Karnataka High Court
K M Puttaraju S/O K P Muddenangaiah vs Syndicate Bank on 30 November, 2010
Author: J. S. Khehar
Bench: J. S. Khehar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 307 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010 PRESENT - THE HON'BLE MR. J. S. KHEHAR, CHIEF JUSTICE - wD _ THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. 8. BOPANNA, WRIT APPEAL No.671/2010 (S-DIS) BETWEEN K M PUTTARAJU ar S/O K P MUDDENANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 59.YRS) R/AT KESTUR POST TUMKUR DIS1 - ... APPELLANT (BY SRI P.S. RANGANATHAN, ADV,) - AND 1. SYNDICATE BANK). © A BANK CONSTITUTED UNDER THE _-BANKING REGULATIONS ACT, (TRANSFER .. AND UNDERTARINGS) ACT, . HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT _ MANIPAL, A NUMBER OF BRANCHES ~ ALL OVER THE COUNTRY AMONGST AT - SOMANAHALLL REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN ~~ AND MANAGING DIRECTOR THE GENERAL MANAGER SYNDICATE BANK "HEAD OFFICE MANIPAL THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY 3. THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY SYNDICATE BANK DIVISIONAL MANAGER bh ZONAL OFFICE GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE .. RESPONDENTS
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.11818/2007(S- DIS: DATED. 7 11/09/2007.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON_...FOR PRELIMINARY ; HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE -- DELIVERED THE :
FOLLOWING: oe JUDG 'MENT In November 2006. the S syndteate palit, launched a Voluntary Retirement 'Scheme. "The appellant applied for retirement. under the aforesaid, scheme claiming, that he was te and "fulfilled. all the conditions specified therein. - The request of of the appellant to seek voluntary sabes under 'the aforesaid scheme was declined through an order dated 18.02.2002.
-- Ze Well before the rejection order dated 18.02.2002 was issued, by an order dated 28.03.2001, the appellant was placed under suspension. During the course of his suspension, he was issued a charge "memo dated 01.09.2001. He furnished his reply to the aforesaid charge memo on 18.09.2001. _ Finding his reply unsatisfactory, a regular departmental inquiry was conducted against him. The Inquiry Officer arrived at the conclusion, that the appellant was guilty of two charges, out of the three charges levelled against: him:
On the basis of the Inquiry Report, the Punishing'. Authority, through an order. dated" 20.02.2002 | -
dismissed the appellant from service. .
3. The appellant assailed the order of his dismissal from service by preferring an appeal. The Appellate Authority however rejected the appeal preferred by the appellant on 27.05.2002.
Ae Dissatisted with ~ "the order dated 18.02.2002, by "which the appellant's claim for retirement under the voluntary retirement scheme was "rejected: as also. 'the 'order by which the punishment of : dismissal from service dated 20.02.2002 was issued, and. the . dismissal of his appeal vide order dated
2 -97,05.2902: the appellant approached this Court by ~ Sling W.P.No.11818/2007 (S-DIS). The aforesaid writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court on .
11.09.2007.
5. Through the instant writ appeal. the appellant has assailed the order passed by this Court on 11.09.2007, while disposing of W-.P.No. 11818/2007. Insofar as the departmental inquiry, which hau: 'resulted in passing the impugned order of dismissel from "service dated 20.02.2002, as also, the Appellate "order dated | 27.05.2002 are concerned, the appellant has principally raised three contentions. ,
6. The first contention aclvonieed by the learned counsel for the appellant is. we 'the 'effect. that the appellant has een | prejudiced on : account of the fact, that he had 'sovighi_ eight decuments by moving an application before the Punishing Authority as well as the Inquiry ontiver However. one of the documents
- . sought by ims expressed at SI.No.4 of the application made by the: - appellant. had been declined to him.
- According to 'the learned counsel for the appellant, the | ~ appellant was seriously prejudiced by the fact, that the "~~ aoeument at SINo.4 in his letter dated 05.11.2001 had
- not been furnished to him.
7. Insofar as the first contention advanced at the hands of the appellant is concerned, it deserves to be noticed, that the Presenting Officer, "while considering the claim raised by the appellant decline to" _ furnish the document at SI.No.4 vide" letter : dated 05.11.2001, by recording that the aforesaid. document | was not relevant to the charges levelled "against: he appellant. During the course of hearing, jearned counsel for the appellant has not advanced any submission to. contend, that the docurnent depicted at SLNo.4 (in 'he letter dated 05.1 1.2001) was relevant to the charges levelled against the appellant, We were informed, that the aforestated document had depicted the list of witnesses exainined by the Vigilance Officer, "while holding the preliminary inguiry. List of witnesses examined. during the course of preliminary inquiry is irrelevant to the charges levelled against the concerned a 'delinquent. Statements recorded by the Vigilance os Officer during the course of the preliminary inquiry may indeed be relevant. The prayer of the appellant was however not in respect of any statement recorded. It is therefore not possible for us to accept the first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.
8. Insofar as the second contention. "is.
for the appellant, that a large nuimber of docurnents were produced and _ relied upon during "ine "inquiry proceedings against the eppellant. But the authors of those documents were not examined as witnesses. It is therefore the 'contention of learned counsel for the appellant, that the | veracity of "the factual position asserted in the documents could not be ascertained. Accordingly, it | is | Su mitted, that the appellant was _ seriously prejudiced. during the course of departmental . : mguiry.. oi aecount of non-examination of the authors of dccuments as witnesses by the Presenting Officer.
g. a We have considered the second contention , a advariced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant. We however find no merit therein. In case, the appellant was dissatisfied with the factual position depicted in any one or mere of the documents due to non-examination of the authors as witnesses by the Inquiry Officer, it was open to the appellant to himself summon the said witnesses, so as to ascertain from them. the basis of the factual position depicted in the Bs documents. Having not been done so, the 'appellant must be deemed to have conceded 'to 'the factual | position expressed in the said documents 7 We are of the view, that the appellant, suffered. no. prance on account of the non- examination of 'the authors of the documents relic su 'pon, by tne Presenting Officer, while proving the chat ges "levelled against the appellant. We therefore Bok nd "inerit in the second contention advanced on behalf of the appellant.
10. The third contention advanced at the hands 7 of the learned counsel for the appellant was made on the basis of 'the factual position recorded during the ~ eross-examination of M.W.1. It was the contention of ihe earned counsel for the appellant, that M.W.1 had mo procured the statements of various complainants by unfair means, and that three documents i.e. DEX1 to DEX 3, taken on record and relied upon during the inquiry proceedings were without producing the author of the aforesaid document viz., Sri G.C. Shankar.
11. The third contention advanced at the hands. second contention advanced by him. ~ "Accordingly. for the same reasons, as have been recorded by us for the second contention advanced by the learned. counsel for the appellant, we find "ho : merit even, in the third contention raised by him. tt was open to the appellant to summon thé aforesaid Sti G. c. Shankar as his own witness. if he sii desired, to. ascertain the truthful position. By not doing ¥9, the appellant must be deemed to .have conceded to the factual position ~~ expressed in the said documents.
~~ 49. The iast contention advanced at the hands of
-- the earned "counsel for the appellant was, that the
- _ prireary controversy raised against the appellant was in _ respect of the appellant having passed/cleared a cheque for a sum of % 28,000/- unfairly. But, the aforesaid amount had been re-deposited by the concerned individual, and as such, the appellant-bank did not suffer any financial loss on account of any act. of omission/commission at the hands of the appellant.» It.
is therefore the submission of the learned counsel for extreme punishment of dismissal from. service. "Tt is submitted, that it would have beer: more appropriate for the bank to have punished the appellant: by inflicting the punishment cf compulsory retirement.
13. : Insofar 'as the aforesaid contention advanced at the hands of tire learned counsel for the appellant is concerned. it is necessary to extract herein the three _ charges. levelled 'against the appellant. The three
- charges which were depicted in the charge memo dated 01.99.2001 ave being reproduced hereunder:
"Article of charge No.1:
That you were functioning as Asst Manager (Rural Development) at our Somanahalli branch since 22.5.2000 until you were placed under suspension by the competent Disciplinary Authority vide Proceedings No.Suspn/2001/0] dated. 28.3.2001 and while functioning in your position as such, on 4.12.2000 you have fraudulently issued a 10 loose cheque leaf No.870404 to SKCC a/e No.44/99 of Sri. G M Shankaraiah, filled up the same for Rs.28.000/- with date as 4.12.2000 and obtained signature of one Sri. G C Shankar, falsely informing him that the same is required to rectify some. .
difference in SKCC account, passed the said cheque >. for payment on the same day and_ utilised tiie.
amount for self, that to conceal your fraudulent acis, you did not debit the amount to.the SKCC account . but inflated the day's debit figure by. Rs.28,006/-.
that the balancing of SKCC accounts. ior December. * 2000, January and February 2001 was extracted ana. ~ falsely tallied by you by inflating the figure/page total by Rs.28,000/- and thereby falsified. pranch's records. Be o :
In the process you also committed various other irregularities more fully described in the Statement of Imputations ef Miscenduet on. your part appended herebelow. |... arn By "your 'above.acts, vou failed to take all possible 'steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank 'and discharge your duties with utmost integrity, "honesty... devotion and diligence and exhibited conduct unbecoming of the status of the Bank Officer. and "thus contravened Regulation No.3(1) -read with, - Regulation No.24 of Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976.
Article of Charge No. II:
._.° While functioning in your position as above, on 13.12.2660, misusing your official position/exceeding the sanctioned limit, you have authorised for payment a cheque for Rs.35,000/-
drawn on SKCC A/c No.3/99 of = Sri. _ Channabasavaiah and utilised Rs.25,000/- for self "without borrower's knowledge and thereby cheated the party. The amount was reimbursed by you with interest by crediting Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,480/- to the above account on 18.12.2000 and 31.1.2001 respectively.
In the process you also committed various other irregularities more fully described in the Statement of Imputations of Misconduct on your part appended herebelow. -
By your above acts, you failed to take all: a possible steps to ensure and protect the interest ot the Bank and discharge your duties with vutinost integrity, honesty, devotion and. dil: gence and - exhibited conduct unbecoming of the status of the © Bank Officer and thus contravened Regulation."
No.3(1) read with Regulation No.24 of Syndicate -- Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations. 1976. -- nn Article of Charge No.1 While functioning. in your position as above, you have misplaced / destroyed : a cheque No.598590 dated.27.12.2000 drawn. 6n- your SB: a/e No.55 at Somanahaili Branch Jor Rs.15,0C0/~ issued by you favouring Sri. Hemanth Kumar. Bapnah, a financier and holder:ef SB A/c 43544 at our Robertsonpet KGF Branch, ir repayment of ihe borrowings made by you, which, was sent o Somanahalli Branch on 10.1,2G01> by thie above 'said Branch for realisation and thereby you deiayed its payment and gained pecuniary benefit for seif.
In the | process you also committed various other _ irregularities more fully described in the Statement of _ Imputations_ of Misconduct on your part appended ~Derebelows ;
. y ye UY + above acts, you failed to take all possible seeps 'to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and discharge your duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and exhibited ~ conduct unbecoming of the status of the Bank "Officer and thus contravened Regulation No.3(1) read with Regulation No.24 of Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976."
12Learned counsel for the appellant acknowledges, that charge Nos. 1 and 3 were held to be fully proved against the appellant, whereas charge No.2 was held. to "be.
partially proved.
14. Having given our thoughtful consideration te the nature of the charges alieged against the appellant, we are of the view, that the changes. depict a dishonest disposition at the hands of the appellant not once, but repeatedly. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it is not possible for us to arrive at the conclusion, that the punishment inflicted uipon the appellant was highly disproportionate fo the cherdes levelled against him. Thus, it is not necessary for us, even to interfere with the quantum of punishment inflicted on the appellant at * tive hands of the Punishing Authority.
: 15. No other submission, besides those wape "noticed herein, was advanced at the hands of the s learned counsel for the appellant.
For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in the instant writ appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
a Chief Juci! ce raat , hrp Index: Y/N :