Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
D. Venkata Prasada Rao, Kadapa vs The State Bank Of India, Chittoor Dist., ... on 5 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT PETITION No.9692 of 2010
ORDER :
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of termination dated 20.08.2003 issued by the 1st respondent and subsequent proceedings dated 11.03.2004 issued by the 2nd respondent.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk - Cum - Cashier in the Respondent/Bank on 01.09.1994. A charge memo was issued on 12.06.2002, whereby the petitioner was charged with commission of certain irregularities which were detailed in the charge memo.
3. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 17.06.2002.
However, enquiry was conducted during 11.09.2002 to 06.01.2003. After submission of the enquiry report by holding charges against the petitioner as proved, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of dismissal from service vide proceedings dated 20.08.2003.
4. The petitioner preferred an appeal before Appellate Authority, however the appellate authority dismissed the -2- WP.No.9692 of 2010 appeal preferred by the petitioner vide proceedings dated 11.03.2004.
5. Several contentions with respect to the alleged inconsistencies in the enquiry report are pointed out by Sri.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appeared for the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel draws attention to the observations of the enquiry officer in the enquiry report and submits that either the charge is proved in total or not proved at all. There cannot be a middle way as was observed by the enquiry officer. The learned senior counsel submits that there cannot be a situation where a charge can be held as partially proved.
6. Attention of the Court is drawn to the proceedings of the disciplinary authority, wherein the disciplinary authority has proved that the charges are partly proved. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the there is no reasoning for arriving at a conclusion that the charges are partly proved. The learned Senior Counsel places reliance on Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar and others 1, wherein it was held that the reason is heart beat to every conclusion and a 1 2003 (11) SCC 519 -3- WP.No.9692 of 2010 conclusion without a reason becomes lifeless. The learned Senior Counsel also places reliance on State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar2, Mathura Prasad Vs. Unioin of India and others3, K.Suresh Babu Vs. Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Tirupathi and others4. In all these judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Right to reason is an indispensible part of sound judicial system and that any enquiry which is conducted by any department an opportunity of hearing should be given to the delinquent officer/employee. A fair opportunity of defending the charges should be given to the delinquent employee and after conducting the enquiry a reasonable order must be passed with sufficient reasons for finding the said officer guilty of the charges.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has conducted misconduct which could not be termed as trivial and that the petitioner in order to cover the misconduct committed by him ended up doing other acts of further misconduct which cannot be considered as 2 (2004) 5 SCC 568 3 (2007) 1 SCC 437 4 2008 (5) ALD 479 -4- WP.No.9692 of 2010 trivial by a Nationalized Bank such as the respondent. It is also submitted that the respondent was given a fair opportunity while the enquiry was conducted and it is also not the case of the petitioner that a fair opportunity was not granted to the petitioner during the enquiry.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the writ petition cannot be maintained after lapse of more than seven years from the date of punishment of termination from service. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner was terminated in the year 2003, however, the present writ petition was filed after lapse of 7 years and he places reliance on the following judgments Chief Executive Officer, Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd and another Vs. K.Hanumantha Rao and another in Civil Appeal.No.11975 of 2016, Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and another Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava5, Chairman, State Bank of India and another Vs. M.J.James6 and Union of India and others Vs. M.Duraisamy in Civil Appeal.No.2665 of 2022. The 5 (2021) 2 SCC 612 6 (2022) 2 SCC 301 -5- WP.No.9692 of 2010 Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the delay and latches on part of the petitioners in invoking the jurisdiction of the Courts. Doctrine of acquiescence is an equitable doctrine which applies when a party having a right stands by and sees another dealing in a manner inconsistent with that right, while the act is in progress and after violation is completed, which conduct reflects his assent or accord. He cannot complaint afterwards.
9. Considering the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/bank, this Court cannot interfere in the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority unless it is convinced that there has been perversity in the order of punishment or that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges leveled.
10. The law on the aspect of judicial review is settled in the following judgments. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs. Western Geco International Limited7, Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar 7 (2014) 9 SCC 263 -6- WP.No.9692 of 2010 Haveli Vs. Gulabhia M.Lad8, Disciplinary Authority - Cum - Regional Manager & Others Vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik9, Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Bholanath Singh & Others10 . In all these Judgments the legal position with respect to exercising the power of Judicial Review is settled. Unless and until any illegality or procedural irregularity which would shock the conscious of the Court or Tribunal, the discretion can be exercised. It may not matter as to whether there was no loss which was resulted by the acts of the charged officer.
11. In the matter of Bank of India & another Vs. Degala Suryanarayana11, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that strict rules of evidence is not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. The only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravamen of the 8 (2010) 5 SCC 775 9 (1996) 9 SCC 69 10 (1997) 3 SC 657 11 (1999) 5 SCC 762 -7- WP.No.9692 of 2010 charge against the delinquent officer. The Court exercising the jurisdiction of the judicial review would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceeding except in a case of malafides 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 that finding. The Court cannot embark upon re-appreciating the evidence or weighing the same like an appellate authority so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and others Vs. M.Duraisamy Civil Appeal.No.2665 of 2002. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of High Court on the proportionality of the order of departmental authority is limited. It is observed that it cannot be set aside a well-reasoned order only on grounds of sympathy and sentiments. It is further observed and held that once it is found that all the procedural requirements had been complied with, courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. It is further observed that the superior courts, only in some cases may invoke the doctrine -8- WP.No.9692 of 2010 of proportionality, however if the decision of an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the doctrine would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands proved.
13. It is no doubt well established law that this Court can exercise its jurisdiction of judicial review if the petitioner is able to place the case of the petitioner within the exceptions carved out by the established law and the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
14. On the facts on hand in the present case, the petitioner could not place his case for judicial review by this Court on the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner.
15. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, without costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.
________________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dated 05.02.2024.
KGM -9- WP.No.9692 of 2010 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION No.9692 of 2010 Dated 05.02.2024 KGM