Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Peram Venkateswarlu, Guntur Dist. vs The M.D., Syndicate Bank, Manipal. 5 ... on 27 September, 2024
APHC010386292008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 12736/2008
Between:
Peram Venkateswarlu, Guntur Dist. ...PETITIONER
AND
The M D Syndicate Bank Manipal and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. Sri. Kotipalli Pavan Kumar
2. Sri. Krishna Darapu
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. Sri. A Krishnam Raju
2. Sri. T B L Murthy
The Court made the following :
//2//
WP.No.12736 of 2008
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT PETITION No.12736 of 2008
ORDER:
The petitioner is challenging the order dated 14.03.2006,
whereby the petitioner was imposed the punishment of
compulsory retirement which was confirmed by the 2nd
respondent in its appeal order dated 05.12.2006 and the
order of the revisional authority dated 13.01.2007. The
petitioner claims a direction for reinstatement and all the
service benefits.
2. The petitioner while working as Manager of the
respondent/bank was charged with instances of
misconduct whereby the petitioner indulged in committing
irregularities in disbursement of loans basing on forged and
bogus land records.
3. The enquiry authority conducted an enquiry and held that
the petitioner and the Branch Manager were guilty of
misconduct and imposed punishment of compulsory
retirement. It is submitted that the Branch Manager filed
an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate
Authority modified the punishment from compulsory
//3//
retirement to reduction of pay by four stages. The appeal
filed by the petitioner was rejected. It is submitted that the
nature of allegations against the petitioner and the Branch
Manager are similar and involvement as per the disciplinary
authority is equal.
4. It is alleged that the petitioner while working as Manager at
Podalakur Branch since 21.06.2002 recommended sanction
of loans to one Smt.Atla Bujjamma, basing on lands which
were not on her name. It is also alleged that the petitioner
caused adjustment of LD (Loans on Deposits) proceeds of
Rs.3,60,000/- arranged in the nae of Mr.Dayakara Reddy
against his Fixed Deposit, to the credit of the loan accounts
of Smt.Chilakala Padmamma, Smt.Atla Bujjamma,
Mr.M.Mohan Reddy, Mr.A.Yanadhi reddy,
Smt.A.Subbamma, Smt.S.Sulochanamma and
Mr.A.Venkatrami Reddy. It is also alleged that the petitioner
recommended enhanced SKCC Limit of Rs.1,86,500/- and
FLMI of Rs.1,33,500/- in the name of one Akyam Peda
Ramana Reddy basing on assigned lands, which were in the
name of Shaik Mastan and others. It is alleged that the
petitioner indulged in several other financial irregularities
//4//
by manipulating the loan on deposits of the customers of
the bank.
5. The 3rd respondent suspended the petitioner vide
proceedings dated 06.04.2005 and an enquiry was
conducted on 27.10.2005 after issuing the show cause
notice and serving the charge sheet on the petitioner. The
enquiry authority submitted his report to the disciplinary
authority and the enquiry report was served on the
petitioner on 25.01.2006. Though the petitioner submitted
his explanation on each of the charges, the 3 rd respondent
imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement on the
petitioner along with the Branch Manager on 29.05.2006.
6. It is submitted that the petitioner's father expired on
04.07.2006 and as such the petitioner could not file the
appeal before the appellate authority within time. The
petitioner sought extension of time for filing an appeal. The
petitioner also approached the National Commission for
Schedule Tribe on 14.09.2006 as his appeal was not
considered by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent
rejected the appeal and confirmed the punishment imposed
vide order dated 15.12.2006. The learned counsel for the
//5//
petitioner submits that the Branch Manager is totally
responsible for sanctioning the loans and the punishment
imposed on the Branch Manager was modified by reducing
the pay by four stages vide order dated 06.12.2006. The
petitioner submitted an application before the National
Commission for Schedule Tribes on 27.12.2006 bringing to
their notice the discrimination exhibited by the
respondent/authorities in exhibiting different yardsticks by
imposing punishment on two different employees who faced
similar charges. It is submitted that when the charges are
similar and when the allegations of involvement of officers
in allegedly committing acts of misconduct, the respondents
cannot exhibit different yardsticks when imposing the
punishment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner was victimized and the respondent
authorities in order to favour the Branch Manager have
modified the punishment of the Branch Manager.
7. The petitioner filed his appeal and review before the
appellate and review authorities, which were not
considered. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that a case vide Cr.No.29 of 2005 on the file of CBI, PS
Visakhapatnam dated 28.12.2005 under Section 120-B
//6//
read with 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC read with Section
13(2), Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The
petitioner was tried by the competent Court and the matter
ended up in acquittal and submits that the acquittal is a
clear acquittal as the prosecution failed to establish the
charges framed against the accused therein.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on
Capt.M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited
and another1. The learned counsel submits that the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred (supra1),
the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings
were overlapping in so far as uniformity of the allegations
and uniformity in the process of enquiry and uniformity in
so far as witnesses are concerned. When the petitioner was
acquitted in the criminal case on the same set of evidence
the petitioner ought not to have been held guilty in the
departmental proceedings.
9. The respondents in their counter submit that the petitioner
was charged with serious instances of misconduct and a
fair enquiry was conducted. The disciplinary authority
(1999) 3 SCC 679
//7//
imposed the deserving punishment which is under
challenge before this Court. The learned counsel for the
respondents submits that the role and involvement of the
petitioner and the role and involvement of Branch Manager
is distinct and different. The petitioner cannot claim parity
in punishment when the disciplinary authority has
conducted enquiry separately against the officers involved.
It is also submitted that the petitioner cannot shift the
entire responsibility on the Branch Manager in processing
and disbursing SKCC Loans by violating the guidelines of
the respondent/bank.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents submit that the
petitioner was instrumental right from forwarding the loan
applications and verification of genuineness of documents
submitted and further submitting the files as eligible for
disbursement of loans. The petitioner was also
instrumental in preparing credit slips/vouchers relating to
the transactions which clinchingly were held against the
petitioner.
11. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, it is trite to refer to the law laid down by the
//8//
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Council for Research in
Ayurvedic Sciences and another Vs. Bikartan and others2,
wherein it was held that two cardinal principles of law governing
exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution more particularly when it comes to issue of writ of
certiorari.
50. The first cardinal principle of law that governs the
exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution, more particularly when it comes to the
issue of a writ of certiorari is that in granting such a writ,
the High Court does not exercise the powers of
Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the
evidence upon which the determination of the inferior
tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order
which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably
erroneous but does not substitute its own views for
those of the inferior tribunal. The writ of certiorari can be
issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the
record. A writ of certiorari, being a high prerogative writ,
should not be issued on mere asking.
51. The second cardinal principle of exercise of
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution is that in a given case, even if some action
or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be
illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its
extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset
it with a view to doing substantial justice between the
parties. Article 226 of the Constitution grants an
extraordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary,
although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open for
the writ court, exercising this flexible power to pass such
orders as public interest dictates & equity projects. The
legal formulations cannot be enforced divorced from the
realities of the fact situation of the case. While
administering law, it is to be tempered with equity and if
the equitable situation demands after setting right the
legal formulations, not to take it to the logical end, the
2 [2023] 11 S.C.R 731
//9//
High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice
equitable consideration and mould the final order in
exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other
approach would render the High Court a normal court of
appeal which it is not.
64. Thus, from the various decisions referred to above,
we have no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that
a writ of certiorari is a high prerogative writ and should
not be issued on mere asking. For the issue of a writ of
certiorari, the party concerned has to make out a definite
case for the same and is not a matter of course. To put it
pithily, certiorari shall issue to correct errors of
jurisdiction, that is to say, absence, excess or failure to
exercise and also when in the exercise of undoubted
jurisdiction, there has been illegality. It shall also issue to
correct an error in the decision or determination itself, if
it is an error manifest on the face of the proceedings. By
its exercise, only a patent error can be corrected but not
also a wrong decision. It should be well remembered at
the cost of repetition that certiorari is not appellate but
only supervisory.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. As seen from the judgment passed by the First Additional
Special Judge's Court for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam. The
petitioner was acquitted on the premise of benefit of doubt.
//10//
An acquittal on benefit of doubt is a technical acquittal due
to procedural errors or insufficient evidence to prove the
guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, the
petitioner cannot harp on a technical acquittal and claim
the relief as a matter of fundamental right.
15. The plea that different yardstick of punishments were
imposed on employees facing similar charges is concerned.
In my considered opinion, the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority on the employee would squarely
depend on the nature of involvement and the extent of role
played by the employee in either assisting, aiding or
involving directly or indirectly in commission of the
instances of misconduct. The disciplinary authority would
look into the evidence against each of such employee and
arrive at a decision only after being satisfied that the officer
involved in the misconduct for imposing of the appropriate
punishment as per the guidelines. It is not the case of the
petitioner that the respondents have imposed the
punishment which is not prescribed as per the banking
regulations or that such punishment was not permissible
under the law.
//11//
16. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
17. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.
________________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Dated 27.09.2024
KGM
//12//
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT PETITION No.12736 of 2008
Dated 27.09.2024
KGM
