Karnataka High Court
Ramchandra S/O Srinivas Rao Naik vs Krishna Grameen Bank Through Its ... on 20 September, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7533
WP No. 80105 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 80105 OF 2012 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
RAMCHANDRA
S/O SRINIVAS RAO NAIK
DEAD BY HIS LRS.,
1(A) SMT.RASHMI
W/O LATE RAMCHANDRA S. NAIK
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD
1(B) VATSA NAIK
S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA S. NAIK
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
Digitally OCC: TELLER HDFC BANK
signed by
VARSHA N
RASALKAR 1(C) NANDA R. NAIK
Location: D/O LATE RAMACHANDRA S. NAIK
High Court AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
Of Karnataka OCC: STUDENT
ALL ARE R/O PLOT NO.175,
CHINDE LAYOUT,
SWASTIK NAGAR
SEDAM ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585105.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.MADHUSUDAN P.N., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7533
WP No. 80105 of 2012
AND:
1. PRGATHI KRISHNA
GRAMEEN BANK
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN
HEAD OFFICE, PB NO.55
32, SANGANAKAL ROAD
GANDHI NAGARA,
BELLARY-583103.
2. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PRAGATHI KRISHNA
GRAMEEN BANK
THROUGH ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
HEAD OFFICE, PB NO.55,
32, SANGANAKAL ROAD,
GANDHI NAGARA,
BELLARY-583103
(AMENDED AS PER COURT
ORDER DATED 28.02.2017)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.S.ASPALLI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF DISMISSAL VIDE NO.KGB/HO/A & V/30 DATED
18.04.2011 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY VIDE NO.KGB/HO/A & V/531
DATED 08.11.2011 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-B AND ORDER FOR
REINSTATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER INTO SERVICE WITH FULL
BACK WAGES AND ALSO CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 31.08.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7533
WP No. 80105 of 2012
ORDER
In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 18.04.2011 (Annexure-A) passed by the Disciplinary Authority and order dated 08.11.2011 (Annexure-B) passed by the Appellate Authority inter alia sought for reinstatement into service with full backwages.
2. During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner-Ramachandra (employee) died leaving behind petitioner Nos.1(a) to 1(c). Deceased Ramachandra - original petitioner is hereinafter referred to as delinquent.
3. Relevant facts for the adjudication of the case are that the delinquent was appointed as Scale-I Officer in the respondent-Bank and thereafter, promoted to the post of Branch Manager at Hunasagi Branch. It was further contended that during 2007-2009 the delinquent was working as Branch Manager in MM-2 at Chimmanchod Branch. It was further contended that the delinquent was working with full satisfaction of the respondent-Bank. -4-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7533 WP No. 80105 of 2012 However, the delinquent was served with order of suspension dated 10.08.2009 (Annexure-C) as per the provisions contained under Krishna Grameena Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2001 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations'). Immediately thereafter, the delinquent has approached the respondent-Bank, sought time to file detailed explanation with regard to the notice issued by the respondent-Bank. The respondent-Bank has issued charge sheet dated 07.01.2010 (Annexure-F) alleging nine charges against the delinquent. Thereafter, the respondents have issued one more charge sheet dated 15.02.2010 (Annexure-F1) stating that the respondent- Bank has decided to conduct domestic enquiry in respect of the irregularities committed by the delinquent. Thereafter, the respondent-Bank has conducted departmental enquiry against the delinquent and the delinquent has participated in the Enquiry proceedings. It is the grievance of the delinquent that fair opportunity has not been extended to him. Subsequently, upon -5- NC: 2023:KHC-K:7533 WP No. 80105 of 2012 completion of the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted report dated 28.12.2010 (Annexure-K) to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority issued second show cause notice dated 25.01.2011 (Annexure-L) seeking explanation from the delinquent. The delinquent filed reply as per Annexure-M to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority, having concurred with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in respect of charges-1, 2 (except 2(e) Sl.No.11), 3, 4, 5 (except 5c), 6, 7 and 8 held that deceased-Ramachandra- delinquent was guilty of charges and accordingly, passed order under Regulation No.38-I(b)(v) of the Regulations. Thereafter, the delinquent filed appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority having taken note of the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 08.11.2011 passed order of 'removal' from service which shall not be a disqualification for further employment in terms of 38-I(IV) of the Regulations. Hence, this writ petition is filed. -6-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7533 WP No. 80105 of 2012
4. Heard Sri.Madhusudhana P.N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.S.S.Aspalli, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Bank.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Enquiry Officer has not extended fair opportunity to the delinquent and further, the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is contrary to law. It is further argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Disciplinary Authority has concurred with the Enquiry report without re-appreciating the material on record in the right perspective. It is further contended that the reasons assigned by the Disciplinary Authority is far from truth and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court as the delinquent was working with utmost sincerity and maintaining integrity throughout his career. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Gilurker vs. Bilaspur Raipur -7- NC: 2023:KHC-K:7533 WP No. 80105 of 2012 Kshetria Gramin Bank and another reported in (2011)14 SCC 379.
6. Per contra, Sri.S.S.Aspalli, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondent-Bank has extended fullest opportunity to the delinquent during the enquiry proceedings and accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the delinquent was working as Branch Manager at Chimmanchod Branch. The Disciplinary Authority has issued charge sheet dated 07.01.2010 (Annexure-F) and thereafter, issued one more charge sheet dated 15.02.2010 (Annexure-F1) and sought for explanation from the delinquent for alleged irregularities said to have been committed by the delinquent. Undisputedly, the delinquent has not filed reply to the charge sheet/show cause notice issued by the respondent-Bank and accordingly, the respondent-Bank has initiated the departmental enquiry against the -8- NC: 2023:KHC-K:7533 WP No. 80105 of 2012 delinquent. Perusal of the order of the Disciplinary Authority would indicate that the enquiry was conducted from 20.04.2010 to 18.08.2010. The delinquent has participated in the Enquiry proceedings. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer's report was sent to the delinquent as per letter dated 25.01.2011 and the time was extended to the delinquent to file reply to the Enquiry report. In furtherance of the same, the delinquent has filed reply dated 09.02.2011. The Disciplinary Authority has disagreed with the Enquiry Officer with regard to extending opportunity to the delinquent to submit his submissions. However, the delinquent has filed written submission dated 17.03.2011 to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority has also extended personal hearing to the delinquent on 11.04.2011 at Head Office, Gulbarga, and after hearing the delinquent, the Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 18.04.2011 holding that the charges levelled against the delinquent are proved and as such, order of dismissal was issued by the Disciplinary Authority. Feeling aggrieved by the same, -9- NC: 2023:KHC-K:7533 WP No. 80105 of 2012 the delinquent filed appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority by its order dated 08.11.2011 (Annexure-B) imposed the punishment of removal from service which shall not be disqualification for further employment.
8. I have carefully examined the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer wherein each of the charges have been gone into indetail by the Enquiry Officer and has arrived at a conclusion that the delinquent has violated the norms under the Regulations of the respondent-Bank. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that as fair hearing was extended to the delinquent during the course of the departmental enquiry, I do not find any material illegality in the order of dismissal passed by the respondent-Bank which has lost the confidence in the delinquent insofar as financial irregularities are concerned.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Pathrella vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7533 WP No. 80105 of 2012 reported in (2006) 10 SCC 572 at paragraphs-18 to 22 held as follows:
"18. It will be noticed that the appellant was charged for the alleged violation of Regulation 3 (1) of the Regulations 1982. Regulation 3(1) reads:
"3. (1) Every officer employee shall, at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer."
The Regulation ensures that every officer at all times take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which will be unbecoming of a bank officer. Such regulations are made to instill the public confidence in the bank so that the interests of customers/depositors are well safeguarded. In such a situation the fact that no amount was lost to the bank would be no ground to take a lenient view for the proved misconduct of a bank officer.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7533 WP No. 80105 of 2012
19. In Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, [(1996) 9 SCC 69] this Court held that a bank officer's acting beyond his authority constituted misconduct and no further proof of loss is necessary.
20. In Regional Manager, U.P.SRTC. vs. Hoti Lal, [(2003) 3 SCC 605], this Court held in paragraph 10 at SCC p.614 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 transaction or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trust- worthiness is a must and unexceptionable. Judged in that background, conclusions of the Division Bench of the High Court do not appear to be proper. We set aside the same and restore order of the learned Single Judge upholding order of dismissal."
21. In Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank vs. P.C.Kakkar, [(2003) 4
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7533 WP No. 80105 of 2012 SCC 364], this Court said in paragraph 14 at SCC pp.376-377 as under:
"14. A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with the money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to project 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
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7533 WP No. 80105 of 2012 nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court."
22. In the present case the appellant acted beyond his authority in breach of bank's Regulation. Regulation 3(1) of the bank's Regulation required that every officer of the bank at all times take all possible steps to protect the interest of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which will be unbecoming of a bank officer. It is a case of loss of confidence in the officer by the bank. In such a situation, it would be a futile exercise of judicial review to embark upon the decision of the disciplinary authority removing the officer from service, preceded by an enquiry, and to direct the bank to take back the officer in whom the bank has lost confidence, unless the decision to remove the officer is tainted with malafide, or in violation of principles of natural justice and prejudice to the officer is made out. No such case is made out in the present case."
10. In the case of United Bank of India vs. Bachan Prasad Lall reported in (2022) 4 SCC 358, at paragraphs-10 to 12 held as follows:
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7533 WP No. 80105 of 2012 "10. The nature of allegation against the respondent employee was of fraudulently preparing nine credit transfer vouchers on various dates on the pretext of payment of interest towards fixed deposits and crediting the whole amount to one saving account opened in the name of one Smt. Asha Devi (admittedly the fake account prepared by respondent employee). In order to adjust the said amount, he manipulated the other book records of the Bank using forged signatures. After such nature of allegations stood proved, the disciplinary authority, after taking into consideration the record of inquiry and the post held by the respondent employee, punished him with the penalty of dismissal from service.
11. The finding of guilt recorded by the inquiry officer in his report was confirmed at all later stages by the disciplinary/appellate authority and even after judicial scrutiny by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment but still refrained from interference on the premise that the employee had superannuated in the year 2007.
12. In our considered view, looking into seriousness of the nature of allegations levelled against the respondent employee, the punishment of dismissal inflicted upon him in no manner could
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7533 WP No. 80105 of 2012 be said to be shockingly disproportionate which would have required to be interfered with by the Tribunal in exercise of its power under Section 11A of the Act 1947. At the same time, merely because the employee stood superannuated in the meanwhile, will not absolve him from the misconduct which he had committed in discharge of his duties and looking into the nature of misconduct which he had committed, he was not entitled for any indulgence. The Bank employee always holds the position of trust where honesty and integrity are the sine qua non but it would never be advisable to deal with such matters leniently."
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava reported in 2021 LLR 119, at paragraphs-25 and 26, it is held as follows:
"25. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the Constitutional Courts, is an 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
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7533 WP No. 80105 of 2012 justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority if 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 is perverse or suffers 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.
26. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the Court is to examine and determine: (i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority; (ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with; (iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion."
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka and another vs. Umesh reported in (2022) 6 SCC 563 at paragraph-22 it is held as under:
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7533 WP No. 80105 of 2012 "22. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether:
(i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with;
(ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence;
(iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and
(iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and
(v) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct."
13. After considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases and looking into the facts on record, it is not in dispute that the
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7533 WP No. 80105 of 2012 delinquent is an employee of the respondent-Bank and therefore, he should have taken utmost care and maintained integrity in the respondent-Bank. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the delinquent has not made out a case for interference in the facts and circumstances of the case.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 1