Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Indian Bank, Rep., By Its General ... vs Sri V. Ravi Chandra on 1 August, 2014
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy, Challa Kodanda Ram
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HONBLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
WRIT APPEAL No. 1027 OF 2014
01-08-2014
Indian Bank, rep., by its General Manager/Appellate Authority for Award Staff,
HRM Department, 66, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001 and two others... APPELLANTS
Sri V. Ravi Chandra RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana,
Standing Counsel
Counsel for the Respondent: Party-in-person
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
AND
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
WRIT APPEAL No. 1027 OF 2014
01-08-2014
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
AND
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
WRIT APPEAL No. 1027 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) The respondent was appointed as a Clerk/Shroff by the appellant Bank. In the year 2003, he was working in a branch at Ghattu of Chittoor District. The staff in the branch comprised of the Manager, the respondent and a sub-staff. A charge-sheet was issued to the respondent on 18-01-2003 alleging that an entry for Rs.10,000/- was made in the token register by the sub-staff in favour of one Mr. Gopal and though no payment was made against that entry, the respondent manipulated the records depicting as though payment was made. Allegations of dishonest, misappropriation of Rs.10,000/- as well as manipulation of records were made. The respondent submitted explanation to the charge-sheet. Not satisfied with the same, the management of the bank directed departmental enquiry. A report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer holding that both the charges are proved. The disciplinary authority examined the report and proposed the punishment of reduction of pay scale of the respondent by three stages. However, the administration thought it fit to get the matter reviewed by its Vigilance Department, Chennai.
Through its communication dated 04-03-2006, the Vigilance Cell insisted that the punishment of removal must be imposed. Accordingly, a final show cause notice dated 27-05-2006 proposing the punishment of removal was issued. At that stage, the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 13153 of 2006 before this Court. The writ petition was disposed of with certain directions, in particular that the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of being heard. This was complied with and the disciplinary authority proposed the punishment of reduction of pay scale by certain increments. The matter was once again circulated to the Chief Vigilance Officer who in turn asked the disciplinary authority to implement the earlier advice of removal of the respondent from service. As a result, the punishment of removal was imposed upon the respondent through order dated 28-08-2006. The departmental remedy availed by the respondent did not yield any result. Ultimately, he filed Writ Petition No. 9070 of 2008 before this Court challenging the order of removal dated 28-08-2006 as confirmed in the appeal.
The respondent pleaded that it is always the prerogative of the disciplinary authority to assess the gravity of allegations and the attendant circumstances while determining the punishment and the function of the Vigilance Cell ends with the expression of its views. He pleaded that taking into account, the advice tendered by the Vigilance Cell, the matter was dealt with by the disciplinary authority once again and there was no necessity to seek the opinion of the Vigilance Cell, for the second time. It was also urged that the disciplinary authority abdicated its powers and correspondingly, the Vigilance Cell has usurped the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority.
The writ petition was opposed by the appellants stating that the procedure prescribed by law was followed at every stage and that the order of removal does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition through order dated 03-02-2014 by undertaking extensive and elaborate discussion with reference to relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the subject. The order in the writ petition is challenged in this writ appeal.
Heard Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant. The respondent appeared in person.
The basis of the charge against the respondent was that one of the customers by name G. Papanna who had a fixed deposit with the concerned branch was sanctioned a loan of about Rs.10,000/- against his fixed deposit and on a token being issued to him, the payment was made. It was mentioned that in respect of that very token, another entry was made in favour of one Mr. G. Gopal, a non-existent person and records were manipulated as though payment was made to the said Gopal. The result was that as against a loan of Rs.10,000/- sanctioned to one Mr. Papanna, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid.
In his explanation, the respondent stated that he did not make unauthorised payments to anyone. He stated that the so called endorsement was made by the sub-staff and the corresponding entry was made by the Branch Manager. He pleaded that as a cashier, he has to simply make payments against the cheques or other instruments, on being cleared by the Manager.
The record did disclose that there was some irregularity in the context of making the payment of Rs.10,000/- and the charges were held proved. The disciplinary authority took note of the extent of involvement of the respondent, rather the absence of it; and proposed a relatively lesser punishment of reduction of pay scale by three stages.
The appellant has its own Vigilance Cell which is entrusted with the duty of curtailing any illegal practices or investigating the lapses, if any on the part of the officials of the bank. By and large, the Vigilance Cells, wherever they exist, conduct investigation and submit the report to the concerned authority for appropriate action. Ultimately, the disciplinary authority takes a decision about the steps to be initiated on the basis of the report so received. In the instant case, the Vigilance Cell was approached after the departmental enquiry was conducted and the disciplinary authority has taken a decision to inflict punishment, of a particular description. The record is silent as to the rules if any, that make the decision of a disciplinary authority, subservient to the view, that may be expressed by the Vigilance Cell.
Be that as it may, taking into account, the view expressed by the Vigilance Cell, the matter was examined in detail and in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 13153 of 2006, opportunity of being heard was given to the respondent. Being objective enough, the disciplinary authority once again took the view that the major penalty of removal cannot be imposed against the respondent and reiterated the earlier proposal of inflicting the punishment of reduction of pay scale. Almost as a measure of admonition, the Vigilance Cell put its foot down and expressed the view that nothing short of removal of the respondent from service would be acceptable to it. Yielding under pressure, the disciplinary authority passed the order. The whole exercise demonstrates a phenomenon which the administrative law abhors. The first is that the disciplinary authority abdicated or surrendered its powers to the Vigilance Cell. The second is that the latter which is neither an appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority has usurped the functions of those authorities. The order of removal suffers from the two vices referred to above, working in tandem. The learned single Judge clearly demonstrated as to how such an exercise is impermissible in law.
We do not find any basis to interfere with the order under appeal. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
The miscellaneous petitions pending in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J ____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 01-08-2014