Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
D. Venkata Prasada Rao, Kadapa vs The State Bank Of India, Chittoor Dist., ... on 5 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT PETITION No.9692 of 2010
ORDER :
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of termination dated
20.08.2003 issued by the 1st respondent and subsequent
proceedings dated 11.03.2004 issued by the 2nd
respondent.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk - Cum - Cashier in
the Respondent/Bank on 01.09.1994. A charge memo was
issued on 12.06.2002, whereby the petitioner was charged
with commission of certain irregularities which were
detailed in the charge memo.
3. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 17.06.2002.
However, enquiry was conducted during 11.09.2002 to
06.01.2003. After submission of the enquiry report by
holding charges against the petitioner as proved, the
disciplinary authority imposed punishment of dismissal
from service vide proceedings dated 20.08.2003.
4. The petitioner preferred an appeal before Appellate
Authority, however the appellate authority dismissed the
appeal preferred by the petitioner vide proceedings dated
11.03.2004.
5. Several contentions with respect to the alleged
inconsistencies in the enquiry report are pointed out by
Sri.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appeared for the
petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel draws attention to
the observations of the enquiry officer in the enquiry report
and submits that either the charge is proved in total or not
proved at all. There cannot be a middle way as was
observed by the enquiry officer. The learned senior counsel
submits that there cannot be a situation where a charge
can be held as partially proved.
6. Attention of the Court is drawn to the proceedings of the
disciplinary authority, wherein the disciplinary authority
has proved that the charges are partly proved. The learned
Senior Counsel submits that the there is no reasoning for
arriving at a conclusion that the charges are partly proved.
The learned Senior Counsel places reliance on Raj Kishore
Jha Vs. State of Bihar and others 1, wherein it was held
that the reason is heart beat to every conclusion and a
2003 (11) SCC 519
conclusion without a reason becomes lifeless. The learned
Senior Counsel also places reliance on State of Orissa Vs.
Dhaniram Luhar2, Mathura Prasad Vs. Unioin of India
and others3, K.Suresh Babu Vs. Deputy General
Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Tirupathi
and others4. In all these judgments the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that Right to reason is an indispensible part
of sound judicial system and that any enquiry which is
conducted by any department an opportunity of hearing
should be given to the delinquent officer/employee. A fair
opportunity of defending the charges should be given to the
delinquent employee and after conducting the enquiry a
reasonable order must be passed with sufficient reasons for
finding the said officer guilty of the charges.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
petitioner has conducted misconduct which could not be
termed as trivial and that the petitioner in order to cover
the misconduct committed by him ended up doing other
acts of further misconduct which cannot be considered as
(2004) 5 SCC 568
(2007) 1 SCC 437
2008 (5) ALD 479
trivial by a Nationalized Bank such as the respondent. It is
also submitted that the respondent was given a fair
opportunity while the enquiry was conducted and it is also
not the case of the petitioner that a fair opportunity was not
granted to the petitioner during the enquiry.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
writ petition cannot be maintained after lapse of more than
seven years from the date of punishment of termination
from service. The learned counsel for the respondent
submits that the petitioner was terminated in the year
2003, however, the present writ petition was filed after
lapse of 7 years and he places reliance on the following
judgments Chief Executive Officer, Krishna District
Cooperative Central Bank Ltd and another Vs.
K.Hanumantha Rao and another in Civil
Appeal.No.11975 of 2016, Deputy General Manager
(Appellate Authority) and another Vs. Ajai Kumar
Srivastava5, Chairman, State Bank of India and another
Vs. M.J.James6 and Union of India and others Vs.
M.Duraisamy in Civil Appeal.No.2665 of 2022. The
(2021) 2 SCC 612
(2022) 2 SCC 301
Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the delay and latches on
part of the petitioners in invoking the jurisdiction of the
Courts. Doctrine of acquiescence is an equitable doctrine
which applies when a party having a right stands by and
sees another dealing in a manner inconsistent with that
right, while the act is in progress and after violation is
completed, which conduct reflects his assent or accord. He
cannot complaint afterwards.
9. Considering the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent/bank, this Court cannot interfere in the
punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority unless it
is convinced that there has been perversity in the order of
punishment or that the punishment is shockingly
disproportionate to the charges leveled.
10. The law on the aspect of judicial review is settled in the
following judgments. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation
Limited Vs. Western Geco International Limited7,
Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar
(2014) 9 SCC 263
Haveli Vs. Gulabhia M.Lad8, Disciplinary Authority -
Cum - Regional Manager & Others Vs. Nikunja Bihari
Patnaik9, Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs.
Bholanath Singh & Others10 . In all these Judgments the
legal position with respect to exercising the power of
Judicial Review is settled. Unless and until any illegality or
procedural irregularity which would shock the conscious of
the Court or Tribunal, the discretion can be exercised. It
may not matter as to whether there was no loss which was
resulted by the acts of the charged officer.
11. In the matter of Bank of India & another Vs. Degala
Suryanarayana11, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that strict rules of evidence is not applicable to
departmental enquiry proceedings. The only requirement of
law is that the allegation against the delinquent officer
must be established by such evidence acting upon which
reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity
may arrive at a finding upholding the gravamen of the
(2010) 5 SCC 775
(1996) 9 SCC 69
(1997) 3 SC 657
(1999) 5 SCC 762
charge against the delinquent officer. The Court exercising
the jurisdiction of the judicial review would not interfere
with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental
enquiry proceeding except in a case of malafides or
perversity i.e., where there is no evidence to support a
finding or where a finding is such that no man acting
reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that
finding. The Court cannot embark upon re-appreciating the
evidence or weighing the same like an appellate authority
so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India
and others Vs. M.Duraisamy Civil Appeal.No.2665 of
2002. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction
of High Court on the proportionality of the order of
departmental authority is limited. It is observed that it
cannot be set aside a well-reasoned order only on grounds
of sympathy and sentiments. It is further observed and held
that once it is found that all the procedural requirements
had been complied with, courts would not ordinarily
interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a
delinquent employee. It is further observed that the
superior courts, only in some cases may invoke the doctrine
of proportionality, however if the decision of an employer is
found to be within the legal parameters, the doctrine would
ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands
proved.
13. It is no doubt well established law that this Court can
exercise its jurisdiction of judicial review if the petitioner is
able to place the case of the petitioner within the exceptions
carved out by the established law and the various decisions
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
14. On the facts on hand in the present case, the petitioner
could not place his case for judicial review by this Court on
the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.
Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to
the petitioner.
15. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, without costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.
________________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Dated 05.02.2024.
KGM
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
Dated 05.02.2024
KGM
