Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gaddala Jhonson Babu vs Sree Rama Rao on 30 August, 2024
1
*HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
+WRIT PETITION No.21914 of 2021
Between:
# Gaddala Jhonson Babu
... Petitioner
And
$ The State Bank of India, rep. by its Chief Manager,
L.H.O Amaravati, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad and 3 others.
.... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 30.08.2024
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
- Yes -
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law
Reporters/Journals
- Yes -
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair
copy of the Judgment?
- Yes -
___________________________________
DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
2
* THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
+WRIT PETITION No.21914 of 2021
% 30.08.2024
Between:
# Gaddala Jhonson Babu
... Petitioner
And
$ The State Bank of India, rep. by its Chief Manager,
L.H.O Amaravati, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad and 3 others.
.... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri G.V.S. Meher Kumar
Counsel for Respondents: Sri N. Ashwani Kumar
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred: 1. AIR 1963 SC 1723
2. (1972)4 SCC 618
3. (2003) 4 SCC 364
3
APHC010359962021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 21914/2021
Between:
Gaddala Jhonson Babu ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Bank Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. G V S MEHAR KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. N ASHWANI KUMAR
The Court made the following:
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
the following relief:
"....to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring
nd
the orders passed by the 2 respondent vide No No. A and R/VK 61 dated 5.2.2021 2021 rejecting the appeal
rd
filed by me and confirming the orders of the 3 respondent made in No VIG/FIMM/VJS/789 dated d
26.11.2020
2020 without considering the grounds of appeal and without considering the explanation dated d
7.10.2020 to the show cause and Enquiry report is illegal,
illegal arbitrary and violative of principals of natural
justice and consequently set aside the same and to pass..."
2. The facts of the case are that initially the petitioner joined in the
service of the State Bank of Hyderabad and subsequently he was
promoted in the same bank and finally he was working as Chief
Associate of Cash In-charge of 4threspondent bank. Subsequently, the
said State Bank of Hyderabad was merged with State Bank of India and
now he was working in the respondent bank till the petitioner's service
was terminated. While he was working in the 4 threspondent bank, on
5.12.2019, his branch manager informed the petitioner that he has
undergoing training program from 5.12.2019 to 7.12.2019 at SBILD,
Machilipatnam and he was directed the petitioner to relieve the same
and handed over the cash in-charge as on that date to Associate Smt.
D. Prabhavathi and Haritha. Accordingly, the petitioner was handed
over the cash and securities to above said persons as directed by the
4threspondent herein. Thereafter, the petitioner relieved by the
4threspondent and he had undergone training program at SBILD,
Machilipatnam. It is submitted that, after completion of the said training
program, when the petitioner was returning to his house, the said
D.Prabhavathi called him through phone and informed the petitioner that
there was a shortage of Rs. 12,00,000/-. Immediately, the petitioner
went to the bank on 8.12.2019, and verified the cash and cash book
registered, which is signed by the 4threspondent on 7.12.2019 and found
that there was a shortage of Rs. 12,00,000/- and instructed her to adjust
the same in next working day, otherwise, he will inform to 4threspondent
and other higher officials. However, the 4th respondent made a
complaint. Basing on the said complaint, the 3rdrespondent herein
initiated departmental proceedings while issuing the show cause notice
on 28.5-.020 raising certain irregularities while working Cash-in-charge
of the as 4threspondent bank from 1.6.2019 to 11.12.2019 and also
ordered enquiry by appointing the Enquiry Officer. Later, after
conducting enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 29.9.2020
and the same was served upon the petitioner. Immediately, the
petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice as well as
enquiry report on 7.10.2020. Further it is stated that the 3rdrespondent
herein afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and
recorded the evidence of both sides and also basing on the enquiry
report, finally passed an order of Dismissal from service without notice
and also forfeited gratuity amount to an extent of Rs.7,00,000/- caused
loss to the bank and other benefits which he entitled as per Rules vide
orders dated 26-11-2020. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
preferred an appeal to the 2ndrespondent herein raising several grounds.
But without considering the grounds which were raised in the appeal,
the 2nd respondent passed an order of rejecting the appeal by
confirming the findings of the 3rdrespondent vide orders dated 5.2.2021.
Hence the present writ petition.
3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. While
denying all the allegations made in the petition, inter alia contended that,
as per Section 4 (6) (a) & (b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, Employer is
entitled to forfeit the Gratuity amount to the extent of loss caused to the
Bank due to misconduct of the employee. It is stated that the 2nd and 3rd
respondents herein have passed orders after due consideration of the
evidence of the Petitioner herein. It is further stated that the 2 nd
respondent in its order dated 05.02.2021, specifically mentioned that
explanations submitted by the Petitioner are not acceptable after duly
considering the same and that they have passed the said orders after
considering the facts and evidences independently. The allegations
made by the Petitioner herein are purely intentional and to shift his
negligence/responsibility to others. It is established in the enquiry that
the Petitioner failed to deposit the correct cash balance of
Rs.55,92,711/- as at the close of business on 10.12.2019. Instead the
Petitioner handed over Rs.48,92,711/- only to the Joint Custodian with
shortage of Rs.7,00,000/-. Joint Custodian immediately informed about
shortages to the Branch Manager. It is further stated that the 2 nd and
3rd respondents, on the basis of evidences on record, found that there
was no difference in the cash balances held in the Branch on
09.12.2019. Thus, there is no question of carry forward shortage of cash
balance to 09.12.2019. So, the cash shortage was on 10.12.2019 as
stated, the petitioner is solely liable and responsible. It is submitted that,
there was no shortage/difference of cash on 09.12.2019, and the
question of verifying cash balance register from 05.12.2009 to
07.12.2019 does not arise. It is submitted that the charges were duly
established / proved based on the evidence and other material papers.
4. Heard Sri G.V.S. Meher Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents.
5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the
averments made in the petition, submits that, the appellate authority
without giving any opportunity straight away rejected and passed orders
confirming the orders of the 3rd respondent, which is illegal and arbitrary.
Therefore, learned counsel requests this court to pass appropriate
orders by setting aside the impugned order.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents also
reiterated the averments made in the counter. He further submits that
the Petitioner is intentionally trying to divert his responsibility and escape
from the punishment since it is very clearly found that cash shortages
were on 10.12.2019. He submits that it is the sole misconduct of the
Petitioner, who is trying to implicate the Branch Manager and
Accountant, with a malafide intention and out of grudge that their timely
action revealed the misconduct of the Petitioner. He further submits that
the petitioner has committed misconduct while working as a Head
Cashier in erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad (before merger),
Burripalem Branch and awarded a punishment of "Reduction of basic
pay by one (1) stage in the time scale for a period of one (1) year" to the
Petitioner herein. This being the second charge sheet. He further
submits that after considering the material documents, etc., and after
giving adequate opportunity to defend himself in the proceedings in the
interest of natural justice, passed an appropriate order against the
Petitioner. He mainly contended that the petitioner is having alternative
remedy available under the Industrial Dispute Act, which the Petitioner
had suppressed and came before this Hon'ble High Court. Therefore,
learned counsel requests this Court to dismiss the writ petition as devoid
of merits.
7. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the respondents
has relied upon a catena of decisions reported in State of Andhra
Pradesh -vs- Sree Rama Rao1, wherein it was held that :
"The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the
Constitution a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a
departmental enquiry against a public servant. It is concerned to determine whether
the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the
procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not
violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to
hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the
conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of
the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to
arrive at an independent finding on the evidence."
(ii) Union of India -vs- SardarBahadur2 ,the legal position has
been restated as extracted below:-
"Where there are some relevant materials which the authority has accepted and
which materials may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is guilty, it is
not the function of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to review
the materials and to arrive at an independent finding on the materials. If the enquiry
has been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot
be canvassed before the High Court."
AIR 1963 SC 1723
1972) 4 SCC 618
(iii) In United Commercial Bank -vs- P.C.Kakka3, which reads as
follows:-
"A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity.
He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of
the Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and
to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to
do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are
inseparable from the functioning of every officer / employee of the Bank.
As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority -cum- Regional Manager -
vs- NikunjaBihariPatnaik [(1996) 9 SCC 69], it is no defence available to say that
there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without
authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a Bank is
dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their
allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is
a misconduct."
8. Learned counsel for the respondents while relying upon the
above decisions, submits that, in the present case, the charges against
the Petitioner have been duly proved in the enquiry in the disciplinary
proceeding which has been properly conducted following the prescribed
procedure, and the allegations of the Petitioner to the contrary are
imaginary and self-serving. Further, in the present case, the penalty
imposed upon the Petitioner is mensurate with the gravity of the
misconduct committed by him, is necessary to deter its recurrence.
9. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that,
as seen from the impugned order dated 5.2.2021, wherein it was
mentioned that "all the submissions made by the appellant are far from
truth, it was established and evidenced that there is no difference in the
branch cash balance held in the branch on 9.12.2019 . While CSE
(2003) 4 SCC 364
carried Rs.22,00,000.00 for replenishment, ATM records revealed that
only Rs.10,00,000.00 was replenished. At the end of the day i..e, on
10.12.2020 there was a cash difference of Rs.12,00,000/- and after
deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- made by the CSE, the net difference of
Rs.7,00,000/- was evidenced. Availability/Non-availability of CCTV
footage does not absolve him from the lapse/responsibility.
10. The appellate authority while observing the same held that, in
order to meet the principles of natural justice, adequate opportunity has
been given to the appellant to defend himself in the disciplinary
proceedings conducted against the appellant and the allegations were
proved with adequate evidence and that there is no merit in the appeal
nor mitigating the factors to consider reduction of the penalty imposed.
Therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of penalty imposed on
the appellant and the appeal is rejected.
11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on
perusing the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the appellate
authority has not passed any reasoned order and that whatever the
objections raised in the appeal by the petitioner, without considering the
same, the appellate authority simply narrating few facts and relying on
the disciplinary proceedings, straightaway rejected the appeal. It
appears that the appellate authority passed the impugned order
mechanically. So, in view of the same, this Court is inclined to dispose
of the writ petition while declaring the orders dated 5.2.2021 passed by
the 2nd respondent as illegal.
12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The impugned
order of the 2nd respondent vide No.A&R/VK.61 dated 5.20.2021
rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirming the orders of
the 3rd respondent made in No.VIG/FIMM/VJS/789 dated 26.11.2020, is
hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the 2 nd
respondent to conduct fresh enquiry by affording opportunity to the
petitioner and pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law
within a period of eight(08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
13. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall
stand closed.
_________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 30-08-2024
Gvl
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
Date :30 .8.2024
Gvl
