Telangana High Court
V.V.S.Gupta, vs The Indian Bank, on 26 April, 2024
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.6583 of 2013
ORDER:
Petitioner is aggrieved of the Order, dated 10.02.2012 passed by the 4th respondent dismissing him from service and the subsequent orders passed by the 3rd and 2nd respondents dismissing the appeal and revision respectively. He is further aggrieved of not returning his documents pledged for obtaining house loan, even after discharging the liability.
2. Heard both sides and perused the record.
3. Petitioner has worked as a Manager with the Respondents' Bank. A charge sheet, dated 29.12.2010 was issued to him framing 16 charges relating to the period when he worked as the Branch Manager of Mahabubabad and Kothaguda Branches. The gist of the charges framed against the petitioner is that he credited the amounts of crop loan incentive scheme to the parking account instead of crediting the same to the respective accounts of the beneficiaries, and thereafter, transferred such amount from parking account to the sundry deposit account and withdrawn cash on different dates. Out of 16 charges, which are similar in nature, 10 were proved, 3 were partially proved and 3 were not proved in the inquiry 2 JS, J W.P.No.6583 of 2013 conducted. Therefore, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The appeal and revision filed by him were also dismissed.
4. The main contention of petitioner is that the impugned order of dismissal has been passed without conducting proper inquiry and without following the principles of natural justice. It is also his case that the appeal and revision were also mechanically rejected without considering his contentions. Therefore, he prays to set aside the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority. It is his further case that the respondents are not returning the documents deposited by him at the time of obtaining house loan in spite of his paying the entire loan amount and closing such account.
5. Respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner has committed misconduct on multiple occasions therefore, a charge sheet was issued to him framing 16 charges as he diverted the amounts to be credited to the accounts of beneficiaries of Government schemes and withdrawn in cash, which is unbecoming of an employee of the Bank. Since 10 charges have been absolutely proved and three have been partially proved, the impugned order of dismissal has been passed, as the petitioner is not eligible to be continued in the service of the Bank. It is stated that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the procedure laid 3 JS, J W.P.No.6583 of 2013 down and also by observing the principles of natural justice. The appeal and revision filed by the petitioner were also rejected by passing well- reasoned orders and the petitioner was also communicated all the orders from time to time. Petitioner was given ample opportunities to defend himself in the inquiry proceedings and he has also offered his explanations on different occasions. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to make a vague allegation that the inquiry was not properly conducted. Accordingly, they prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
6. The allegations against the petitioner are that he has misused his position as Scale-II Manager of the Bank and indulged in lot of deviations like not releasing the crop loan incentives to the beneficiaries directly and mis-utilizing the amounts by issuing DDs in favour of parties who were not entitled to such funds and unauthorizedly drawing amounts from the sundry account by transferring funds first to the parking account and from there to the sundry account. According to the respondents, out of the 16 charges levelled against the petitioner, 10 were completely proved, 3 were partly proved and 3 were not proved. Therefore, keeping in view the gravity of the charges which are not expected of a Manager of the Branch, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The only grievance projected by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the inquiry was not properly 4 JS, J W.P.No.6583 of 2013 conducted and that the principles of natural justice are not followed. It is to be seen that during the inquiry proceedings, the petitioner has participated and has given his explanations on each and every charge and only after considering such explanations, findings were recorded by the Inquiry Officer. When the petitioner was afforded with an opportunity to putforth his contentions on each and every charge and having submitted his explanations for such charges, it is not open for him to contend that proper opportunity was not given to him and that the principles of natural justice were violated. It is also to be seen that after passing orders in the disciplinary proceedings, such orders were communicated to the petitioner so as to avail the remedies available under law. Petitioner has failed to narrate as to how the inquiry was not properly conducted and as to how the principles of natural justice were violated. Having not done so, he cannot make the vague allegation to that effect.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner, in support of his case, has relied on the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in Vinu Madhavan v. State Bank of India 1, wherein, after closure of loan account, the respondents were directed to release the title documents and other security documents furnished by the petitioner therein. This judgment is applicable to the case 1 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 1608 5 JS, J W.P.No.6583 of 2013 of the petitioner, as in the present case also, according to the petitioner, he has discharged the entire loan amount and the account was also closed. Therefore, he is entitled for return of such documents.
8. The petitioner has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in State Bank of India v. D.C. Aggarwal and another 2, wherein, it is held that once the Disciplinary Authority found that the action of respondent did not cause any harm to the bank nor the respondent gained out of it, the High Court cannot be said to have misdirected itself in quashing the order of procedural error. The above judgment is not applicable to the case on hand, as in the present case, the petitioner, in spite of crediting the amounts to the beneficiaries accounts, has first credited to the parking account, from there sundry account and later withdrawn cash for himself. Thus, he caused loss to the bank and gained for himself.
9. Counsel for petitioner has also relied on another judgment of the Apex Court in Union Bank of India and others v. C.G.Ajay Babu and another3, wherein, it is held that forfeiture of gratuity is not automatic on dismissal from service and that it is subject to sub-Sections (5) and (6) of Section 4 of The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. This judgment is squarely applicable to the case of petitioner and the petitioner herein is also entitled 2 AIR 1993 SC 1197 3 Civil Appeal No.8251 of 2018, dated 14.08.2018 6 JS, J W.P.No.6583 of 2013 for gratuity and other benefits, however, after forfeiting the amounts to the extent of damage or loss caused to the Bank.
10. The learned counsel for petitioner has further relied on another judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan and others4, wherein, the order of termination as well as the orders of appellate and revisional authorities were set aside since the witnesses examined and the documents produced in the departmental inquiry as well as the criminal proceedings are identical and the criminal Court has held the charges as not proved. This judgment is not applicable to the case of the petitioner herein, as in the present case, the witnesses examined and the documents relied on in the inquiry proceedings are different from that of the documents marked in the criminal case. Though two witnesses examined in the inquiry proceedings were also examined in the criminal case, two more witnesses were examined in the criminal case. Similarly, the Inquiry Officer has relied on 15 documents in the inquiry proceedings, whereas, in the criminal case, only six documents were marked i.e. the complaint, report of PW.3, FIR and three vouchers. Therefore, the evidence in the departmental proceedings is different from that of the evidence in the criminal case. Thus, the petitioner cannot rely on the aforesaid judgment 4 Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2023, dated 04.12.2023 7 JS, J W.P.No.6583 of 2013 so as to seek for quashing the departmental proceedings on the ground that he was acquitted in the criminal case registered against him in C.C.No.488 of 2011 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsampet.
11. For the aforesaid reasons and as the punishment of dismissal is commensurate with the gravity of the charges proved against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a case to interfere with the proceedings initiated against the petitioner and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. However, the respondents themselves have admitted in the counter affidavit that they have filed civil suit in O.S.No.55 of 2013 before competent Civil Court claiming damages from the petitioner and the same is still pending. It is to be further noted that some of the beneficiaries whose amounts were diverted to the accounts of unauthorized persons, have received such amounts from the petitioner and the same has also been recorded in the inquiry report. Since the suit for damages is pending and since the beneficiaries are paid their amounts, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for the terminal benefits after withholding the amount claimed under the suit.
8 JS, J W.P.No.6583 of 2013
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to return the house loan documents of the petitioner, if such loan is completely repaid and the account is closed. Further, the respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner, the gratuity and other service benefits, if not already paid, by withholding the amounts claimed in the Civil Suit filed against him. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 26.04.2024 Ksk