Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ch.Venkata Rao, Visakhapatnam. vs The General Manager, Bangalore 2 Others on 14 September, 2023
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
WRIT PETITION No.7495 of 2004
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India by the former employee of Canara Bank praying to quash the departmental punishment and seeking for reinstatement into service.
2. The writ petitioner Sri Ch.Venkata Rao was appointed as Sub-Staff in Canara Bank on 15.12.1987 and subsequently was promoted as clerk-cum-cashier on 15.12.2000. While he was working at Lingasamudram Branch as a cashier, a customer by name Sri Ramana Pedamala kondaiah lodged a complaint to the effect that on 30.07.2001, he deposited Rs.13,000/- to be remitted into his V.S.L.A.G.-305 of 2000 account and a counter foil was given to him but the writ petitioner did not deposit the amount into that account. One Mr.T.V.Nadhamunni investigated into this complaint and he filed a preliminary report dated 11.02.2002 with a certain observation that this writ petitioner misappropriated the money. Thereafter a regular departmental enquiry was initiated and after due enquiry, the 2nd respondent/Disciplinary authority found the charge proved as one of gross mis-conduct within the meaning of regulation 2 Dr. VRKS, J W.P.No.7495 of 2004 3(M) Chapter XI of Canara Bank Service Code. He was finally given the punishment of compulsory retirement. This was made by an order dated 26.02.2003. Challenging that, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal before 1st respondent. The appellate authority by an order dated 13.09.2003 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority. It is in these circumstances, the present writ petition is filed with the following prayer:
"......the petitioner prays that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for all connected records pertaining to Charge Sheet No.HDAC 45 CH (W-4)/2002, dated 19.04.2002 vide confirmed in appeal dated 13.09.2003 of the 1st Respondent and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and without any evidence and further directed the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with effect from and pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
Sri K.R.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for writ petitioner submitted arguments. On 12.09.2023 as well as on 13.09.2023, the writ petition was listed for hearing arguments of the learned counsel for respondents. None appeared to argue the case.
3. Learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that the evidence on record failed to establish the guilt of the writ petitioner and the evidence available on record was not properly considered by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate 3 Dr. VRKS, J W.P.No.7495 of 2004 authority and the punishment inflicted is disproportionate to the allegations made. Learned counsel requested the Court to quash the impugned proceedings and order for reinstatement of the writ petitioner into service.
4. This Court has considered all the material papers that are made available for consideration of this Court. In cases of this nature, a writ Court is essentially concerned with legality and regularity of disciplinary enquiry and observance of due procedure and principles of natural justice. If the impugned proceedings are found to be in accordance with the established law and procedure, a writ Court does not interfere with the findings and conclusions reached by the disciplinary authority which were confirmed by the appellate authority. However, in those cases where the competent authorities failed to appreciate the material placed before them in a manner that is expected to be considered or if they reached to the conclusions based on facts that are not part of the record or that they arrived at the conclusions omitting vital material available on record leading to inappropriate and incorrect conclusions, a writ Court may interfere with such sort of enquiries and their conclusions. It is in the light of these established principles of law, the grievance of the writ petitioner is to be considered.
4
Dr. VRKS, J W.P.No.7495 of 2004
5. A perusal of the record indicates that on receipt of complaint against the writ petitioner lodged by a customer, a preliminary enquiry was done and during that phase, the investigating officer had granted opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. It was thereafter, based on material, investigating officer found that the complaint lodged by the customer against the writ petitioner was prima facie true and correct based on material. It was then he informed to the disciplinary authority/2nd respondent. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice dated 15.02.2002. In response to it, the writ petitioner submitted his explanations. The disciplinary authority considered the facts and considered the explanation offered by the writ petitioner and then concluded that there was a case for regular departmental enquiry. It was then the disciplinary authority framed charges on 19.04.2002 alleging mis-conduct of writ petitioner since he allegedly misappropriated Rs.13,000/- and caused damage to the Bank as well as to the customer. Mr. Om Prakash was appointed as enquiring officer. Due enquiry was held before that officer. The department as well as the delinquent produced their respective evidence and submitted their rival contentions. After considering all that material, the 5 Dr. VRKS, J W.P.No.7495 of 2004 enquiring officer concluded that the evidence established guilt of the writ petitioner and accordingly he made his report dated 16.12.2002 and submitted it to the disciplinary authority. Having been satisfied with the manner and method in which the enquiry was conducted by the enquiring officer and having found correctness in the conclusions arrived at in the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority served a copy of the enquiry report and sought for response of the writ petitioner in challenge to the findings in the enquiry report. On 06.01.2003, writ petitioner submitted his response. The disciplinary authority had given him personal hearing on 08.02.2003. After considering the gravity of the charge proved and after considering the explanations offered by the writ petitioner, the disciplinary authority though initially proposed for dismissal from service, it only imposed punishment of compulsory retirement and passed the order accordingly on 26.02.2003. The writ petitioner was given due opportunity to prefer an appeal in challenge to that and the appeal was presented and was heard by the appellate authority/1st respondent. The appellate authority concurred with the order of the disciplinary authority and accordingly dismissed the appeal by its order dated 6 Dr. VRKS, J W.P.No.7495 of 2004 13.09.2003 and it was communicated to the writ petitioner and it was received by the writ petitioner on 20.09.2023.
6. The above narration would indicate that the enquiry and the appeal were held in accordance with established procedure and in due obedience to the principles of natural justice. In fact, the writ petitioner has not questioned the method and manner of enquiry or the neutrality of the enquiring officer, disciplinary authority or the appellate authority. Thus, there has been no process failure.
7. The essential contentions raised in this writ petition are factual in nature. Writ petitioner contends that the complainant lent Rs.13,000/- to him on 30.07.2001 and it was in that regard, writ petitioner executed a promissory note in favour of that complainant but in the enquiry a promissory note dated 04.02.2002 was filed and false evidence was adduced to the affect that for the amount mis appropriated, the writ petitioner executed that promissory note. That at one stage, at the coercion of departmental authorities, this writ petitioner mentioned admitting his guilt and that being non-voluntary that ought not to have been considered at the time of enquiry. That evidence of colleague employees would indicate that they never noticed the complainant at the cash counter at the material 7 Dr. VRKS, J W.P.No.7495 of 2004 point of time, thereby improbalising the entire charge. Writ petitioner contends that these aspects were not noticed appropriately by the authorities below and therefore this Court should interfere. Having bestowed attention on these aspects, this Court has to state that the impugned proceedings do indicate consideration of all these contentions during the course of enquiry and with appropriate reasons, those contentions were negatived. Appreciation of evidence and arriving at a conclusion based on that evidence is the forte of the disciplinary authority, which it did accordingly and there is no error in law or fact on their part. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the impugned proceedings emerged in accordance with law and the punishment inflicted cannot be called as disproportionate to the guilt proved and there are no merits in this writ petition.
8. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date:14.09.2023 DVS 8 Dr. VRKS, J W.P.No.7495 of 2004 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR WRIT PETITION No.7495 of 2004 Date:14.09.2023 DVS