Raman Damodaran Namboodiri vs The Chair Man State Bank Of India

Kerala High Court

Raman Damodaran Namboodiri vs The Chair Man State Bank Of India on 21 May, 2024

Author: Sathish Ninan

Bench: Sathish Ninan

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
        TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
                       WP(C) NO. 16420 OF 2013
PETITIONER:

            RAMAN DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI,
            S/O.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI, AGED 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT
            NANDANAM, PERAMANGALAM, KAIPPARAMBA, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
            [MANAGER PATTAMBI BRANCH, KERALA CIRCLE (OFFICER MMGS
            II) REMOVED FROM SERVICE]

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.C.VATHSALAN
            SRI.GHOSH YOHANNAN
            SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN
            SMT.THUSHARA.V



RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE CHAIRMAN,
            STATE BANK OF INDIA (CORPORATE CENTRE), STATE BANK
            BHAVAN, MADAMECAMA ROAD, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021.

    2       MANAGING DIRECTOR,
            (GE) [A & S], CORPORATE OFFICE, STATE BANK OF INDIA,
            CUFFE PARADE, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021
            (REPRESENTING REVIEW COMMITTEE)

    3       CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,
            HUMAN RESOURCES, STATE BANK OF INDIA, APPEAL AND REVIEW
            DEPARTMENT, CORPORATE CENTRE, POST BOX NO.12, MUMBAI-
            400021.(THE MEMBER REVIEW COMMITTEE)

    4       CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (R B G),
            STATE BANK OF INDIA, APPEAL AND REVIEW DEPARTMENT,
            CORPORATE CENTRE, POST BOX NO.12, MUMBAI-400021.(THE
            MEMBER REVIEW COMMITTEE)

    5       CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,
            (APPELLATE AUTHORITY), STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD
            OFFICE, S.S.KOVIL ROAD, TAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
            PIN-695001.
 WP(C) NO. 16420 OF 2013          -2-


    6     GENERAL MANAGER,
          APPOINTING AUTHORITY, STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD
          OFFICE, S.S.KOVIL ROAD, TAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
          PIN-695001.

    7     DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER & DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,
          STATE BANK OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
          PIN-695001.

    8     ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGFER & INQUIRING AUTHORITY
          STATE BANK OF INDIA, KOLLAM-691001.

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA)(SR.)
          SRI.AMAL GEORGE




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                       SATHISH NINAN, J.
             = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                   W.P.(C) No.16420 of 2013
             = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
             Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024

                              J U D G M E N T

The petitioner was working as the Branch manager in the State Bank of India. In the disciplinary proceedings conducted against him, he was found guilty and was imposed with the major penalty of "removal from service". The petitioner was unsuccessful in his appellate remedy and also in the statutory review. The said orders are under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the State Bank of India on 15.03.1993. He was promoted as Branch Manager on 01.11.2005. From 01.11.2005 to 23.05.2006 he worked as Branch Manager of the Pattambi Branch of the Bank. On 24.05.2006 he was transferred to the Regional Office, Kottayam. Subsequently on bifurcation, he was posted at the Regional office, Palakkad.

-: 2 :-

3. On 13.06.2006 the petitioner was suspended pending enquiry in relation to his conduct/functioning as the Branch Manager, Pattambi Branch. He was issued with Ext.P2 memo of charges. The Enquiry Officer, as per Ext.P5, held certain charges as proved and some as partially proved.

4. As per Ext.P6, the disciplinary authority accepted the report. As per Ext.P7 the appropriate authority considered the charges and findings and held them to be of serious in nature. The petitioner was imposed with the major penalty of "removal from service". Challenging Ext.P7 the petitioner preferred appeal, as provided for under the Rules, before the 5th respondent. As per Ext.P9, the authority considered the appeal and dismissed the same. As enabled under rule 69(3) of the Rules, the petitioner filed review petition before the review committee. The same was considered and rejected as per Ext.P11. The writ W.P.(C) No.16420 of 2013 -: 3 :- petition has been filed challenging Exts.P7, P9 and P11 orders.

5. I have heard Sri.C.Vathsalan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.George Thomas Mevada, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondents.

6. The main ground urged by the petitioner is that, the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the nature of the charges levelled.

7. This Court was taken exhaustively through Ext.P5 enquiry report. The charges levelled against the petitioner are essentially,

(i) Grant/sanction of loans beyond the authorised limit of the Manager,

(ii) Failure to obtain expost facto sanction of loans granted beyond the authorised limits of the Branch Manager,

(iii) Disbursal of construction loans/housing loans without following the stage-wise disbursal instructions, W.P.(C) No.16420 of 2013 -: 4 :-

(iv) Disbursal of construction loans without conducting site inspection,

(v) Disbursal of construction loans without obtaining stage-wise/completion certificates contrary to the instructions,

(vi) Failure to ensure end use of funds,

(vii) Involvement of middlemen viz; one Sri.K.P.Ibrahimkutty,

(viii) Routing of large value transactions through the S.B. Account of the delinquent.

8. The Enquiry Officer found the charges of sanction of loan beyond the authorised limit and failure to obtain post facto sanction as proved. The said charges were even admitted by the delinquent. The Enquiry officer found that the allegation that no site inspection was conducted for grant of loans is not proved. However, it was found that there was failure to obtain stage-wise certificates and completion certificates. It was also found that the disbursals were not made stage-wise but, in lump sum. The enquiry W.P.(C) No.16420 of 2013 -: 5 :- officer found the charge regarding involvement of middleman, namely, Sri.K.P.Ibrahimkutty as proved. The enquiry officer found that the SB accounts of the said borrowers reveal disbursement of loan amounts to the borrowers and issuance of cash cheques therefrom in favour of Sri.K.P.Ibrahimkutty. The Enquiry Officer found that the Savings Bank Account of the delinquent was used by the borrowers/relatives as a parking account for creating sale proceeds of properties, demand loans, remittance for mutual funds etc. The Enquiry Officer found that the Demand Draft purchase made on 20.01.2006 for ₹18 lakhs was not genuine and was made merely to accommodate the borrower. The instrument was not sent for collection. Having found the charges against the petitioner-delinquent, the authority imposed the punishment of "removal from service".

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the period which the petitioner was W.P.(C) No.16420 of 2013 -: 6 :- working as a Branch Manager of the Pattambi Branch, the performance of the petitioner was appreciated and the petitioner was congratulated by the Regional Manager, as evidenced by Ext.P1 performance report. Even if the findings on the charges are accepted, there is no allegation or finding of any misappropriation by the petitioner. So also there is no case that any financial loss resulted to the Bank consequent on the allegations levelled. He would also draw the attention of this Court to Ext.R7(c) wherein the disciplinary authority recommended to the appropriate authority, imposition of penalty of "reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by three stages for a period of three years with further directions that the officer will not earn increments to pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of pay". Therefore, the imposition of the major penalty of W.P.(C) No.16420 of 2013 -: 7 :- "removal from service" is highly disproportionate and liable to be interfered with by this Court, it is argued.

10. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents would on the other hand draw the attention of this Court to Rule 50 of the State Bank of India, Officers' Service Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "the rules") with regard to the general observance of good conduct, discipline, integrity, diligence, fidelity etc., required from its officers. He also drew the attention of this Court to Form A to Appendix I to the said Rules which is a declaration by the officers on receipt of a copy of the rules and agreeing to be bound by the same. The charges levelled and proved against the petitioner are in total violation and derogation of the conduct, discipline, integrity and diligence mandated for an officer of the Bank. The charges proved are very serious in nature. He thus justifies the imposition of the major W.P.(C) No.16420 of 2013 -: 8 :- penalty of removal from service. He also relied on various judgments of the Apex Court to contend that, this Court is not expected to go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks the conscience of the Court.

11. It could not be disputed that the charges proven against the petitioner are of very serious nature and violates the code of conduct prescribed under Rule 50 of the Service Rules. The mere recommendation made by the disciplinary authority, for reduction to lower post, cannot stand in the way of the appropriate authority from considering the gravity of the charges and imposing appropriate punishment. Rule 67(f to j) of the Rules provide for the major penalties. They read as under :-

"Major penalties

(f) save as provided for in (e) above reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as to whether or not the officer will earn increments to pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period the reduction will or will not have the effect of W.P.(C) No.16420 of 2013 -: 9 :- postponing the future increments of his pay;

(g) reduction to a lower grade or post;

(h) compulsory retirement;

(i) removal from service;

(j) dismissal."

The penalty of removal from service is lesser in gravity than the major penalty of dismissal.

12. In Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610, the Apex Court, considering the scope of interference with disciplinary proceedings in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, held:

"13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not :

(i) reappreciate the evidence;

(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;

(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;

(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;

(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.

(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."

The Apex Court reminded that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, in disciplinary proceedings, is only supervisory and not an appellate jurisdiction. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan v. J. Hussain (2013) 10 SCC 106 the Apex Court held that, it is only when the punishment imposed is found to be outrageously disproportionate to the nature of charge, it shocks the conscience of the Court, and the Court finds it totally unreasonable and arbitrary, that the theory of proportionality of punishment can be invoked. It was held that, if the penalty imposed is not found to be shockingly disproportionate, merely because in the opinion of the Court a lesser punishment would have been more justified, it cannot be a reason to interfere with the penalty imposed by the authority. W.P.(C) No.16420 of 2013 -: 11 :-

13. As noticed above, the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the appropriate authority on the charges found against him, is lesser than the maximum punishment provided under the Rules viz. dismissal from service. This Court is unable to find that the punishment imposed is unreasonable or arbitrary, outrageously disproportionate to the charges, as shocking the conscience of the Court. Therefore, no interference is called for with the orders impugned.

Resultantly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed, Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE kns/-

//True Copy// P.S. to Judge APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16420/2013 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE REPORT DATED 2/2/2006 WITH CERTIFICATE.

EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE ARTICLES OF CHARGE DATED 10.4.2011. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE BRIEF SUBMITTED BY THE PRESENTING OFFICER DT.1.11.2007.

EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE BRIEF SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER ALONG WITH DOCUMENTS DT.22.11.2007.

EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF THE FINDING OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER DT.31.12.2007.

EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF THE OBSERVATION OF THE DISCIPLINARY OFFICER ON EXHIBIT P5 DT.10.4.2007.

EXHIBIT P7: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY (6TH RESPONDENT) DATED 23.10.2008.

EXHIBIT P8: COPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER DT.20.12.2008.

EXHIBIT P9: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.3.2010 BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P10: COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P11: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.9.2012 BY 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENT.

-----