Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sowjanya Kumari vs State Bank Of India on 4 October, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT APPEAL NOS: 169 &193 of 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Smt. Justice Kiranmayee Mandava)
These two appeals arise out of the orders of the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.30437 of 2014 dated 15.12.2023. The writ petitioner filed
W.A. No.193 of 2024, against the order of the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.30437 of 2014, in so far as it is against her and the respondent-Bank
filed W.A.No.169 of 2024, being aggrieved by the directions issued against it.
2. The parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ
Petition.
3. The facts of the case are the writ petitioner was employed as
clerk cum cashier in the 1st respondent Bank Narsapuram Branch, in the year
1977. Thereafter, she was promoted as Assistant Manager and continuing as
such, till her suspension from service proceedings dated 21.08.2009.
Subsequently, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging
irregularities committed by her during her tenure. Thereafter, charge memo
was issued framing the following charges:
"i)You have unauthorizedly debited the branch charges
a/c in the system on several occasions and credited the amount to
your personal loan a/c and gained pecuniary to yourself.
ii) You have unauthorizedly altered the amount of debits to
charges a/c in the system and credited the difference amount to
your personal loan a/c and gained pecuniary benefit to yourself.
iii)You have drawn reimbursement of conveyance bill /
entertainment bills for the month of January, 2009 twice.
iv)You have claimed 100% reimbursement of medical expenses
incurred on account of your spouse on 10.03.2009 instead of
eligible 75%."
4. In pursuance thereof, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and
conducted. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 15.09.2011, holding
charges 1, 2 and 5 as proved and 3 and 4 as not proved. Pursuant to the
Enquiry Officer's report, the disciplinary authority issued proceedings dated
03.10.2011, differing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, he observed that
the finding of the enquiry officer that the charge No. IV, is not proved, should
have been held as proved. Thus, after going through the evidence recorded,
he held that the charge No. IV, as not proved. The disciplinary authority, called
for explanation of the petitioner, on the enquiry officer's report. The petitioner
has submitted her reply. The disciplinary authority observed that the
delinquent misused the official position for personal gains in gross violation of
the service terms and conditions. The disciplinary authority observed that the
petitioner did not show her integrity in discharge of her official duties. The
disciplinary authority vide order dated 30.03.2012, passed the order of
dismissal from service. Against the order of dismissal from service, the
petitioner filed appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent
confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority dismissing the writ petitioner
from service.
5. Heard Sri Kota Venkata Rama Rao, learned counsel for the
appellants and Sri V. Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.
6. Perused the record.
7. The observation of the disciplinary authority that the petitioner
has misused the position held by her in the bank, in crediting the amounts
fraudulently to her accounts.
8. As noted from the amounts alleged to have been credited by the
writ petitioner to her personal accounts, they range from Rs.210/- to
Rs.11,313/- between19.09.2008 and 21.07.2009. The petitioner's explanation
was that she was not acquainted with the Core Banking System, and due to
work pressure, the amounts were erroneously credited to her account. It is
further stated that immediately upon noticing the same, the amounts were
stated to have been credited to the charges accounts. However, the enquiry
officer's view was that since the delinquent did not credit back the amounts to
the account of the Bank, immediately on the same day, the petitioner was
found guilty of the charges leveled. By the date of impugned proceedings, the
delinquent has rendered her services to the Bank for 32 years. Nothing is on
record that the petitioner had earlier indulged herself in similar
misappropriations or any activities in the nature of the misconduct. By any
stretch of the imagination, it cannot be inferred that an officer in the cadre of
an Assistant Manager would resort to deceiving the Bank for a petty amount,
which at times was Rs. 210/-. The disciplinary authority mainly focused on the
issue that the alleged misappropriated funds were not immediately credited
back to the charges account and that the medical bill was claimed at @100%
reimbursement, instead of @75%. An erroneous claim, which was
subsequently rectified, was viewed seriously by the disciplinary authority as
misconduct/fraudulent. It is not brought to record if the sanctioning authority,
who sanctioned the petitioner's spouse's medical bill at 100% was also
subjected to similar disciplinary proceedings.
9. We are of the view that the finding of the disciplinary authority
that the writ petitioner is guilty of the charges framed against her, and liable for
punishment of dismissal from service is perverse and grossly disproportionate
to the charges framed. We are, therefore of the view that orders under
appeals are liable to be set aside. However, having regard to the nature of the
charges, we are of the view that the authorities may impose lesser
punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect.
10. The Writ Appeals are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________
JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
______________________________
JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
Date:04.10.2024
ANI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT APPEAL NOs.169 & 193 of 2024
Date:04.10.2024
ANI
