Kerala High Court
K.P Raju vs The Chairman And Managing Director on 5 August, 2025
2025:KER:58543
W.P.(C).No.14177 of 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 14177 OF 2014
PETITIONER:
K.P RAJU
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.K.P.PARAMESWARAN,(MANAGER PUNJAB & SIND BANK
REMOVED FROM SERVICE)R/A.T C NO 15/1625, HOUSE
No.ETN, THYKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADV SHRI.P.V.MOHANAN
RESPONDENT:
THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
PUNJAB & SIND BANK, HEAD OFFICE, 140 BANK HOUSE,
21 RAJENDRA PALACE, NEW DELHI-110008
BY ADVS.
SRI.ABEL SUNIL GEORGE
SRI.DENU JOSEPH
SRI.SAJI MATHEW
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 05.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:58543
W.P.(C).No.14177 of 2014
2
S.MANU, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.14177 of 2014
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 05th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was an employee of the respondent Bank. He entered into service on 10.7.1974. While he was working as the Manager of the Thiruvananthapuram branch of the Bank he was placed under suspension on 13.10.1992 contemplating disciplinary action. Memo of charges was issued vide proceedings dated 17.6.1993. Thereafter enquiry was conducted and report was submitted on 30.11.1994. The enquiry officer concluded that the petitioner was guilty of the charges.
2. Allegation against the petitioner and other employees proceeded along with him was that there were serious lapses and irregularities in the matter of providing accommodation to one of the bank's customers and its associates. The said customer firm was unauthorisedly accommodated beyond the 2025:KER:58543 W.P.(C).No.14177 of 2014 3 sanctioned limit. The petitioner did not submit any written statement of defence in response to the charges. Though he participated in the enquiry, before the enquiry officer, he admitted the various acts of misconduct alleged against him.
3. On the basis of the enquiry report, by proceedings dated 24.6.1995, penalty of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner. Though he filed appeal against the penalty before the General Manager, it was rejected by order dated 21.9.1995. A review petition was submitted before the Chairman and Managing Director. The same was also rejected by order dated 25.11.1995.
4. The Central Bureau of Investigation conducted investigation into the irregularities and charge sheet was filed. When the disciplinary proceedings were concluded and the petitioner was removed from service the criminal proceedings were pending. Finally, by judgment dated 20.6.2007 the petitioner was acquitted.
2025:KER:58543 W.P.(C).No.14177 of 2014 4
5. Petitioner filed O.P.No.1503/1998 challenging the order of punishment in the disciplinary proceedings. The criminal court acquitted the petitioner during the pendency of the said original petition. The original petition was disposed of by this Court on 1.6.2010. This Court found that the petitioner had admitted his guilt in the disciplinary proceedings and hence he cannot take advantage of the acquittal in the criminal case to contend that the order removing him from service was liable to be set aside. This Court opined that the respondents should consider, having regard to the judgment of the criminal court, whether the decision removing the petitioner from service should be reconsidered. The original petition was disposed of with the observation that in the event of the petitioner filing an appropriate representation before the Chairman and Managing Director, the said authority shall consider the same, if necessary, by placing it before the Board.
6. Pursuant to the judgment in O.P.No.1503/1998 petitioner submitted a representation to the Chairman and 2025:KER:58543 W.P.(C).No.14177 of 2014 5 Managing Director on 09.07.2010. The representation was considered by the Board and it was rejected. This was conveyed to the petitioner by Ext.P9 communication dated 20.9.2010. Petitioner, on 09.08.2011, submitted Ext.P10 request to the Chairman and Managing Director to review the decision. By Ext.P11 dated 24.10.2011 it was intimated by the Bank that the earlier representation was considered by the Board and was rejected. It was pointed out that there is no provision to review such a decision. Petitioner thereafter filed the instant writ petition.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the acquittal of the petitioner was not properly taken into account by the authorities while considering the request submitted pursuant to the judgment of this Court. He also contended that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated and punishment imposed was improper. The learned counsel contended that the Punjab and Sind Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995 contained a provision that resignation or 2025:KER:58543 W.P.(C).No.14177 of 2014 6 dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank shall entail for forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. He submitted that in April, 2002 a bipartite settlement was entered into on disciplinary action and procedure therefor. Removal from service with superannuation benefits was included as a punishment for gross misconduct. Inter play of these provisions was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in Civil Appeal No.10956/2013. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that employees who are otherwise entitled to superannuation benefits under the Regulation, if visited with the penalty of removal from service with superannuation benefits, shall be entitled for those benefits. He hence contended that the said aspect ought to have been noted by the Board while considering the representation of the petitioner seeking review of the punishment. The learned counsel further contended that the Punjab and Sind Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995 was thereafter amended taking note of the judgment of the 2025:KER:58543 W.P.(C).No.14177 of 2014 7 Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, the position obtained after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is totally different. The learned counsel pointed out the proviso inserted in Regulation 22 which reads as under:-
"Provided that the removal of an employee, who is employed in the service of the Bank as a workman on full time work on permanent basis or on part-time work on permanent basis on scale wages, shall not entail for forfeiture of his entire past service and shall qualify for pensionary benefits."
8. He relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Channan Singh and another v. Smt.Jai Kaur [AIR 1970 SC 349] and Zile Singh v. State of Haryana and others [(2004) 8 SCC 1] to contend that amendment made to the Regulation in 2024 would operate retrospectively and hence the petitioner would be entitled for the benefit of the same. The learned counsel submitted that the orders impugned are therefore liable to be set aside and may be declared that the 2025:KER:58543 W.P.(C).No.14177 of 2014 8 petitioner is entitled to get pensionary benefits and other terminal benefits.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank submitted that the petitioner had admitted his guilt in the enquiry and had not submitted even a written statement in defence. He hence argued that the findings of the enquiry officer and the decision of the disciplinary authority were perfectly justified. He made reference to the judgment of the criminal court and pointed out that the petitioner was granted the benefit of doubt and the acquittal was therefore not honourable. He contended that this Court in the earlier round of litigation had found that there was no scope to interfere with the findings and disciplinary action. However, out of leniency, this Court directed the Bank to consider whether the punishment imposed should be reconsidered. The matter was thereafter placed before the Board. The Board after evaluating all relevant facts and circumstances concluded that the punishment need not be reviewed. He pointed out that the petitioner again 2025:KER:58543 W.P.(C).No.14177 of 2014 9 submitted a representation which was ill conceived. He submitted that the proceedings against the petitioner were governed by the Punjab and Sind Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981. The removal from service, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment, imposed on the petitioner was a major penalty under the said Regulation. The Bank desisted from imposing the punishment of dismissal which shall be a disqualification for future employment. He submitted that the limited scope of this writ petition is to examine whether the decision taken by the Board of the respondent Bank not to revisit the punishment imposed on the petitioner is proper or not. Relying on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he submitted that it is not the function of the High Court to sit in appeal over the findings of the disciplinary authority. So long as the findings of the disciplinary authority are supported by evidence and the punishment is lawful, there is no scope for interference under Article 226.
2025:KER:58543 W.P.(C).No.14177 of 2014 10
1. State Bank of India v. Ram Lal Bhaskar and Another [(2011) 10 SCC 249].
2. State Bank of India v. A.G.D.Reddy [2023 KHC 6803].
3. State of Rajasthan v. Bhupendra Singh [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1908].
10. He also contended that it is of utmost importance that the officers and employees of the Banks shall maintain discipline. The learned counsel relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard:-
1. Disciplinary Authority cum Regional Manager and others v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik [(1996) 9 SCC 69].
2. Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and others v.
P.C.Kakkar [2003 (4) SCC 364].
11. He therefore submitted that integrity and honesty are essential for officers of Banks and that higher standards are expected from them. They are expected to discharge duties with 2025:KER:58543 W.P.(C).No.14177 of 2014 11 utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. The petitioner committed grave acts of misconduct and admitted the same. He hence submitted that no interference is required in the matter of punishment imposed on the petitioner.
12. The learned counsel for the Bank refuted the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the amendment made to the Punjab and Sind Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995. The learned counsel submitted that the said amendment made in 2024 cannot be pressed in service by the petitioner who was removed from service long ago. The appellate remedies were also exhausted without success by the petitioner even before the acquittal by the criminal court. Moreover, the amendment to Regulation 22 of the Punjab and Sind Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995 would apply only in the case of workmen. Similarly, the terms of the bipartite agreement were also applicable only in the case of workmen. However, the petitioner was a Branch Manager at the time of 2025:KER:58543 W.P.(C).No.14177 of 2014 12 removal and hence he cannot be considered as a workman. The learned counsel hence submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioner based on the bipartite settlement and recent amendment to the Punjab and Sind Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995 are without merits.
13. I have analysed the contentions of both sides and perused the pleadings and documents. In the earlier original petition filed by the petitioner this Court concluded that the disciplinary proceedings were justified and conclusions of the enquiry authority and disciplinary authority were proper as the petitioner had admitted his guilt. This Court also held that acquittal by the criminal court cannot be a reason to set aside the punishment imposed on the petitioner. This Court granted only a very limited relief to the petitioner by permitting him to submit a representation to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank and directing the Bank to consider whether the punishment imposed should be reconsidered. The matter was thereafter considered by the Board which is the highest 2025:KER:58543 W.P.(C).No.14177 of 2014 13 authority of the Bank. The Board concluded that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was proper and need not be reconsidered. The Board also noticed that the acquittal of the petitioner was not honourable. Board further noticed that the Bank had been put to huge loss due to the misconduct of the petitioner and the penalty was imposed as he admitted the misconduct. Thus, the Board decided to reject the representation of the petitioner.
14. The punishment imposed was a major penalty provided under the Punjab and Sind Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981. Imposition of penalty, as per the Regulations cannot be held as illegal or improper. Only question to be considered is as to whether the Board of the Bank ought to have considered the terms of the bipartite settlement also while deciding to reject the representation of the petitioner. It is to be noted that the amendment relied on by the petitioner was only in the year 2024. Hence, the only relevant aspect was the applicability of 2025:KER:58543 W.P.(C).No.14177 of 2014 14 the bipartite settlement. In this regard I find considerable force in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank that the bipartite settlement applied only in the case of workmen. The petitioner was a Branch Manager and hence he cannot be permitted to rely on the bipartite settlement. Petitioner has no case that the Punjab and Sind Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981 was not applicable to him. In fact, the disciplinary proceedings including the enquiry was conducted under the Regulation.
15. Scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings while exercising the power of judicial review by the High Court is very limited. In the instant case the petitioner admitted his guilt in the disciplinary proceedings and a punishment provided under the relevant Regulation was imposed on him. Appeal and Review Applications were considered and rejected. Above all, this Court found that the conclusions of the enquiry authority and disciplinary authority were proper. As a matter of indulgence, this Court, in the previous round of litigation, 2025:KER:58543 W.P.(C).No.14177 of 2014 15 permitted the petitioner to submit a request for reconsidering the punishment. The highest authority of the Bank, after considering the request, found that no sufficient reasons are there for revisiting the punishment. In such circumstances, I am of the view that no relief can be granted in this writ petition.
In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
S.MANU JUDGE skj 2025:KER:58543 W.P.(C).No.14177 of 2014 16 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14177/2014 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF CHARGES DTD 17/6/1993. P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER DTD 30/11/1994 P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 24/6/1995 P4:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 21/9/1995 P5:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 25/11/1995 P6:-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO 47/1998 DTD 20/6/2007 P7:-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO 1503/1998(D)DTD 1/6/2010 P8:-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 9/7/2010 P9:-TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING HO/PERS/DAC/7497 DTD 20/9/2010 P10:-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 9/8/2011 P11:-TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING HO(P)/DAC/9697 DTD 24/10/2011 P12:-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO 10956/2013 DTD 11/12/2013