiiwas noticapablxs; ofxrioing, are to a large extent responsibleaf_or soine"of_tlie-chargeslleyelled against the petitioner. _ ._ V .
6. In theipplineirtolranduin gram, 10.932004 issued by the respondentf'»B.anlc?.thefollowing allegations are made against the petitioner. 4' _ ' ~ a. Accoun'tii1g irregularities in sundry deposits Account irregularities in bills payable, pay order issued ., irregularities in accounting of ' -ilricorne/cornrraission on LG Accounting irregularities in TDS collection and remittance e. Preparing nriisleadin g V'OL1Ch6I'S without supporting bills. ciw
7. In the articles of charges dated 02.04.2005 the fo1_lowing rnisconducts are charged against the petitioner.
21. Failure to take all possible steps to ensurel._andjp,roteQctithek"
interest of the Bank.
b. Failure to discharge his duties vvith utr1io_st"devovtion~.a'ndV diligence.
c. Failure to discli~arge ultniostivvhonesty and integrity. V 9 d. judgment in the perforfnancle ofulriifs official duties.
in irnpu'tation the respondent M Bank relied on as muar1.y"a,s a'liegations in support of the charges levelled agaiynstllthe petit'ione_r_.__The Enquiry Officer in his report held that 3i ' ;Va'lEegavtion.s*.._asv proved, 7 allegations as partly proved and 19 " ailegatioiisj 3S:}'flOt proved.
.--__'9. -Aiinexure L dated 24322003 is a report submitted by 9 is i.n_'speet'ing Officers in respect of irregularities in Industrial Finance l7.llBranch, Bangalore, for the period from June 1999 to 28.02.2003. sees During this period petitioner worked as Senior Manager»-__i_n this branch. This report pointed out irregularities in respect types of transactions in this branch. Out of 47 irregular.transactioi1s » 11 are committed by other emp10§feég'--~ip 'the are committed jointly by petitionerand oth'e_r :e'a_1ployee_s_iand account of system errors. Contrary"'to this'*report:.'.allV"themirregular transactions are levelled':against«" The Enijuiry Officer, the Disciplinary vAuthority'v'andithe:iAt)pe'il.ate__'Authority have not taken this reportlpfk '§.fl:inloctinsideration. The non-
consideration in failure of justice.
The memorandum of appeal. before the Appellate uAutl1ori.t'y contended that in his explanation dated "ill replywto the memorandum of allegations he had p the~.names of officials under whose instructions he had c'arried"out«:""the transactions but the Bank has not chosen to seek .. explanation of those higher ups and that the first page of his reply i"'._Vic'oritaining the names of higher ups has been tampered. The Appellate Authority in his order dated 12.07.2007 held that this is not a tenable ground. The material on record discloses that during gt the relevant period the petitioner was blind. In the background of visual disability of petitioner this ground urged by him gains importance and the same is relevant. Further it is vseenofrom Annexure N the proceedings of departmental enq'n'iry..'_~ 01.08.2005 that the Assisting Officer submittedto:~the'f~:lr1«quiring=giu'~~ Officer as under:
" As per the permiss.i_on giyeniiibyg gone through the reievantifileisi at _NRO,*.Biar1galor'e and IFB Bangalore. During the"'scn.itinfly§._We observed that some of the pagesiiiofthei'replies by Mr. Raghu Kumar with reference A * to 0 memorandum No. have been tampered :7with.' the material facts before has not». been 0ta3r;en..:in.to."cognizance. I am submitting the _'-vrelevanteireplies by Mr. Raghu Kumar and the records avai1'abie'in the files of NRO, Bangalore. They 0' " -may be recorded as Defence documents."
.0 "Therefore the finding of Appellate Authority on the "grvtoigndyiurged by the petitioner relating to tampering of his reply is
-- not only illegal and the same is contrary to the admitted material on " ~ _ record.
an
12. As many as 28 charges levelled againstyptheilVpelitio'ner relates to diversion of coninussion received byV.__lFB_'-.on lBankl' guarantees issued. Annexure T dated 0l5.08.2005«yis .;a letter issued by the respondent -- Bank to the petitioner'With_ a staternenr. 'Thi=sdle.tter..p states that the commission charged..and' received lBanl< guarantees are in order except one !.r'a'n.sacti_olnllol 279l0.'The respondent
--» Bank has not produced the Inquiring Authority. The lpijtiltioner produced before the Appellate Authority Appellate Authority in the A A V' " victimisation by suppressing __facts'-whichy'the'-._appe11ant has sought to support by :an:I.exing"a.l.etHt_er No. IFB:202:05 dated 05.08.2005 _dwoulyd'«nVot be of any help tot he Appellant in light of it -theyvaliepgations and charges proved against him in the Inquiry proceedings."
This finding of the Appellate Authority is bad in law and . l7.the"sa1ne has resulted in miscarriage of justice. In all fairness the "llirespondent -- Bank should have produced Annexure T and the vfiiifi statement before the Inquiring Authority. Thus by suppressing the important material the respondent -- Bank presented tI1e_"c.as'e:be'f'ore the Inquiring Authority and the Inquiring Authority'-is in the matter. When the petitioner Mhas"p1ac_ed' thisplocument Annexure T before the Appellate Authority. the same'shoul1dd'iiave., been considered by the Appeliate» AuthoiityftSurprisingly this document Annexure T tlie.yrespondent -- Bank. On this ground the the Appellate Authority are beiisqeti .. V
14. to articles of charges in paragraphs 14 and is admitted that he had comnaittedagrjriie irregularities. The explanation of the pe'ti~tionei' that it mistake, oversight, confusion etc., are not ' herefore the finding of Inquirin g Authority that certain 'charges 'aslfproved is supported by evidence on record and the adnnssiions made by the petitioner. For some of the proved charges the"~petitioner is liable for punishment. But having regard to the 'nature of charges, gravity of charges, in the absence of financial loss and the visual disability of the petitioner the punishment of W"
compulsory retirement from service is shockingly disproportionate. Therefore the impugned order of punishment is liable to be set--aside. l5. The Supreme Court in the case of India Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Ashok Kurnar Arora (£997) 3 SCC "the High Court has the jurisdiction to interfere with thellenquifry based on no evidence p and/or gthed"pur1is_hn1ent.V '--_is_V"total'l«y disproportionate to the proved misconduct of. an empioj/eei
16. In the facts and circumstances the withholding' of three increments with..;;umutlativet,:'effee.t_ will 'n'1"eet"vthe ends of justice, ToCthiseritentithe"irnpugned order requires modification. For the reasons 's.tate.di' above following order:
'peti.tion is partly allowed.
impugned order of disciplinary authority dated A 51.8.2006 and the order of Appellate Authority dated 12.6.2007 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service are hereby modified withholding three increments with cumulative effect.
€::_;,,,§m?"°'w
iii) Vi) LRS.
The respondent Bank is hereby directed to reinstate the petitioner in service in any suitabie to his visuai disability. i i i The petitioner is entitled;
consequentiai benetfits and'noii'oackweV.1,igesi 1 i The respondent irnpieiiient within four weekS:fro.m i --
Ordered aceordii13.gI3.'ii__ii it