S.Raghu Prasad vs Central Bank Of India, Bank Street, ... on 2 September, 2025

[Cites 24, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

S.Raghu Prasad vs Central Bank Of India, Bank Street, ... on 2 September, 2025

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

             WRIT PETITION No. 18560 OF 2009

O R D E R:

The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 1st respondent in imposing the punishment of dismissal which is a disqualification for future employment vide order dated 27.09.2008; order of the Appellate Authority dated 30.01.2009 and order of the Review Authority dated 15.07.2009 confirming the punishment of dismissal from service as illegal and arbitrary and for consequential reliefs.

2. The case of petitioner is that he joined the Central Bank of India as Agricultural Assistant on 07-08-1978 and was promoted up to the rank of Manager on 31-03-2002 and worked as such at Visakhapatnam Branch. While he was working at Hubli Branch, the Assistant General Manager/Disciplinary Authority vide Memo dated 28-12-2006 called upon petitioner to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken alleging three acts of misconduct viz., one Sri Narasimha, Proprietor, Dolphin Chemicals, Visakhapatnam sought for enhancement in limits and that petitioner had made him to believe that he was looking after credit portfolio at the branch and demanded favours from the said party such as drinks and illegal gratification; that even after transfer, he used to telephone the 2 said person, demanding money and threatening him; and that petitioner was entrusted with the job of recovery of bad and doubtful assets, however, he did not perform his duties as expected of him and indulged in activities which are unbecoming of a bank officer. Petitioner submitted explanation dated 09-02-2007 denying the allegations, however, the Disciplinary Authority/Assistant General Manager of Hyderabad Zonal Office, issued him a Memorandum of Charge Sheet dated 01-11-2007 and asked to submit written statement of his defence within 7 days of receipt. It was also alleged that the Articles of charges would constitute misconduct under Regulation 3 (1) read with Regulation 24 of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. Petitioner is stated to have made representation dated 09-11-2007 to give him a reasonable opportunity and time up to 26.012.2007 for submission of defense statement after verification of the records and also requested to permit him go Visakhapatnam for verification of documents. But the Disciplinary Authority appointed and directed Presenting Officer to present Bank's case and Inquiring Authority to inquire into the charges alleged against him. Then, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 25177 of 2007, wherein stay of departmental enquiry was granted.

Thereafter, petitioner submitted explanation after furnishing 3 documents referred to in Annexure-III. Thereafter, when it was reported that petitioner submitted explanation on 08-01-2008, the Writ Petition was dismissed as infructuous. Further, the Inquiring Authority without following due procedure and without furnishing relevant documents, conducted enquiry in violation of principles of natural justice and submitted report dated 06-09-2008 holding charge No. 1 as proved and Charge No. 2 partly proved. On 11-9-2008, petitioner made detailed requisition dated 17-09-2008 to furnish the documents, which were not furnished to me on earlier occasion and not to take any decision based on the report. When, without furnishing the documents, Respondents are preparing to pass the final orders, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 20498 of 2008, wherein interim order dated 22-09-2008 was passed to consider the representation dated 26-08-2008 and pass appropriate orders.

In terms thereof, bank furnished copies of documents which were received by petitioner on 30-09-2008; even prior thereto, Disciplinary Authority issued proceedings dated 27-09-2008 imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 24420 of 2008 and obtained interim suspension by order dated 07-11-2008. Thereafter, on the premise that petitioner preferred an Appeal to the Appellate Authority, the said Writ Petition was 4 disposed of by order dated 02-12-2008 directing the Appellate Authority to dispose of the Appeal.

2.1. The Appellate Authority by order dated 30-01-2009 dismissed the Appeal challenging which, Review Petition was taken out and the said Petition was also dismissed and the same was communicated to petitioner vide letter dated 29-07- 2009. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. While making the above submissions, learned counsel for petitioner Sri Ch. Srinivas had relied on the following judgments :

a. Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank [Civil Appeal No.7431/2008, SLP(C) 14429/2007 dated 19.12.2008 b. Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan [1986 SCR(2) 957] c. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Shariff [(1982) 2 SCC 376] d. Indian Airlines v. W.B Correyya [(1978) IILLJ 437 Mad] e. Central Bank of India Ltd v. Shri Prakash Chand[1969 SCR (1) 735] f. Rajendder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Administration [1985 SCR (1) 866]

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the bank Sri Ch. Siva Reddy, based on the counter makes submissions that after receiving notice, instead of appearing before the Enquiry authority, petitioner gave the letter dated 09.11.2007 seeking time up to 26.11.2007 for giving his written submissions of defense with intention to delay enquiry proceedings. When the 5 Enquiry officer adjourned the enquiry from 20.11.2007 to 01.12.2007, he filed Writ Petition No.25177 of 2007, pursuant to the interim direction therein, respondent bank provided all the documents which the petitioner has sought for as per the letter dated 19.12.2007. Since the interim orders were complied with, the Writ Petition was dismissed as infructuous on 02.04.2008. According to learned counsel, the said Writ Petition was filed with an intention to delay the enquiry proceedings even though there was no practice of giving the documents before proceeding for the enquiry but only the list of documents and witnesses is provided and opportunity would be given to delinquent employee at the time of enquiry to verify the documents which are filed by the management to prepare with his defense in the enquiry proceedings. Further, it is submitted that during the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner was given ample opportunity to cross examine the witnesses produced by the bank, to engage defense representative and he was allowed to examine his own witnesses and to file the documents on which he was relying for his defense. Petitioner utilized all the opportunities and after completion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report/findings dated 06.09.2008 holding that charge No.1 is proved and charge No.2 is partly proved.

Petitioner, instead of submitting written submissions, made 6 allegations against bank and requested the management to provide so many documents as per the list given by him vide letter dated 17.09.2008 which have no relevancy. In the meantime, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 20498 of 2008 to set aside the enquiry report and this Court directed respondent bank to consider the Application of the petitioner dated 26.08.2008 filed under the Right to Information Act and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the said order dated 22.09.2008, bank passed order dated 27.09.2008 informing that the information sought for was exempted from disclosure under Section 8. As there was no stay in respect of departmental proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 27.09.2008 imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. The Appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed on 30.01.2009 and the Review Petition vide orders dated 29.07.2009.

5. While making the above submissions, learned Standing Counsel relied on the following judgments:

a. Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur [(1972) 2 SCR 218] b. Union of India v. Parma Nanda [(1989) 2 SCC 177] c. Union of India v. Vishwa Mohan [(1998) 4 SCC 310] d. Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar [(2003) 4 SCC

364)} 7 e. TNCS Corpn Ltd v. K. Meerabaai[(2006) 2 SCC 255] f. The Indian Oil Corporation v. Ajit Kumar Singh [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 478]

6. On perusal of the material on record and on considering the arguments of learned counsel, this Court feels it imperative to see the observations of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Review Authority while passing the orders against petitioner.

7. The Disciplinary Authority in its order dated 27.09.2008 gave findings which are extracted hereunder:

" After careful examination of the evidence I observe the following:

Examination of the When there is a complaint regarding demand of illegal gratification and other favours, the evidence would be the circumstances and examination and cross complainant and other witnesses, if any, who have the knowledge. I, therefore, discuss the circumstances appearing in the matter and the evidence.

MEX-4 shows the level of frustration the Chief Manager of Visakhapatnam Branch had, when he recommended for transfer of the CSO from the Branch without asking for a substitute. In normal course no Branch Manager would like to lose a Manager for nothing. MEX-5 narrates the woes of the Chief Manager of the Branch. This Exhibit depicts the CSO's conduct in a very poor light. MEX-2 is the complaint lodged by Shri C.Narasimha Rao, Proprietor of M/s Dolphin Chemicals [MW-2]. He informs among other things that the CSO behaved like mental dog and shouts openly that he took bribes from everybody who came across him. He further stated that he could not expect such officer in the Bank. Although these comments are very harsh in nature, no customer would make such comments against a Manager of the Bank unless he was awfully harassed. In his own words vide DEX-9 the CSO complained against Shri Mohanty, Chief Manager, Shri Ramakrishna, Inquiring Authority, Witnesses warned in the Charge Sheet and finally the Disciplinary Authority himself: DEX-50 is the legal notice issued by the CSO to the Disciplinary Authority for the charges allegedly being vague. DEX-51 is another legal notice issued by the CSO to Regional Manager, Hubli for declining leave. DEX-56 is another letter to Zonal Manager from the CSO, wherein he leveled allegations against many of the staff of the Branch whose names were mentioned as witnesses. DEX-57 is a similar complaint sent by the CSO to the CMD of the Bank. The Defence Exhibits are full of such complaints against one or the other emanated from the CSO. These exhibits would generally show the CSO's complaining nature, his prejudice against most of his colleagues and his anguish against the Complainant. If such complaint is received any officer will get dejected. The CSO is no exception. However such incidents do act as an acid test for a 8 person as how he would react. At times the true personality would come out in the face of such incidents. The way the CSO reacted amply prove his otherwise conceited personality. The complainant's harsh comment that the CSO behaved like mental dog does not appear to be exaggerated. The Complainant must have experienced the mavericks of the CSO to his astonishment. A customer is the source of business for a Bank. If a responsible officer in the rank of Manager behaves in a way a Banker is not supposed to behave with a customer, the customer would get shock of his life. In the days of severe and cutthroat competition in the business, no officer of a Bank can afford to behave arrogantly with an important customer. That's the reason why the customer finally said that he could not expect such officer in the Bank. All these facts give a picture of the CSO's personality.

Insofar the evidence is concerned, the PO has produced the documents listed in the Charge Sheet and examined the witnesses whom he thought would be sufficient to substantiate the charge. The material witnesses i.e. the complainant and the Chief Manager concerned have deposed in the enquiry in support of the charge.

MW-I ie the Chief Manager in charge of the Branch during the relevant time deposed that he observed the CSO being argumentative, complaining nature, not punctual and not sincere in discharging his allotted duties. He further said that in spite of his advice, the CSO had not changed his attitude and he was insisting him to put him in Credit Department instead of Recovery Department. Here the circumstances point to the charge. The CSO committed certain irregularities in his previous assignment of Branch Manager at Itkyal Branch. He was awarded a major penalty for those lapses, which indicate certain malfides as can be seen from MEX- 7. He received the orders of the penalty on 12.6.2006. The Chief Manager of the Branch was on leave upto 14.6.2005 as stated by the CSO himself. On 15.6.2006 the CSO along with other two officers including one of his Defence Witnesses, submitted a representation-dated 15.6.2006 wherein the CSO represented for posting in Credit Department. MW-1 stated that the CSO was insisting for posting in Credit Department. The CSO was only waiting for the penalty to be awarded for his claim of posting in the Credit Department. In his representation he did not indicate any intention of learning credit but claimed experience as AFO and Branch Manager. Normally an officer may orally request the Branch In charge for posting in a department for exposure.

In the instant case the CSO not only submitted a written representation but also insisted for such posting. These acts on the part of the CSO indicate his intentions other than academicals.

Further the CSO resorted to mudslinging against the Chief Manager. No doubt the Defence can impeach a witness, if his credentials were questionable. In the instant case the CSO has gone beyond reasonable limits in impeaching the MW-1. MW-1 in fact stated in MEX-5 that the CSO intended to favour Mercury Travels in respect of their compromise proposal. For this the CSO has blamed the MW-1 as if MW-1 wanted to favour the borrower and he prevented the same. Be it as it may, the CSO insisted in the enquiry that the documents in the said a/c were delivered to the borrowers vide EPP 124. Finally it turned out that the documents were in fact with the Branch vide EPP 132. This shows the CSO resorted to mudslinging against MW-1. Finally the CSO, while trying to wriggle out of the mess he created for him, stated that since the a/c Mercury Travels was not a subject of Charge Sheet, he need not verify and ensure whether the title deeds were delivered or not and hence please treat that there was no claim from Defence side for 9 verification of EM Register and title deeds of Mercury Travels [EPP 160] Thus his complaint against MW-1 is found baseless and intended to malign him.

Coming to the evidence I observe that the complaint was a genuine one in as much as the complainant appeared before the Inquiring Authority and deposed in support of the complaint. Only controversy is about the introduction of the CSO by the staff member of Gandhigram Branch. The CSO questions non production of Shri V.Kishan, Branch Manager, Gandhigram and Shri K.Ramesh Babu. The CSO in fact tried to produce Shri Ramesh Babu, in vain. From the contents of the complaint and the circumstances it is evident that the complainant met the CSO and got introduced to him. It is strictly not necessary to prove at whose instance the complainant met the CSO. Further the MW-2 has deposed on the complaint and could not inform the dates on which the CSO demanded favours and the date on which whisky bottles were supplied and the brands of the whisky etc. The CSO writes that if he did not remember the dates, he should have informed the months as he informed about his meeting with CSO in a given month. The CSO asked MW-2 specifically " do you remember the date or month of your approaching me?" Witness replied that he did not remember the exact date or month and it might be December 2005. Whereas in respect of other questions the CSO asked the witness for exact dates, for example, in EPP 179 he asked the Witness, " do you remember the date you had supplied two costly whisky bottles to Mr. Raghu Prasad?" The Witness replied that he did not remember the dates. Had the CSO asked him for date or month, perhaps the Witness would have recalled the month as it happened in respect of the question mentioned above. It is not proper on the part of the CSO now to say that the Witness should have told the month if he did not remember the exact date. The very question put to him was whether he remembered the date. Hence I do not find any deficiency in the deposition of MW-2. I find from the examination of MW-2 that MW-2 had told only truth and he intended to complain against only after much harassment he suffered at the hands of the CSO. In normal course he would have reported to Central Bureau of Investigation to get the CSO trapped. In fact CSO questioned the Complainant's action of giving-complaint to the Bank instead of approaching Police or CBI. But due to the sheer luck of the CSO, the party gave a complaint to the Bank instead of approaching the CBI. I find the evidence adequate to substantiate the charge.

As regards the own deposition of the CSO as Defence Witness, the IA has dealt with the matter elaborately in his findings. The IA concludes that the CSO was intentionally telling lies and misleading and as such he held that the self-witness of CSO was lacking any credibility in the absence of corroborative, cohesive and independent supportive evidences. I also find the deposition of the CSO as a cocktail of half-truths and lies. I too find his deposition lacking any credibility in the face of glaring lies as narrated by the IA in his findings.

Further the CSO sought umpteen number of documents during the course of the enquiry and even after it conclusion purportedly to prove that he was not associated with the sanction of limits to M/s Dolphin Chemicals. He did not ascertain the same from his witnesses or when he examined himself. Thus he intended to call for several scores of documents only with an intention to prolong the enquiry. If his intentions were genuine he would have sought the information from his witnesses or sought a few relevant documents.

To recapitulate the above I find that the past record of the CSO is not encouraging: the ME-7 shows he did not conduct himself properly 10 in respect of loan portfolio. He was awarded a major penalty for his lapses. His eagerness to grab the loan portfolio in Visakhapatnam Branch has come out vividly in the evidence. His involvement in loans at the Branch one way or the other has also been brought out in the enquiry. The Complainant's allegations against him were reiterated in the enquiry; but could not be rebutted by the CSO efficaciously. The complainant was harassed by the CSO for illegal gratification and gifts. I do not have any hesitation in holding that the complaint is true and contents are genuine. Further the nature; character and conduct of the CSO are clear from the evidence depicting him as arrogant and dishonest, thus leading to believe that the contents of the complaints [ME-2 and 6) are true.

Therefore I agree with the finding of the IA and hold the charge as proved. CHARGE 2:

Shri Raghu Prasad was assigned the duties in Recovery Department at Visakhapatnam Branch. However, he did not perform his duties as expected of him; instead indulged in activities which were unbecoming of a Bank officer such as frequent complaints against other staff members, quarrelling with other staff members, blaming the Bank and its Executives etc."

The first part of the charge that Shri Raghu Prasad was assigned the duties in Recovery Department at Visakhapatnam Branch and that he did not perform his duties as expected of him has been held as not proved by the IA. Although there is ample evidence to hold the charge as proved, I do not wish to differ with the IA at this juncture. Therefore I skip discussions of the evidence pertaining to this part of the charge.

PO produced MEX-3 to 5 and 7 and quoted from DEX-43, 44, 54 and 4. He examined MW-1.3 and 4. PO argues that the exhibits and half the enquiry proceedings speak about various complaints made by the CSO against various executives and staff members.

CSO examined 4 witnesses in his support. He argues that his witnesses have given him clean chit; whereas he impeached 2 witnesses from Management, who deposed against him. The CSO means that their deposition is not reliable. In this connection the CSO asked MW-3, " do you remember that I have referred to Mr. Mohanty in your presence about your previous unbecoming action that you have broken the glass on the table of the then Regional Manager of Hyderabad, Shri Ramachandran during union agitation?" The question was not allowed by the IA on the objection of PO. However fast remains that the CSO has impeached the witness without asking him as to its correctness or whether any punishment was awarded to him for the alleged misconduct. The question itself begins with the fact that the CSO told his Chief Manager about the alleged incident. Only if the allegation was proved and punishment awarded against MW-3, the CSO could have brought it in the enquiry to impeach the witness. In the absence of such information the question is intended to intimidate the witness. In a similar manner he states that of late he came to know that Management has taken stringent action against Mr. Arjun Kumar [MW-4] for his irregular advances in Anakapalli Branch. This comment is made behind the back of MW-4 and therefore cannot be taken into account.

Further the CSO resorted to mudslinging against the PO also. In his Brief he states that it was egoistic tendency of PO, Mr. Rama Rao who has not done anything in Mandapeta Branch asBranch Manager has automatically developed Jealousy against the CSO on seeing his contribution in Visakhapatnam Branch in reduction of NPA and in such a way maintained the records. It is astonishing to note the remarks made by the CSO without 11 any basis and without producing any evidence and in the most irresponsible and irrelevant manner. This is a glaring example of how he conducted himself in the Bank, although he is the Manager in Middle Management Grade. He has declared the charge as not proved without any proper evidence in his support. The Witnesses examined by him on his behalf lack credibility as their replies in cross-examination were evasive and not appropriate.

The IA, in his findings, observes that in page No.19 of DEX-4, Page No.2 of DEX-9, Page No 2 of DEX-41, Page No.4 of DEX-55, CSO had alleged that in the account M/s. Mercury Travels. CSO had prepared a compromise proposal & advised C.M. to recover notional amount due of Rs.85, 000/- as the account was covered by collateral security of Rs.10.00 lakhs, but C.M. (Mr. P K. Mohanty) had recovered just Rs.55, 000/- only & delivered the title deeds. Further in EPP-124, CSO himself had demanded supply of "Property Documents of M/s. Mercury Travels and EM register of M/s. Mercury Travels to show that the documents were delivered; In EPP-

132. Officiating Custodian, Visakhapatnam Branch had confirmed that Original property documents, which were equitably mortgaged to secure the credit facility granted to M/s. Mercury Travels are available with the branch without being delivered to anyone" On the offer of PO for arranging verification of these documents in EPP-160 with reference to proceedings in EPP-140 & EPP-150, CSO had declined by saying that it was not matter of the Charge sheet to, ensure as to whether the title deeds are delivered or not. IA has held the sub-charge that CSO had the habit of blaming executives as conclusively "PROVED", that too a false complaint without any substance.

Further IA observes by referring to DEX-4, DEX-8, DEX-9, DEX-43, DEX-44, DEX-54, DEX-55, DEX-56, DEX-57, CSO had made & repeated unwarranted allegations against the staff members namely (i) Mr. G. B. Murty, former Chief Manager, (ii) Mr. M. Sree Ram, former Chief Manager (iii) Mr. P.K. Mohanty, former Chief Manager (iv)) MR. CSSSU Bhaskara Rao, Senior Manager (v) Mr. G. Varada Raju, Manager (vi) Mr. D. N. Arjun Kumar, Asst. Manager, (vii), Smt. K. Uma Janaki, CTO (viii) Mr. MSR Prasada Rao, CTO (ix) Mr. V S Murty, CTO (x) Smt. G. Sarada, Clerk (xi) S V Subramanyam, Clerk.

In EPP-211-215, CSO had contended that whatever the complaints he made should not be treated as malafide action and should be treated as bonafide actions only, all his actions of bringing the actions of staff is nothing but his bonafide action. IA has held the sub-charge that CSO had the habit of complaining against other staff as conclusively "PROVED". CSO had been alleged to be quarrelling with other staff and blaming bunk. The deposition given by Mr. V. S. Murty, CTO, DW-1 in EPP- 183 & 184 & Mr. .J V V Raju, Clerk in EPP-196 is of insignificant value & do not carry much weight to disprove the charge. The deposition in EPP-187 & 188 given by Mr. L. Janardhanam, Manager/ DW-2 who holds the post of "Joint Secretary, Central Bank of India Officers' Association, Hyderabad" as per EPP-187 is lacking credibility since he had given evasive & motivated replies to PO's Cross-examination such as "I don't remember" to the questions of "Do you remember that you had given a joint representation along with CSO and other Officer to Chief Manager, Visakhapatnam for rotation of seats/departments" & "Had you belong to the same union which the CSO was a member of that union during the period you have deposed"

Chief Manager of Visakhapatnam Branch i.e. MW-1 deposed in EPP-147 that he had advised CSO orally with regard to blaming the bank, staff & officials. MW-3 Mr SV Subramanyam, Clerk in EPP-120, 151 &152 had deposed that 12 CSO was of complaining nature & CSO had commented that many bank officials are corrupt. MW-4 Mr. D. N. Arjun Kumar in EPP-155-159 had deposed clearly that CSO is of complaining nature & shouting at the superiors. IA holds this sub-charge that 'CSO indulging in quarrelling with other staff and blaming bank", as "PROVED" On the whole he has held the charge as partially proved.

I observe that the CSO has been in the habit of blaming executives, Bank, other staff and the Inquiring Authority himself. Initially he blarned that the IA is related to MW-2. After MW-2 denied any such relationship he [the CSO] said he requires at least one-week period on official duty to make enquiries in Krishna District. It is a vicious complaint against the IA and to justify it he asked for a week's time at Bank's expense to make enquiries in a large district like Krishna District. The CSO, as it is clear from the evidence, would stoop down to any level in blaming others. The entire evidence shows the nature of the CSO being quarrelsome, arrogant and would stoop down to any level in blaming others brazenly.

I agree with the findings of the IA and hold the charge as proved.

Considering the gravity of the charges I award the below mentioned penalties.

Charge 1: "Dismissal, which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment"

Charge 2: "Dismissal, which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment I award the consolidated penalty as under:

Dismissal, which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment" in terms of Regulation 4 [j] of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees [Discipline and Appeal] Regulations, 1976".

8. As against this order, though petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 24420 of 2008, this Court by order dated 07-11-2008 granted interim suspension. Thereafter, on the premise that petitioner preferred an Appeal to the Appellate Authority, the Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 02-12-2008 directing the Appellate Authority to dispose of his Appeal. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.01.2009 confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority and the relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder:

" I have gone through the entire record of the departmental enquiry held against Shri S.Raghu Prasad (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant.] At the outset I observe that the departmental enquiry was 13 conducted strictly in terms of the provisions of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees' [Discipline and Appeal] Regulations, 1976 and fair and reasonable opportunity was afforded to the Appellant. The Appellant has submitted his Appeal containing 16 pages with headings such as Executive Brief, Factual discrepancies, legal discrepancies, procedural discrepancies ete. In view of various allegations leveled by the Appellant in respect of the conduct of the departmental enquiry I need to discuss the same with reference to the records of the departmental enquiry at length before I discus the evidence vis-a-vis the charges.

At the outset 1 refer to the request made by the Appellant for a personal hearing along with his Advocate before the undersigned in regard to his Appeal, vide his letter dated 29.12.2008. Such personal hearing with the Appellant along with his Advocate is not provided for in the Central Bank of India Officer Employees' [Discipline and Appeal] Regulations, 1976. Further the Appellant has filed an elaborate appeal. Therefore I am not inclined to permit such personal hearing in contravention of the said Regulations.

I observe that the Appellant has brought out in his Appeal a number of irrelevant and unconnected issues. Some of such issues bear malice agains some officers / employees of the Bank. I shall briefly discuss the relevant issues raised so as to deal with the Appeal dispassionately.

For the sake of brevity the Inquiring Authority, the Presenting Officer and the Disciplinary Authority are referred to as the IA, the PO and the DA.

Entire enquiry proceedings should be treated as vitiated since the IA did not allow his questions relating to MW-2 [The Complainant] and that complainant related to the IA. The Appellant draws my attention to the deposition of MW-2, who happens to be the complainant against the Appellant. While the witness confirmed the contents of the complaint dated 13.7.2006 lodged by him against the Appellant to the Bank, in cross examination the Appellant sought to elicit the evidences the witness had in regard to the complaint. PO objected to the question and the IA sustained the objection. The crux of the issue as it appears, is that the Appellant issued a notice to the witness (complainant) threatening criminal case and the witness sent his reply to the Appellant wherein he appears to have said that the evidences that he had would be produced at appropriate time and appropriate place when a need arose. This issue is obviously outside the purview of the charge sheet that was issued to the Appellant by the Bank. It is the issue between the complainant and the Appellant and obviously the JA could not direct the witness to reveal his strategies in respect of the criminal case filed by the Appellant against him. Further the Appellant sought to know the exact days when he demanded bribe; when the demanded whisky bottles; when the whisky bottles were supplied etc. The witness replied that he could not remember the exact dates. He further sought to know as to who inspected the unit of the witness. The Witness replied that Shri John Thomas, Shri Raghu Prasad and Shri Arjun, Kumar visited his unit before sanction of limits. The Appellant repeatedly alleged that the Witness was related to the IA. The Witness has deposed in the examination-in-chief that he did not know the IA and for the first time he was seeing him. The Appellant has at one stage [on 9.7.2008 EPP 84 and 85] has gone on saying that he must be allowed to make enquiries in Krishna District through his uncle who was the document writer in Jaggaiahpeta, Krishna District [to prove his allegation that the IA is related to the Complainant] 14 I observe that the Appellant was beating around the bush to some how bring on record that the IA and the Complainant were related without having any evidence. His intentions in this regard appear dishonest. If his intentions were honest he would have produced some proof of such relationship or would have asked the complainant in his cross - examination, I further observe that the IA has not allowed only irrelevant questions and allowed all relevant questions. Hence the Appellant's allegations are baseless. Charges are vague:

The charges are clear and not vague as alleged by the Appellant. In respect of the first charge it was made clear in the Annexure II that Shri Narasimha Rao, Proprietor, Dolphin Chemicals gave a complaint with certain allegations and as the general conduct of the Appellant gives credence to such complaints it was decided to inquire into the said complaint. Accordingly departmental enquiry was ordered and the Inquiring Authority after careful consideration of the evidence held the charge as proved. Hence the allegation that the charge sheet is vague is not true and correct.

Enquiry was not conducted properly The allegation that the IA encashed the ignorance of the Appellant in admitting Management Exhibits and verifying their originals is baseless. The exhibits were extensively used by the Appellant and got almost all of them identified by the relevant witnesses.

IA has relied upon the evidence produced in the enquiry by the PO and the Appellant. The Appellant has produced 69 exhibits and the PO produced 7 exhibits. Both of them examined four each as their witnesses. This clearly shows the extensive and intensive participation of the Appellant in the enquiry. The IA has adjourned the proceedings for the convenience of the Appellant on several occasions. As regards non-supply of certain documents, the IA has observed as under:

"JA makes it clear that non-supply of Performance Appraisals of CSO for years 2004-05 & 2005-06 had not attested CSO adversely since IA holds the charge "that ne did not perform his duties as expected of him as "NOT PROVED" & non-supply of (i) Anonymous complaint sent to Central Office (u) Investigation Report of Chief Manager (iii) Investigation Report of Vigilance Officer, as stated by Chief Manager in his report dt. 01.06.2007(MEX-5), had not affected CSO in any manner as neither PO nor IA relied on the same to prove any of the charges."

From the above it is observed that the Appellant was not denied any of his legitimate demands. The charges are based on the complaints received by the borrower and the then Chief Manager of the Brunch. Those complaints were produced in the enquiry and both of them were examined and examined in the course of the enquiry. All the witnesses produced by the Management were extensively cross-examined by the Appellant as can be seen from the enquiry proceedings.

Although the Central Bank of India Officer Employees' [Discipline and Appeal] Regulations, 1976 do not provide exchange of Written Briefs/Arguments, the IA, in order to extend further opportunity allowed the PO's Written Brief to the Appellant and the Appellant, after having gone through the PO's Written Brief submitted his own Written Brief. Thus the IA has extended fair and reasonable opportunity to the Appellant.

As regards his Defence he sought the assistance of one Shri A.V.Ramana Murthy, who is working in Jabalpur Region. The Appellant was required to arrange his Defence Representative. He now blames management has not provided him the Defence. The IA has observed that Shri Ramana 15 Murthy has not even submitted his willingness letter to his controlling authority. In the absence of even the consent letter from Shri Ramana Murthy the question of his deputation to Visakhapatnam to defend the Appellant did not arise. IA cannot allow the dodging tactics of the Appellant. The Appellant himself defended him and as cited above he has participated in the enquiry, and produced defence documents numbering 69 and examined his own witnesses numbering 4. I do not find any injustice caused to the Appellant in this regard.

As regards the contention of the Appellant that the PO used his exhibit i.e. DE-4 while examining MW-1which is against the principles of natural justice, is incorrect as the DE-4 is nothing but his explanation to the memo issued to him. In his explanation he claimed to have attended to certain tasks, the genuineness of which was ascertained by the PO from the Chief Manager [MW-1]. The witness was later cross-examined by the Appellant. As such his allegation does not hold water. Further he contends that IA sustained irrelevant objections raised by PO in the cross examination. of MW1 and 2 and hence it must be treated that cross-examination was not done. This contention is preposterous in as much as the IA has acted with required prudence in disallowing certain irrelevant questions put to the witnesses by the Appellant. As such I reject the allegation.

In regard to the contention of the Appellant that IA did not allow statements given by Shri K. Ramesh Babu and Shri A.V.Ramana Murthy in the enquiry, I observe that such statements should be furnished to the PO in advance and the authors of the statements should be examined in the enquiry. The Appellant did not do so. He had no intention of examining them, although he used to claim otherwise. Further he has brought in the statements into the records of the enquiry. In the whole affair the Appellant's intentions do not appear bonafide.

I observe that the IA has conducted the enquiry in a fair manner and adhered to the principles of natural justice scrupulously. His allegations are intended to wriggle out of the adverse situation he was placed in by none other than himself.

I now deal with the allegations leveled by the Appellant against the Disciplinary Authority.

The DA stated in his orders that the disciplinary action had already been unduly delayed. Whereas it did not happen on account of the Appellant:

The Appellant mentions that he gave his reply to the memo on 9.2.2007 and DA issued Charge Sheet on 1.11.2007. As he was not supplied with the copies of the documents he approached Hon'ble High Court and got a stay. After vacation of stay the preliminary hearing was called for on 5.5.2008. Thus there was a delay of 15 months. The DA has not attributed the delay to the Hon'ble Court. The interregnum between the memo and the Charge Sheet is caused due to collection of comments from the Branch on the contents of the explanation and further examination of the evidence and circumstances. Only after thorough examination of the whole issue Charge Sheet has been issued to the Appellant. The DA's comments about the delay.

obviously apply to the delay occurred from the date of Charge Sheet to the conclusion of the case.

Further the Appellant contends that MEX-3 was produced in support of Charge 2 and it should not be used for proving Charge 1, is preposterous, The DA has listed the documents and not restricted them for any one charge. His reference to the relevant portions of the exhibit is 16 considered as referring to the circumstantial evidence in support of the principal evidence in respect of Charge 1. Hence his contention is erroneous.

In the Annexure to his Appeal he leveled certain false allegations against the Chief Manager for naming witnesses belonging to the other union. The witnesses named by the Chief Manager deposed in the enquiry and were cross-examined by the Appellant. I do not find any thing amiss in this. I find their depositions also fair. The Appellant cannot take shelter under union rivalry.

Further the Appellant contends that the Imputation, which states that the general conduct of the Appellant gave credence to such complaints and hence it was decided to inquire into the said complaint, is predisposition of the DA. In fact the DA has mentioned about the past record of the Appellant in the Charge Sheet as, "Shri Raghu Prasad was earlier awarded a penalty of Reduction of Pay by two stages vide orders dated 6.6.06 for certain irregularities committed by him, while working as Branch Manager at Itkyal Branch. Despite the said disciplinary action taken against him, he did not mend his behavior." A document to prove the infliction of the penalty has also been mentioned in the List of Documents enclosed to the Charge Sheet. Hence I do not find anything wrong about the said mention in the Charge Sheet. In fact in order to know the truth in the complaint a departmental enquiry was ordered.

As regards his allegations about the matter of permitting him to file defamation case against the complaint, sanction of leave etc are outside the purview of the Charge Sheet. All other contentions of the Appellant contained in his appeal are baseless and are devoid of truth. I find that the departmental enquiry was conducted properly. No material document was denied to him. Managemen: did not rely upon any document, which was not produced in the enquiry.

I now discuss the charges hereunder:

Charge 1:

"Shri Raghu Prasad made the Proprietor of M/s Dolphin Chemicals believe that he was looking after Credit Portfolio at the Branch and demanded favours from him such as drinks and illegal gratification. Shri Raghu Prasad, in spite of his transfer from the Branch to Regional Office, Hubli, used to telephone the Proprietor of the said concern, demanding money and threatening him."

The IA has discussed at length the evidence in his Report of Findings. He has held the charge as proved. The DA in his orders has agreed with the finding of the IA and held the Charge as proved. The Appellant in his appeal has not dealt with the evidence, his defence, findings and the DA's observations charge wise. His general and specific contentions have already been dealt with above.

I find from the evidence that the Appellant got himself involved into the issue due to the fact that the Gandhigram Branch officials advised the borrower to approach him. When the borrower approached him it was his simple duty to tell the borrower to approach the Chief Manager, as he was not looking after the credit portfolio. Instead of doing that he gave an impression that he was also involved in the loan portfolio. The other circumstantial evidence shows that the Appellant had a bad past record in loans portfolio and that he wanted to be posted in the loans department at the Branch. The evidence that emerged shows that he accompanied the officials concerned for unit inspection. His signature in the inspection report may or may not appear since he was not connected with the loans department, These facts support the complainant's version that the 17 Appellant demanded illegal gratification and other favours. The Complainant deposed in the enquiry in support of his complaint and was very firm in his replies. Normally borrowers would desist from giving written complaints about the Bank's Officers in respect of such issues as they would not like to antagonize the Bank's staff in their own interest. However they give such complaints in the event of continuous harassment at the hands of recalcitrant staff. Thess circumstances also corroborate the complaint. The Appellant has resorted to such acts even after his transfer from the Branch. The Complainant has withdrawn the complaint on the assurances of the Bank's officials. However, such withdrawal would not prevent the Bank from proceeding against the Appellant, as, such acts are not only against the Conduct Rules of the Bank but are also capable of tarnishing the image of the Bank in the market. The acts of the Appellant smacks of his malafide intentions as appearing from the evidence. I concur with the finding and orders of the DA. I also uphold the penalty of Dismissal, which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment, in view of the seriousness of the dishonesty shown by the Appellant and the aggravating circumstances appearing in his past record.

Charge 2:

"Shri Raghu Prasad was assigned the duties in Recovery Department at Visakhapatnam Branch. However, he did not perform his duties as expected of him; Instead indulged in activities which were unbecoming of a Bank officer such as frequent complaints against other staff members, quarrelling with other staff members, blaming the Bank and its Executives etc."

The IA has discussed at length the evidence in his Report of Findings. He has held the charge as partially proved. The DA in his orders has agreed with the finding of the IA. The Appellant in his. appeal has not dealt with the evidence, his detence, indings and the DA's observations charge wise. His general and specific contentions have already been dealt with above.

The evidence clearly shows that the Appellant had the habit of blaming executives, Bank etc. The observations of the DA, "the CSO resorted to mudslinging against the PO also. In his Brief he states that it was egoistic tendency of PO, Mr. Rama Rao who has not done anything in Mandapeta Branch as Branch Manager has automatically developed jealousy against the CSO on seeing his contribution in Visakhapatnam Branch in reduction of NPA and in such a way maintained the records. It is astonishing to note the remarks made by the CSO without any basis and without producing any evidence and in the most irresponsible and irrelevant manner. This is a glaring example of how he conducted himself in the Bank, although he is the Manager in Middle Management Grade" This is the heights of the Appellant's "blaming others" attitude. He has made malicious remarks against the Chief Manager and he himself made a mention in the enquiry about his complaints against MW-3 and MW-4. Further he complained against MW-1 that he recovered only Rs. 55,000 and delivered title deeds in the a/c Mercury Travels, although the value of security was Rs. 10.00 lacs. Whereas it came up in the evidence that title deeds were not delivered and were very much available with the Branch. To my surprise I find from DE-56 produced by the Appellant, he made certain remarks against Shri C.S.S.S.U.V.Bhaskar Rao, Senior Manager, Shri S.Ramakrishna, Senior Manager, Shri G. Varada Raju, Manager and Shri Arjun Kumar, Asst. Manager. While in the case of Shri Bhaskar Rao the penalty awarded to him were mentioned by him, no such mention was there in respect of other two officials. He addressed a letter to 18 C&MD of the Bank vide DE-57 produced by him in the enquiry wherein he complained against various officials. In DE-4, 8, 6, 55 etc he complained against most of the staff of Visakhapatnam Branch. In his view all most all staff members of the Branch, excepting him, are mischievous, erroneous and have committed various acts of misconduct. These are the pointers to his complaining nature. He requests that such complaints should be considered as bona fide action. His comments against the PO as mentioned supra mirror his conduct and character. With this kind of attitude, it can be perceived that he had a habit of quarrelling with other staff. In view of the strong evidence placed before him the IA has held the charge as partially proved, holding the important allegations of the charge as proved. The DA has concurred with the finding. I agree with the findings and orders of the DA. I uphold the penalty of Dismissal, which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment awarded by the DA In view of the serious nature of charges and the dishonesty on the part of the Appellant having been brought out vividly in the enquiry, I do not find any reason or merit to modify the penalty awarded to the Appellant".

9. Being unsatisfied with the order dated 30.01.2009, petitioner had also preferred Review Petition under Regulation 18 of the Central Bank of India Employees' (Discipline and Conduct) Regulations, 1976 and the Reviewing Authority, after careful consideration of the entire material on record, had dismissed the Review Petition as devoid of merit and confirmed the consolidated punishment imposed on petitioner and the relevant portion of the order of the Reviewing Authority is extracted hereunder:

" I have called for all the papers/documents relating to the inquiry, findings of the IA, the orders of Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority and gone through carefully vis-à-vis review petition filed by Ch. Prasad & observe that the principles of natural justice have been observed in the conduct of the departmental enquiry and each and every opportunity has been provided to the petitioner to defend / rebut the charges levelled against him and to cross-examine the Management's witnesses and to produce the witnesses/evidences in his own defence which has also been availed by the petitioner. The petitioner him elf has defended his case.

I also observe that the Disciplinary Authority & Appellate Authority have strictly adhered to the provisions of Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (D&A) Regulations, 1976 while passing the final Orders 19 and while disposing of the appeal of Sh. Prasad I also find that they have objectively analyzed the evidences on the record of enquiry proceedings.

From the above papers/documents relating to the inquiry proceedings against Shri S. Raghu Prasad, I observe that the gist of the charges leveled against him are as under:

(i)Shri S. Raghu Prasad exerting his influence in a false manner demanded favours and illegal gratification from the proprietor M/S Dolphin Chemicals

(ii) Shri Raghu Prasad was assigned the duties of Recovery Department an Visakhapatnam Branch where instead of performing his duties he indulged in complaining against other staff members and quarrelling with them he kept blaming the Bank and its Executives On perusal of the papers placed before me, I find that the findings of the authorities in respect of the charge levelled against Shri Prasad as under Charge Inquiring DISCIPLINARY APPELLATE Authority [IA] AUTHORITY AUTHORITY[AA] [DA] No.1 Proved proved Proved No.2 Partly proved proved Proved Shri Prasad has cited the following grounds in his petition dated 06.03.09 for the appraisal of the Orders of Disciplinary Authority and that of the Appellate Authority:

(i) (ii) The Order of dismissal is erroneous, contrary to law and liable to be set aside. His performance in the Bank was appreciated in the past by his Higher Authorities

(iii) The Management failed to produce relevant evidences to substantiate the complaint of the proprietor of M/S Dolphin Chemicals

(iv) The inquiry was held in an unfair manner and he was not given the opportunity to submit his Statement of Defence or submissions over the findings of Inquiring Authority

(vi) He was not allowed to summon his witnesses The letter dated 16.08.06 (MEX 6) of the complainant requesting Zonal Office, Hyderabad to close his complaint dated 13.07.06 (MEX 2), which formed the basis of inquiry, was not given importance by the authorities

(vii) The Management could not substantiate the charge of complaining against staff members, quarrelling with them and blaming the Bank and its Executives

(viii) In contravention of Regulation 7 (2) of Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations 1976, the Disciplinary Authority did not record the reasons for his disagreement with the findings of Inquiry Authority in respect of Charge No.2

(ix) He had to step into Hon'ble Court of Law in W.P. 25177 of 2007, 20498/08 and 24420/08 for protecting his Fundamental Rights From a comparative study of the findings of Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority. I have come to observe as under Charge No 1 Findings of Disciplinary Authority Findings of Appellate Authority [DA] [AA] The complainant [MW2] himself has Shri Prasad had a bad past record deposed before the inquiry that shri Gandhgram Branch Officials advised Prasad behaved like a mental dog. the borrower to approach him for 20 Defence exhibits produced by Shri sanction of loan but sice shri Prasad Prasad are replete with his was not concerned with the the complainants against members on credit portfolio, he could have told staff/Executives of the Bank the borrower to approach the chief He arranged to serve legal notice to Manager instead R.M. Hubli for declining his leave The evidence that emerged showed He arranged to serve legal notice to that he accompanied the Officials Disciplinary Authority for the concerned for unit inspection charges levelled against him The complainant deposed in the He has complained to Zonal Manager inquiry in support of his complaint / CMD of the Bank against members and was firm in his replies on staff and those who were named Shri Prasad has resorted to similar as witnesses acts even after transfer of his The Chief Manager of the Branch and services from the Branch which the complainant have deposed in the smacks of his malafide intentions inquiry in support of the charge Charge No 2 Findings of Disciplinary Authority Findings of Appellate Authority [DA] [AA] Shri Prasad resorted to mudslinging Shri Prasad had the habit of blaming against IA/PO executives and staff.

In his brief he stated that PO was He has resorted to mudslinging jealous on seeing his contribution in against PO in the inquiry.

the reduction of NPA at                 He made malicious remarks against
Visakhapatnam Branch                    the Chief Manager
He blamed that IA is related to MW 2    In his view all most all staff members
From the Defence Exhibits it is         of the Branch, except him, are
observed that Shri Prasad made          mischievous and have committed
unwarranted complaints against as       various acts of misconduct
many as 11 members on staff             Evidences adduced in the inquiry
Witnesses in the inquiry deposed        have proved that Shri Prasad
that he was of complaining nature.      possesses a quarrelsome nature
He always blamed his superiors and
shouted at them


I put my observations and order as under:
Charge No. 1

(1) The Management witness and the complainant have deposed in the inquiry in support of the charge

(ii) The complainant deposed in the inquiry in support of his complaint and was firm in his replies

(iii) The Complainant has gone to the extent of stating before the inquiry that Sh. Prasad behaved like a mental dog.

(iv) Shri Prasad failed to adduce any evidence in the inquiry to refute the charge levelled against him

(v) The charge has been found proved by the Inquiring Authority. Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority has concurred with the findings of DA

(vi) The proven act of misconduct on the part of Shri Prasad has cause I unfathomable loss to the Institution as Shri Prasad's demand of undue favours and illegal gratification from a borrower of the Bank has tarnished the image of the organization and brought in ill repute.

(vii) With an intent to give vent to his ill motives, Shri Prasad in his frail attempt to dissuade the Disciplinary Authority, has arranged to serve him with a legal notice for the charges levelled against him Charge No. 2

(i) From the papers/documents relating to the inquiry as well as from the findings of DA /IA it is observed that the Defence Exhibits are replete with unwarranted complaints against members of the staff.

(ii) It is also observed from the documents that he made malicious remarks against the Chief Manager.

(iii) 1 find it proved in the inquiry that Shri Prasad was of complaining nature. He always blamed his superiors and shouted at them, such behaviour is out of bounds of any public sector undertaking.

(iv) The Appellate Authority in his findings has observed that in the view of Shri Prasad "all most all staff members of the Branch, except him, were mischievous and have committed various acts of misconduct."

(v) To refute the depositions made by the Witnesses that Shri Prasad possesses quarrelsome nature. Shri Prasad failed to produce any document or witness in his favour.

The above discussion clearly substantiate the charges levelled against the member in the charge-sheet.. He was given ample opportunities to lead evidences both documentary or oral to disprove the charges otherwise, but he has failed miserably on this count. In order to prove his innocence, Shri Prasad has resorted to every means from mudslinging on IA /PO to service of legal notice to the complainant and Disciplinary Authority and the motives behind his such actions have not been honest which has been brought out vividly in the inquiry.

His demand for undue favour and illegal gratification from a borrower of the Bank and number of complaint letters against the members on staff/executives of the Bank and further service of legal notice to the Disciplinary Authority and mudslinging on PO/IA, stating vaguely that IA was related to the complainant are all pointers to his conceited personality.

Regulation 18 of Central Bank of India Employees' (Discipline and Conduct) Regulations 1976 authority may at any time within six mor the from the date of the final order, either on his own say's inter-alia "Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations, the Reviewing motion or otherwise review the said order. when any new material or evidence which could not be produced or was not available at the time of passing the order under review and which has the effect of changing the nature of the case, has come or has been brought to his notice and pass such orders thereon as it may deem fit:......."

While going through the petition vis-à-vis records produced before me, it is observed that petitioner has not brought in any new fact in his petition and all the points raised by the petitioner in his petition are dealt with by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority elaborately. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the consolidated penalty as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority is commensurate with gravity of the proven charges.

I am of the opinion that this Review Petition is devoid of any merit and does not warrant my intervention and I confirm the consolidated punishment imposed on Shri S. Raghu Prasad in pursuance of Bank's Charge Sheet vide number ZO:HRD:DAD:2007-08:1847 dated 01.11.07 read with Corrigendum vide number ZO:HRD:DAD:2008-09:583 dated 06.06.08 without any modification whatsoever".

10. From the conspectus of the observations of the orders passed by the above said Authorities, it is axiomatic that petitioner's challenge is only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. On the other hand, respondents vociferously contend that principles of natural justice were followed scrupulously as such it requires no interference from this Court to the orders passed by three authorities who have taken a concurrent view.

11. It is observed that petitioner's main contention was that the enquiry proceedings are vitiated as the Inquiry Authority did not allow his questions relating to MW-2 (The Complainant) and that complainant related to the Inquiry Authority. However, the witness (the complainant) contents of the complaint dated 13.07.2006 lodged by him against petitioner to the Bank, in cross - examination, petitioner sought to elicit the evidences the witness hand in regard to the complaint. PO objected to the question and the Inquiring Authority sustained the objection. The gist of the issue as it appears is that petitioner issued notice to the witness (the complainant) threatening the criminal case and the witness sent his reply to petitioner wherein he appears to have said that the evidences that he had would be produced at appropriate time and appropriate place when a need arose. This issue is 23 obviously outside the purview of the charge sheet that was issued to the petitioner by the Bank. It is this issue between the complainant and the petitioner and obviously Inquiring Authority could not direct the witness to reveal his strategies in respect of the criminal case filed by petitioner against him.

Petitioner sought to know the exact days when he demanded bribe, whisky bottles, when the whisky bottles were supplied etc. The witness replied that he could not remember the exact dates. He further sought to know as to who inspected the unit of witness. The witness replied that Shri John Thomas, Shri Raghu Prasad and Shri Arjun kumar visited his unit before sanction of limits. Petitioner repeatedly alleged that the witness was related to the Inquiring Authority (IA). The witness has deposed in the examination in chief that he do not know the IA and for the first time he was seeing him. At one stage, he has gone in saying that he must be allowed to make enquiries in Krishna District through his uncle who was the document writer in Jaggaiahpeta, Krishna District to prove his allegation that the IA is related to the Complainant.

12. From the above, it is clear that petitioner tried his best in bringing on record that IA and the complainant were related without having any evidence which clearly establishes the fact that petitioner is trying to vitiate the disciplinary 24 proceedings with false allegations against the Inquiring Authority. From the record, it is observed that the IA has not allowed only irrelevant questions and allowed all relevant questions as such the allegation of petitioner that he was not given proper opportunity to cross -examine the complainant pales into insignificance in the background what has been stated above.

13. Further, from the record, it is also clearly evident that petitioner was not denied any of his legitimate demands;

charges are based on the complaints received by the borrower and the then Chief Manager of the Branch. Those complaints were produced in the enquiry and both of them were examined and cross-examined in the course of enquiry. All the witnesses produced by the Management were extensively cross-examined by the petitioner. What is to be noted here is, the Central Bank of India Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 do not provide exchange of written Briefs/Arguments; the IA, in order to follow rules of principles of natural justice had allowed the PO's written brief to petitioner, who, after having gone through written brief, submitted his own written brief, as such it cannot be said that the IA has not extended fair and reasonable opportunity to petitioner. It is also noted from the record that as regards this defense, petitioner sought assistance 25 of one Shri A.V. Ramana Murthy, who is working in Jabalpur Region; petitioner was required to arrange his defense representative. However, he blamed management as it did not provide him the defense representative. The IA also observed in his report that Shri Ramana Murthy has not even submitted his willingness letter to his controlling authority. Therefore in the absence of even the consent letter from Shri Ramana Murthy question of his deputation to Visakhapatnam to defend petitioner does not arise.

14. What is seen from the record is petitioner got himself involved in the issue due to the fact that Gandigram Branch officials advised the borrower to approach him and when the borrower approached, it was his duty to send the borrower (the complainant) to the Chief Manager, since he was not looking after the credit portfolio. Instead of doing that, petitioner gave an impression that he was involved in the loan portfolio and further as seen from the evidence also, he had a bad past record in loans portfolio and that he wanted to be posted in the loans department at the Branch. Thus, the evidence clinchingly established the fact that petitioner accompanied the officials concerned for unit inspection which corroborates the version of complainant and demand of illegal gratification and other favours. Further, the complainant's 26 evidence was not shattered in any manner by petitioner. The observation of disciplinary authority in regard to the fact that unless and until there is persistent harassment on the part of the bank officials for illegal gratification such type of complaints would not emerge also cannot be ignored or put it aside as the same strikes the crucial aspect of the smooth functioning of the banking sector.

15. This Court therefore, comes to the conclusion that enquiry is not vitiated by irregularities and illegalities more particularly this Court also comes to the conclusion that contention of petitioner that there is violation of principles of natural justice cannot be countenanced in any manner. It is also settled law that if the enquiry has been properly held, the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be gone into by the High Court. Further, it is also settled law that if the findings of the Inquiry Officer or competent authority are not arbitrary and perverse, the same also cannot be interfered with by the Courts. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to some of the decisions which actually deal with the issue on hand.

16. In Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur (1972) 2 SCR 218, it is held as under:

" A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. The standard proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the inference that lender was a person likely to have 27 official dealings with the respondent was one which reasonable person would draw from the proved facts of the case, the High Court cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on it. The Letters Patent Bench had the same power of dealing with all questions, either of fact or of law arising in the appeal, as the Single Judge of the High Court. If the enquiry has been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court. A finding cannot be characterized as perverse or unsupported by any relevant materials, if it was a reasonable inference from proved facts."

17. In Union of India v. Parma Nanda (1989) 2 SCC 177, it is held at page SCC 189 as under:

" 27. We must unequivocally state that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. It is appropriate to remember that the power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority. The adequacy of penalty unless it is malafide is certainly not a matter for the Tribunal to concern itself with. The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer or the competent authority is based on evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter."

18. In Union Bank of India v. Vishwa Mohan (1998) 4 SCC 310, this Court held at page 315 Para 12 as under:

" 12. After hearing the rival contentions, we are of the firm view that all the four charge sheets which were inquired into relate to serious misconduct. The respondent was unable to demonstrate before us how prejudice was caused to him due to non-supply of the enquiry authority's report/findings in the present case. It needs to be emphasised that in the banking business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular the bank officer. If this is not observed, the confidence of the public/depositors would be impaired. It is for this reason, we are of the opinion that the High Court had committed an error while setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent on the ground of prejudice on account of non-furnishing of the inquiry report/findings to him."

19. In Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364, this Court held at para 14 as under:

"14. A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the Bank. As was observed by this Court In Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik (1996) 9 SCC 69, it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a Bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court."

20. In Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, Etawah v.

Hoti Lal (2003) 3 SCC 605, it was pointed out as under:

"If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable."

21. In Cholan Roadways Ltd. v. G. Thirugnanasambandam (2005) 3 SCC 241 this Court held thus:

"It is now a well-settled principle of law that the principles of the Evidence Act have no application in a domestic inquiry."

22. In The Indian Oil Corporation v. Ajit Kumar Singh (2023 Live Law (SC) 478) at Para 6 and 7 held as under:

"6. The facts of the case leading to the issuance of chargesheet, initiation of departmental inquiry, the report of the inquiry officer and the punishment inflicted upon respondent no.1 have already been narrated in the preceding paragraphs. It is not in dispute that during the course of inquiry, fair opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent no.1 at every stage. This was even found by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition challenging the punishment inflicted upon him. The judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court shows that matter was dealt with in a manner as if it was the first stage of the case, namely, the inquiry was being conducted and inquiry report was being prepared, which is not the scope in judicial review. The views expressed by this Court on the scope 30 of judicial review in Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612, are extracted below:

"24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.

28. The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained."

Similar view was expressed in the later judgment of this Court in Ex- Const/Dvr Mukesh Kumar Raigar vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 27:

23. In view of the settled law cited supra, the judgments relied on by learned counsel for petitioner would not come to the rescue of petitioner in any manner.

24. Confronted with facts and position of law, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that leniency may be shown to petitioner having regard to long years of service rendered by him. This Court is unable to countenance such submission. As already said, petitioner being a bank officer holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning and it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Petitioner was a Manager of the Bank and it needs to be emphasized that in the banking business, absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular the bank officer so that the confidence of public/depositors is not impaired. It is for this reason that when a bank officer commits misconduct, as in the present case, for his personal ends and against the interest of the bank and the depositors, he must be dealt with iron hands.

25. In this connection, it is relevant to look into the judgment in T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Meerabai (2006) 2 SCC 255 wherein it was held at para 29 as under:

"29. Mr. Francis also submitted that a sum of Rs. 34,436.85 being 5% of the total loss of Rs. 6,88,735/- is sought to be recovered from the respondent and that the present departmental proceedings is the only known allegation against the respondent and there was no such allegation earlier and, therefore, a lenient view should be taken by this Court and relief prayed for by both the parties can be suitably moulded by this Court. We are unable to agree with the above submission which, 32 in our opinion, has no force. The scope of judicial review is very limited. Sympathy or generosity as a factor is impermissible. In our view, loss of confidence is the primary factor and not the amount of money mis- appropriated. In the instant case, respondent employee is found guilty of mis- appropriating the Corporation funds. There is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. In such cases, there is no place for generosity or mis-placed sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering therefor with the quantum of punishment awarded by the disciplinary and Appellate Authority."

26. In view of the categorical findings in regard to the enquiry proceedings against petitioner in the aforesaid paragraphs, this Court finds that the present Writ Petition is devoid of any merit, as such the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

27. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.

-------------------------------------

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 02nd September 2025 ksld

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Telangana High Court