Karnataka High Court
M Ramachandrappa S/O Late M ... vs Canara Bank on 5 March, 2015
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
ON THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
Writ Petition No.12032/2006 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
M. Ramachandrappa
S/o Late M. Hanumanthappa,
Since dead by LR's
1. Prabhavathi W/o Late Ramchandrappa
Age: 43 years,
Occ: House hold,
2. Priyadarshini D/o Late Ramchandrappa
Age: 20 years,
Occ: Student,
3. Shilpa D/o Late Ramchandrappa
Age: 18 years,
Occ: Student,
4. Vijay Kumar S/o M. Ramachandrappa
Age: 12 years,
Occ: Student,
U/g of his natural mother
Prabhavathi W/o M. Ramchandrappa,
` All R/o 5-5374/33,
2
Opp: Chiranjeevi School,
Chiranjeevi Colony,
Yadgir.
... Petitioners
(By Sri P. Vilas Kumar, Advocate)
AND:
Canara Bank
A body constituted under the
Banking Companies (Acquisition &
Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970
Having its Head Office at No.112,
J.C. Road, Bangalore - 560 002,
Represented by its General Manager,
L.R. Section, Personnel
... Respondent
(By Sri Shivakumar Kalloor, Advocate)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the order and proceedings
of the disciplinary authority dated 18.8.2005 (Under Annexure-R to
the Writ Petition) and order of the Appellate authority dated: 21st
June 2006 (Under Annexure-V to the writ petition) communicated
to the petitioner by proceedings dated 24.06.2006 (Under
Annexure-W to the writ petition) by issue of a writ in the nature of
certiorari and grant all consequential benefits including
reinstatement of the petitioner into the services of the Bank with
full arrears of salary and other service benefits as if the impugned
orders were never in existence.
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court made
the following:
3
ORDER
The case of the petitioner that he has joined the services of Respondent bank as a clerk in the year 1972. He has maintained a blemishless service ever since then, except for one instance of penalty imposed on him. When he was eligible to participate in the promotion process, he was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. An enquiry was held and he was imposed a penalty of dismissal from service. On appeal before the Board of Directors, he was re-instated. However, the period between the date of dismissal and date of retirement was not considered for any purpose whatsoever. Penalty of dismissal was substituted by a penalty of stoppage of four increments. The bank refused the seniority of the petitioner by excluding the period of suspension also. It affected his chance of promotion. Aggrieved by the same, Writ Petition No. 16573/1991 was filed seeking a direction to the bank to promote him. By the order dated 2.4.1998 the petition was allowed. The Bank challenged the same in Writ Appeal No.3639/1998 which was dismissed on 3.6.1999. 4 Thereafter, he was promoted as an officer in Junior Management Grade Scale-I with retrospective effect from 16.3.1991. The petitioner was consistently being rated as superior and excellent based on the services rendered by him. He was also granted milestone award for having completed 25 years of meritorious service to the bank. He was due for promotion to the Middle Management Grade Scale-II which consists of written test, marks for performance based on rating secured in the ongoing performance appraisal system and interview. Even though he had a higher standard, he was denied the promotion deliberately. The appeal filed was also rejected.
2. From 21st August 2002 to 12th August 2003 the petitioner was working as Manager at Hallikhed(B) branch. On 12.8.2003 he was relieved on transfer to Sedam. After his transfer certain bogus complaints were filed against him when he was working as a manger at the Hallikhed branch. He was called upon to submit his reply. He furnished his reply. Based on same, an investigation was ordered. The report was submitted to the bank. 5 Based on the same, articles of charges were issued on 2.12.2004. He gave his reply. An enquiry officer was appointed. Six persons who had given complaints against the petitioner were arrayed as witnesses. However, only two of them appeared before the enquiry officer. They did not support the case of the bank. The Investigating officer was also examined. He has narrated the manner in which he has conducted his investigation and the conduct of the petitioner. Thereafter the enquiry officer submitted his report holding that the charges were proved. A second show cause notice was issued. Petitioner gave his representation. He was imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement from service. He filed an appeal which was dismissed. Hence, he filed the instant Writ Petition seeking to quash the proceedings of the disciplinary, appellate authority and sought for reinstatement with full arrears of salary and consequential reliefs. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, he died. His LRs. were brought on record. 6
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order of the disciplinary authority and enquiry officer are erroneous and liable to be set aside. That there is no material to substantiate the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. That the disciplinary authority and appellate authority have mechanically passed the orders. The order of compulsory retirement is wholly erroneous. That he does not deserve the same, in the absence of any evidence to substantiate the charges. The same cannot be held to be proved. Hence, he pleads that the petition be allowed. That the Enquiry report and the order of the disciplinary authority be set aside and he may be granted all the service benefits.
4. On the other hand Sri Shivakumar Kalloor, the learned counsel for the respondent bank defends the impugned order by relying by his statement of objections. He contends that there is no error committed by the Enquiry officer or the Disciplinary Authority in holding that the charges have been proved. That the investigating officer has submitted his detailed report based on the allegations against the petitioner. That the 7 report would clearly show the manner in which the petitioner has committed the acts. His conduct is unbecoming of an officer of the bank. That only because two witnesses have not supported the bank is not a reason to hold that the findings are erroneous. The findings of the investigating officer is proper. Hence he pleads that the Writ Petition requires to be rejected.
5. Heard learned counsels.
6. The charge against the petitioner is that while he was working at the Hallikhed branch, he had granted certain loans to the borrowers by demanding/accepting bribe/illegal gratification from such borrowers. By the said acts, the image of the bank was adversely affected in the eyes of the public. The charges were supported by six complaints lodged with the bank. Based on the same an investigation was held and the investigating officer submitted his report. In the course of the enquiry, out of the six persons who had levelled charges, two were examined as management witnesses 1 and 2 namely Arjun Rao Danagundi and 8 Gulam Ahmed. On considering the evidence it can be seen that they did not support the charges levelled against the petitioner. They did not support the charges levelled against the petitioner. Therefore, so far as these two witnesses are concerned there is no material to implicate the petitioner. The 3rd witness examined is the investigating officer MW 3. He has stated in detail that all the efforts were made by him in order to collect the material against the petitioner. That there are substantial material to show that the petitioner had received illegal gratification from the persons to whom he had granted loans. That all these persons have stated that the petitioner has indulged in such acts. The Enquiry officer accepted the findings recorded by the investigating officer. He was of the view that the report being exhaustive, covers the charges against the petitioner. That the evidence of MW 1 and 2 even though did not support of the case of the respondent bank, it is not a relevant consideration at all. That in view of the strong evidence of the investigating officer MW 3, charges have been proved. 9
7. I'am of the considered view that the findings recorded against the petitioner while holding the charges against him as proved is erroneous. The charge against him is that of receiving illegal gratification. Necessarily there cannot be any documentary evidence against the petitioner. The bank could have relied on the evidence of the persons who have made allegations against the petitioner. In this regard the complaint of all the six persons becomes important. All the six letters have been received by the bank, but only two of those persons were examined. The bank has given up the authors of the remaining four letters written to them. The two persons who were examined namely Arjun Rao Danagundi and Gulam Ahmed, have been examined before the Enquiry officer. They did not support the allegations made by them. They do not support the charge levelled against the petitioner. In short their evidence does not implicate the petitioner. Therefore, on record there is no material in order to establish the charge against the petitioner. In the absence of any material such charges cannot be said to be proved. Therefore, 10 when there is no material or evidence to establish the charge of the petitioner, the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be sustained.
8. In support of his case, the respondent relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2003(1) UJ 696 (SC) in the case of Lalit Popli Versus Canara Bank and Ors. to contend that the scope of judicial review of an enquiry is limited. The Court cannot sit as an appellate authority. On considering the judgment, I'am of the considered view that there is no judicial review of any disciplinary authority nor is the Court sitting in appeal over the said orders. What is done is to find out whether the findings recorded by the Disciplinary authority are just, proper and based on evidence. The exercise of this Court is within the known parameters of judicial review and not as an appellate authority. When the evidence does not support any of the charges it cannot be held that the charges against the petitioner are proved.
9. The findings recorded by the Enquiry officer by placing absolute reliance on the report of the investigating officer is 11 wholly misplaced. The investigating officer has a limited role to play. The evidence and material that is collected by him is required to be tested judicially. The same has not happened. Mere collection of data against the petitioner is not sufficient to hold the charge against him have been proved. The same would have to be corroborated by appropriate evidence on record. The same has not happened. None of the witnesses as examined by the bank has supported the case. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the findings recorded by the Enquiry officer is erroneous and so also that of the Disciplinary authority.
10. The reasonings assigned by the appellate authority are passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind. Hence the said order is also unsustainable.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. The order of disciplinary authority dated 18.8.2005 in No. BLC:DAC:4492:E:37:2005 vide Annexure-R and the order of the appellate authority dated 24.6.2006 in No. BLC:DAC:4444:37:2006 12 vide Annexure-W are quashed. The petitioners are entitled to all consequential benefits as a result of quashing of these orders. Therefore, the deceased petitioner has to be considered as deemed to be in service. In view of the fact that the petitioner has since died and the Writ Petition is being prosecuted by his LRs., the question of reinstatement does not arise. The LRs of the petitioner are entitled to receive all the said benefits as aforesaid. The same shall be settled within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rule made absolute.
Sd/-
JUDGE *MK