Surji M Tharakan vs State Bank Of India

Kerala High Court

Surji M Tharakan vs State Bank Of India on 7 August, 2025

​W.A.No​​.2177 of 2024​           ​1​        2025:KER:58734​
                                             ​


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM​
             ​

                                 PRESENT​
                                 ​

   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI​
   ​

                                        &​
                                        ​

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.​
            ​

                TH​
                ​
 THURSDAY, THE 7​
 ​                  DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 16TH SRAVANA,​​
                    ​                                  1947​

                          WA NO. 2177 OF 2024​
                          ​

           AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.12.2024 IN WP(C)​
           ​

           NO.34631 OF 2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA​
           ​

APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WP(C):​
​

                ​URJI M THARAKAN,​
                S
                AGED 40 YEARS​
                ​
                SON OF MATHEWS M.VARGHESE THARAKAN, SENIOR​
                ​
                ASSOCIATE, STATE BANK OF INDIA, KOLENCHERY BRANCH,​
                ​
                MCP BUILDING, KOLENCHERY P.O, ERNAKULAM - 682 311,​
                ​
                RESIDING AT MADAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, SOUTH​
                ​
                MAZHUVANNOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686669​
                ​


                ​Y ADVS.​
                B
                SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY​
                ​
                SHRI.ARJUN R NAIK​
                ​
                SRI.P.S.GIREESH​
                ​
                SHRI.SALIH P.A.​
                ​



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:​

​ 1​ ​ ​TATE BANK OF INDIA,​ S REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, LOCAL​ ​ HEAD OFFICE, ROTARY JUNCTION, POOJAPPURA PO,​ ​ THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695012​ ​ ​W.A.No​​.2177 of 2024​ ​2​ 2025:KER:58734​ ​ 2​ ​ ​HE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,(OAD) AND​ T DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,STATE BANK OF INDIA,​ ​ OFFICE ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, LOCAL HEAD​ ​ OFFICE, ROTARY JUNCTION, POOJAPPURA P.O.,​ ​ THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695012​ ​ ​HIS​ ​ T WRIT​ ​ APPEAL​ ​ HAVING​ ​ BEEN​ ​ FINALLY​ ​ HEARD​ ​ ON​ 31.07.2025,​ ​ ​ THE​ ​COURT​ ​ ON​ ​ 07.08.2025​ ​DELIVERED​ ​ THE​ FOLLOWING:​ ​ ​W.A.No​​.2177 of 2024​ ​3​ 2025:KER:58734​ ​ ​JUDGMENT​ ​Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari​ ​The​ ​present​ ​intra-court​ ​appeal​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​5​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Kerala​ ​High​ ​Court​ ​Act,​ ​1958,​ ​assails​ ​the​ ​judgment​ ​dated​ ​10.12.2024​​passed​​in​​W.P(C)No.34631/2022​​whereby​​the​​learned​ ​Single​ ​Judge​ ​has​ ​dismissed​ ​the​ ​writ​ ​petition​ ​filed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​appellant.​ ​2.​ ​The​ ​appellant​ ​had​ ​filed​ ​the​ ​writ​ ​petition​ ​challenging​ ​Ext.P10​ ​and​ ​P13​ ​order​​issued​ ​by​​the​ ​2nd​​respondent​​whereby​ ​the​ ​disciplinary​ ​authority​ ​choose​ ​to​ ​reopen​ ​the​ ​enquiry​ ​partially​ ​for​ ​the​ ​purpose​ ​of​ ​recording​ ​further​ ​evidence​ ​in​ ​respect​​of​​the​​veracity​ ​of​​the​​telephone​​calls​​allegedly​​made​​by​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​to​ ​the​ ​officers​ ​mentioned​ ​in​ ​charge​ ​sheet​ ​and​ ​W.A.No​​.2177 of 2024​ ​4​ 2025:KER:58734​ ​ ​documents/evidence​ ​which​ ​are​ ​already​ ​on​ ​record​ ​in​ ​the​ ​enquiry proceedings.​ ​3.​ ​Initially​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​was​ ​subjected​ ​to​ ​disciplinary​ ​action.​ ​A​ ​full​ ​fledged​ ​enquiry​ ​was​ ​conducted​ ​against​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​and​ ​the​ ​enquiry​ ​report​ ​was​ ​submitted.​ ​The​ ​Disciplinary​​Authority​​after​​considering​​the​​show​​cause​​notice​ ​dated​ ​23.06.2022​ ​issued​ ​to​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​and​ ​the​ ​reply​ ​of​​the​ ​appellant​ ​dated​ ​16.07.2022,​ ​came​ ​to​ ​the​ ​conclusion​ ​that​ ​on​ ​examination​​of​​the​​above​​in​​detail,​​I​​observed​​there​​needs​​more​ ​clarity​ ​on​ ​certain​ ​aspects​ ​of​ ​the​ ​enquiry​ ​proceedings​ ​and​ ​rejected​​the​​objections​​and​​directed​​to​​conduct​​limited​​enquiry​ ​for​​recording​ ​further​​evidence​​on​​the​​ground​​that​​the​​persons​ ​mentioned​ ​in​ ​the​ ​list​ ​of​ ​witnesses​ ​were​ ​left​ ​to​ ​be​ ​examined.​ ​The​ ​Enquiry​ ​Officer​ ​was​ ​also​ ​changed​ ​vide​ ​Ext.P13,​ ​even​ ​W.A.No​​.2177 of 2024​ ​5​ 2025:KER:58734​ ​ ​though​ ​the​ ​original​ ​Enquiry​ ​Officer​ ​was​ ​available.​ ​Being​ ​aggrieved,​ ​the​​appellant​​filed​​the​​writ​​petition​​praying​​for​​the​ ​following reliefs:​ "​ (a)​ ​Call​ ​for​ ​the​​records​​and​​files​​leading​​to​​Exhibits​​P10​​and​ ​P13​​issued​​by​​the​​2nd​​respondent​​and​​quash​​Exhibits​​P10​​and​ ​P13​ ​by​ ​issuance​ ​of​ ​writ​ ​in​ ​the​ ​nature​ ​of​ ​certiorari,​ ​or​ ​any​ ​other appropriate writ, order or direction;​ ​(b)​ ​Issue​ ​a​ ​writ​ ​in​ ​the​ ​nature​ ​of​ ​mandamus​ ​or​ ​any​ ​other​ ​appropriate​ ​writ,​ ​order​ ​or​ ​direction​ ​commanding​ ​the​ ​2nd​ ​respondent​​to​​pass​​appropriate​​orders​​in​​accordance​​with​​law​ ​over​ ​the​ ​charges​ ​alleged​ ​against​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​in​​Exhibit​​P5​ ​charge​ ​sheet,​ ​on​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​the​ ​enquiry​ ​report/findings​ ​dated​ ​31.05.2022​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Enquiry​ ​Officer​ ​appointed​ ​as​ ​per​ ​Exhibit​ ​P7​ ​and​​enquiry​​held​​thereunder,​​after​​affording​​copy​ ​of​​the​​report​​thereof​​and​​an​​opportunity​​to​​represent​​over​​it,​ ​to the petitioner; and​ ​(c)​ ​Grant​ ​such​ ​other​ ​and​ ​further​ ​reliefs​ ​as​ ​are​ ​deemed​ ​just​ ​deemed​ ​and​ ​necessary​ ​in​ ​the​ ​facts​ ​and​ ​circumstances​​of​​the​ ​case including the costs of this proceedings."​ ​4.​ ​The​ ​learned​​counsel​ ​for​​the​ ​appellant​ ​contended​ ​that​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Single​ ​Judge​​wrongly​ ​came​ ​to​​the​ ​conclusion​​that​ ​the​ ​case​ ​of​ ​the​ ​appellant​​falls​ ​within​ ​the​ ​parameter​​of​​Clause​ ​2.1​ ​and​ ​not​ ​Clause​ ​2.2​ ​and​ ​therefore,​ ​partial​ ​reopening​ ​of​ ​W.A.No​​.2177 of 2024​ ​6​ 2025:KER:58734​ ​ ​enquiry​​asking​ ​the​​Enquiry​​Officer​ ​to​​record​ ​further​​evidence​ ​in​​respect​​of​​telephonic​​conversation​​cannot​​be​​find​​fault​​with.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​Single​ ​Judge​ ​held​ ​that​ ​according​ ​to​ ​Clause​ ​2.1​ ​partial​ ​enquiry​ ​or​ ​de​ ​novo​ ​enquiry​ ​can​ ​be​ ​conducted​ ​by​ ​the​ ​same​ ​Enquiry​ ​Officer​ ​or​ ​by​ ​appointing​ ​a​​new​ ​Enquiry​ ​Officer.​ ​Therefore,​ ​there​ ​is​ ​no​ ​contradiction​ ​between​ ​clause​ ​2.1​ ​and​ ​Clause​ ​2.2.​ ​The​ ​Disciplinary​ ​Authority​ ​has​ ​appointed​ ​a​ ​new​ ​Enquiry​ ​Officer​ ​to​ ​collect​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​in​ ​respect​ ​of​ ​the​ ​telephonic​​conversation​​allegedly​​made​​by​​the​​appellant​​to​​the​ ​officers​​of​​the​​Bank,​​who​​have​​been​​named​​in​​the​​chargesheet.​ ​Accordingly​ ​the​ ​writ​ ​petition​ ​was​ ​dismissed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Single​​Judge.​​Being​​aggrieved,​​the​​present​​writ​​appeal​​has​​been​ ​filed.​ ​W.A.No​​.2177 of 2024​ ​7​ 2025:KER:58734​ ​ ​5.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​​the​ ​appellant​ ​contended​ ​that​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Single​ ​Judge​ ​has​ ​wrongly​ ​dismissed​ ​the​ ​writ​ ​petition,​ ​inasmuch​ ​as​ ​it​ ​amounts​ ​to​ ​conducting​ ​a​ ​de​ ​novo​ ​enquiry​ ​to​ ​fill​ ​the​ ​lacuna​ ​in​ ​evidence,​ ​even​ ​though​ ​the​ ​departmental​ ​enquiry​ ​has​ ​already​ ​concluded,​ ​which​ ​would​ ​prejudice​​the​ ​appellant.​ ​Moreover,​​there​​is​ ​no​​provision​​in​​the​ ​Rules/procedure​ ​to​ ​order​ ​re-inquiry​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Disciplinary​ ​Authority.​ ​6.​​The​​learned​​counsel​​for​​the​​appellant​​submitted​​that​​as​ ​per​ ​Ext.P15​ ​Vigilance​ ​Manual​ ​2019,​ ​Chapter-X,​ ​Clause​ ​2​ ​provides​ ​for​ ​Re-inquiry.​ ​Clause​ ​2.1​ ​provides​ ​that​ ​in​ ​case​ ​the​ ​Disciplinary​ ​Authority​ ​on​ ​examination​ ​of​ ​the​ ​report​ ​in​ ​detail​ ​finds​ ​any​​lack​​of​ ​clarity​​or​​defect,​ ​he​​may​​ask​​the​​IA​​to​​record​ ​further​ ​evidence​ ​in​ ​which​ ​case​ ​there​ ​will​ ​be​ ​only​ ​a​ ​partial​ ​W.A.No​​.2177 of 2024​ ​8​ 2025:KER:58734​ ​ ​reopening​ ​of​​the​ ​enquiry.​ ​Clause​ ​2.2​​provides​​that​ ​if,​​however,​ ​the​ ​DA​ ​is​​of​ ​the​​view​​that​​there​​were​​infirmities​​in​​the​​inquiry​ ​or​ ​all​​evidence​​required​ ​had​​not​​been​​produced​​or​​if​​there​​has​ ​been​ ​any​ ​palpable​ ​denial​ ​of​ ​natural​ ​justice/reasonable​ ​opportunity​ ​not​​given​​to​​the​​CSO/CSE​​to​​defend​​himself​​or​​the​ ​inquiry​​is​​found​​vitiated​​for​​any​​reasons,​​he​​may​​remit​​the​​case​ ​back​ ​to​ ​the​ ​same​ ​IA​ ​or​ ​to​ ​another​ ​IA​ ​for​ ​further​ ​inquiry​ ​as​ ​regards​ ​the​ ​required​ ​portion​ ​or​​order​​an​​inquiry​ ​'De​​Novo'​​as​ ​the​​case​​may​​be.​​In​​such​​an​​eventuality,​​the​​DA​​has​​to​​record​​his​ ​reasons​​for​​such​​a​​course​​of​​action.​​The​ ​re-inquiry,​​in​​any​​case,​ ​should​ ​not​ ​be​ ​viewed​ ​as​ ​having​ ​been​ ​ordered​​merely​​because​ ​the earlier one was in favour of the CSO/CSE.​ ​7.​ ​From​​the​​aforesaid​​clause,​​it​​is​​clear​​that​​the​​DA​​has​​to​ ​record​ ​its​ ​reason​ ​for​ ​such​ ​a​ ​course​ ​of​ ​action.​ ​On​ ​perusal​ ​of​ ​W.A.No​​.2177 of 2024​ ​9​ 2025:KER:58734​ ​ ​Ext.P10​​dated​​06.09.2022​​the​​DA​​without​​recording​​any​​reasons​ ​for​​adopting​ ​such​​a​ ​course​​of​​action,​ ​only​​observed​ ​that​​there​ ​needs​ ​more​ ​clarity​ ​on​ ​certain​ ​aspects​ ​of​ ​the​ ​enquiry​ ​proceedings​ ​and​ ​ordered​ ​reopening​ ​of​ ​the​ ​enquiry.​ ​The​ ​said​ ​reopening​ ​itself​ ​amounts​ ​to​ ​illegality​ ​as​ ​per​ ​Clause​ ​2.2​ ​of​​the​ ​Vigilance​ ​Manual​ ​2019.​​The​​order​​impugned​​deserves​​to​​be​​set​ ​aside.​ ​This​ ​aspect​ ​was​ ​never​ ​considered​ ​by​​the​ ​learned​​Single​ ​Judge​ ​while​ ​dealing​ ​with​ ​the​ ​writ​ ​petition.​ ​Therefore,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Single​ ​Judge​ ​has​ ​committed​ ​error​ ​on​ ​the​ ​face​ ​of​ ​the​ ​record which needs interference by this Court.​ ​8.​ ​Per​ ​contra,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​appearing​ ​for​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​vehemently​ ​opposed​ ​the​ ​afore​ ​prayer​ ​and​ ​submitted​​that​​as​​per​​the​​Vigilance​​Manual,​​2019​​the​​DA​​is​​fully​ ​authorized​​to​ ​order​​re-enquiry​​to​​the​​limited​​extent​​which​​has​ ​W.A.No​​.2177 of 2024​ ​10​ 2025:KER:58734​ ​ ​been​ ​done​ ​in​ ​the​ ​present​ ​case.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​Single​ ​Judge​ ​was​ ​right​ ​in​ ​dismissing​ ​the​​writ​ ​petition,​​since​ ​the​ ​re-enquiry​​was​ ​ordered​ ​only​ ​for​ ​the​ ​purpose​ ​of​ ​coming​ ​to​ ​the​ ​correct​ ​conclusion.​ ​Therefore,​ ​the​ ​present​ ​writ​ ​appeal​ ​is​ ​liable​ ​to​ ​be​ ​dismissed.​ ​9.​ ​Heard​ ​the​ ​learned​​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​​parties​​and​​perused​ ​the records.​ ​10.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​case​ ​of​ ​Shibu​ ​M.​ ​v.​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Kerala​ ​[2024​ ​KHC​ ​OnLIne​​7268]​ ​the​​learned​​Division​​Bench​​of​​this​​Court​​has​​held​ ​that​​disciplinary​ ​authority​ ​cannot​​wipe​​out​​an​​inquiry​​already​ ​conducted​​and​ ​direct​​a​​de​​novo​ ​inquiry.​​However,​ ​it​​is​​open​​to​ ​the​​disciplinary​​authority​​to​​differ​​from​​the​​findings​​of​​Inquiry​ ​Officer,​ ​in​​appropriate​​cases.​​There​​is​​no​​provision​​in​​the​​Rules​ ​W.A.No​​.2177 of 2024​ ​11​ 2025:KER:58734​ ​ ​to​​order​​a​​de​​novo​​inquiry​​after​​wiping​​out​​the​​inquiry​​already​ ​conducted.​ ​11.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​present​ ​case,​ ​the​ ​Disciplinary​ ​Authority​ ​has​ ​ordered​ ​enquiry​ ​suo​ ​motu​ ​even​ ​without​ ​considering​ ​the​ ​fact​ ​that​ ​re-enquiry​ ​could​​not​​have​ ​been​ ​ordered​​after​​submission​ ​of​ ​the​ ​enquiry​ ​report.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​failed​ ​to​ ​file​ ​an​ ​appropriate​ ​application​ ​seeking​ ​recording​ ​of​​further​​evidence​ ​during​ ​pendency​ ​of​ ​the​ ​disciplinary​ ​proceedings.​ ​As​ ​such​ ​the​ ​disciplinary​​Authority​​was​​wrong​​in​​directing​​reopening​​of​​the​ ​enquiry.​ ​Even​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Single​ ​Judge​​overlooked​ ​this​ ​aspect​ ​that​​as​​per​​Vigilance​​Manual​​Clause​​2.2​​enquiry​​can​​be​​ordered​ ​subject​ ​to​ ​recording​ ​the​ ​reasons​ ​for​ ​doing​ ​so​ ​which​ ​is​ ​apparently​​absent​​in​​Ext.P10​​letter​​dated​​06.09.2022.​​In​​view​​of​ ​the​ ​aforesaid​​the​​judgment​ ​passed​​by​​the​​learned​​Single​​Judge​ ​W.A.No​​.2177 of 2024​ ​12​ 2025:KER:58734​ ​ ​dated​ ​10.12.2024​ ​in​ ​W.P(C)No.34631/2022​ ​reopening​ ​the​ ​enquiry​ ​vide​ ​Ext.P10​ ​dated​ ​06.09.2022​ ​and​ ​Ext.P13​ ​are​​hereby​ ​quashed. The writ appeal stands allowed. No order as to costs.​ ​12.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​would​​be​ ​at​ ​liberty​​to​​proceed​​with​ ​the​ ​enquiry​​in​​accordance​​with​ ​law​​from​​the​​stage​​of​​issuance​ ​of​​show​​cause​​notice​​after​​the​​enquiry​​report​​and​​conclude​​the​ ​enquiry finally as expeditiously as possible.​ Sd/-​ ​ SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI​ ​ JUDGE​ ​ ​Sd/-​ SYAM KUMAR V.M.​ ​ JUDGE​ ​ MC/4.8​ ​