Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
State Bank Of India vs G Pradha Saradhi Naidu on 4 October, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT APPEAL NO:573 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Smt. Justice Kiranmayee Mandava)
1. Heard Sri K.B. Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the appellants and
Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the Writ Petition. The
Writ Appeal is directed against the orders in W.P.No.6348 of 2008, dated
16.02.2024.
3. It is stated that the petitioner joined the respondent bank as a
Clerk-cum-Typist on 01.07.1985 and was promoted as Senior Assistant in the
year 2000. The petitioner applied for housing loan of Rs.3,60,000/-, which was
sanctioned for construction of a house at Mannavarappadu Village, Nellore
District. An amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was credited to the account of petition on
06.05.2003. The petitioner was subsequently transferred to Tirupati, in the
month of August, 2003. The Chief Manager of the respondent bank addressed
a letter dated 16.01.2004, calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the
construction could not start in spite of availing the housing loan. The petitioner
submitted his explanation to the Chief Manager on 26-03-2004, stating the
difficulties faced by him after purchase of the land for construction of the
house, which have led to drop the proposal of construction of house at the
said site. He sought permission to complete the construction of the house at a
new site. It is stated that as no communication was received from the bank
either granting permission or refusing the permission and on being called
upon to repay the loan, the petitioner had repaid the loan. However, on
02.11.2004, a memorandum of charge was issued as to why disciplinary
action should not be initiated against the petitioner for failing to start the
construction after obtaining the loan. The act of obtaining housing loan and
not starting the construction was viewed seriously and the petitioner was
called upon to explain. The petitioner submitted his explanation vide letter
dated 06-12-2004. The respondent/bank issued a second charge memo dated
31-05-2005 alleging the petitioner issued certain cheques without maintaining
sufficient balance and the cheques were returned unpaid as there were no
sufficient funds in his account. The petitioner submitted his response and an
enquiry was conducted. The disciplinary authority had held that the petitioner
has availed the housing loan of Rs.3,60,000/- and has drawn a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- for purchase of cement and steel etc., upon a false declaration
that he has incurred an amount of Rs.3,15,000/-. It was observed that the
petitioner even after lapse of 16 months, no construction activity was taken up
by the petitioner. It was observed that the employee did not start the
construction and also failed to submit the relevant receipts. The second
charge relates to dishonor of cheques issued by the petitioner to having
obtained loans from ICICI Bank and also from one K.Bala Rami Reddy, and
issuance of stop payment instructions towards the cheques issued to them
were viewed seriously.
4. The petitioner had submitted that, the petitioner's father passed away
on 09.11.2002 and that he purchased a plot within a period of one year from
the date of expiry of his father. Elders and well-wishers of the petitioner had
advised the petitioner not to go ahead with the construction in the plot which
was purchased by him as the same was purchased within a period of one year
from the date of his father's death. The petitioner had closed the housing loan
as the respondent/authorities declined to extend time for construction as
requested by the petitioner.
5. The petitioner submitted that raising loans for meeting personal
expenses has nothing to do with discharge of duty as an employee of the
bank. And that he had submitted the proof of foreclosure of the loan obtained
from ICICI Bank and also a letter of settlement from the third party from whom
a hand loan has been obtained.
6. Upon receipt of the enquiry officer's report, the disciplinary authority
vide proceedings dated 27.02.2007, proposing to impose punishment of
removal from service issued a memorandum, required the petitioner to show
cause as to why the proposed punishment should not be imposed. The
petitioner was asked to submit his explanation within 15 days from the date of
receipt of the memorandum. The petitioner vide reply dated 09.04.2007,
pleading not guilty to the charges, stated that charges 1 & 2 do not fall within
the ambit of any clauses of the Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary
Action, dated 10.02.2002. And that the report of the enquiry officer is based
on improper conduct of the enquiry.
7. The disciplinary authority vide proceedings dated 14.05.2007, imposed
the punishment of removal from service. As against the order of the
disciplinary authority, the writ petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy General
Manager, Tirupati. The appellate authority vide order dated 24.10.2007,
modified the quantum of punishment imposed to that of discharging the
petitioner from service with superannuation benefits namely pension and
provident fund and gratuity etc., as would be payable under the Rules/
Regulations prevailing at the relevant time, without disqualifying from future
employment. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of disciplinary authority as
modified by the appellate authority filed the subject writ petition. The learned
Judge, set aside the impugned proceedings dated 14.05.2007, as modified by
the appellate authority, vide order dated 24.10.2007, directing the respondents
to treat the petitioner as in service from the date of termination till the date of
attaining the age of superannuation and the respondents were directed
release all service benefits to the petitioner.
8. The first charge, is that the petitioner after having availed the loan did
not complete the construction of house. While applying for a loan advance
of Rs.2,00,000/- he had declared to the Bank that he had by then incurred an
expenditure of Rs.3,15,000/-, and the petitioner has not submitted the receipts
towards expenditure incurred by him after withdrawal of the amounts as
advance. Which, according to the disciplinary authority, amounts to false
declaration. The Bank had failed to establish the loss caused to it by the
alleged act of petitioner.
9. The second charge framed against the petitioner by the disciplinary
authority was that the cheques issued by the petitioner were dishonored on
account of insufficient funds in his bank accounts. In our view, the alleged
dishonour of cheques would not amount to misconduct in discharging his
official duties that would justify his removal/discharge from service.
10. Therefore, we are of the considered view that imposition of punishment
of removal from service, as modified by the appellate authority, to discharge
from service, is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of charges framed.
Further, the disciplinary authority has taken into consideration irrelevant
factors rendering the punishment of removal from service, unsustainable.
11. We do not find any infirmity from the order of the learned Single Judge.
In the result, the Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
_______________________________
JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
Date:04.10.2024
MVK
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
Date:04.10.2024
MVK
