Sri Satish Chandra H K vs Kaveri Grameena Bank
2021 Latest Caselaw 5909 Kant

                        1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                      BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

     WRIT PETITION NO.48634 OF 2014 (S-DE)

BETWEEN

SRI. SATISH CHANDRA H.K,
S/O. H.K. KALEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
NO.2239/2, 11TH CROSS,
KALLAHALLI, V.V. NAGAR,
MANDYA-571 401.
                                    ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SHANKAR S.BHAT, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    KAVERI GRAMEENA BANK,
      HEAD OFFICE C.A.NO.20,
      II STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR, MYSURU-570 014,
      REPRESENTED BY ITS
      CHAIRMAN AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY.

2.    APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND BOARD OF
      DIRECTORS, KAVERI GRAMEENA BANK,
      CARE OF HEAD OFFICE C.A.NO.20, II STAGE,
      VIJAYANAGAR, MYSURU-570 014,
      REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN FOR THE AGENDA.
                         2



3.   ENQUIRY OFFICER,
     KAVERI GRAMEENA BANK,
     HEAD OFFICE C.A.No.20,
     II STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR,
     MYSURU-570 014.

                               ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
     R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.05.2014
PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND QUASH
THE ORDER IN APPEAL BY ORDER DATED 15.09.2014
VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND DIRECT THE R-1 TO REFUND
A SUM OF RS.98,611/- (RUPEES NINETY EIGHT
THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED AND ELEVEN ONLY) ALONG
WITH AN INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 18% P.A. AND
ETC.,

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                      ORDER

The petitioner is a retired Bank Officer of the

respondent - Kaveri Grameena Bank (for short 'Bank')

is before this Court questioning the correctness and

the legality of order dated 16.05.2014, Annexure-A

bearing No.KGB/VIG/E.137/55/2014-15 by which the

petitioner is imposed punishment of recovery of

financial loss of Rs.98,611/- and Annexure-B, the

appellate order bearing No.KGB/HO/VIG/APL/155/

2014-2015 dated 15.09.2014, by which the appeal

filed by the petitioner against the order of punishment

is dismissed.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri Shankar Hegde for

petitioner and Sri. T.P.Muthanna, for respondents

No.1 to 3.

3. The writ petition averment discloses that the

petitioner was promoted as Manager, Scale-II in the

year 1999 in the first respondent - Bank. The

petitioner was posted to work as Manager to Kalkunte

Branch in July, 2010 and thereafter, retired from

service on attaining the age of superannuation on

30.03.2013.

4. When the petitioner was working at Kalkunte

Branch of first respondent - Bank, the respondent

No.1 issued charge memo dated 22.09.2012, alleging

that being officer of the Bank not responded to the

representation dated 19.03.2010 of one Sri.

Manjunath Halasabal, the customer of the Bank,

wherein he had requested for providing a copy of the

FIR filed by the Bank with regard to the incident of

theft of Gold ornaments and cash. As the petitioner

failed to respond, the said customer made one more

representation vide letter dated 23.10.2010. To which

also the petitioner failed to reply, which made the

customer to issue legal notice dated 25.01.2011

claiming return of gold ornaments and compensation

of Rs.1,00,000/- with cost of Rs.5,000/-. The

petitioner failed to respond to the said legal notice

also, which led to filing of the complaint before the

Bengaluru Rural and Uran 1st Additional District

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on 23.02.2011.

The petitioner failed to take action to represent the

Bank before the Consumer Forum. Ultimately, the

Consumer Forum passed an order directing the Bank

to pay `66,899/- with interest at 12% per annum with

cost. The sum and substance of the charge was due

to the negligence of the petitioner, the Bank suffered

total loss of Rs.98,611/-. The petitioner is said to

have submitted reply on 18.10.2012 praying to

excuse all the charges framed against the petitioner.

Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to

inquire into the charges against the petitioner. The

Enquiry Officer conducted an inquiry and submitted

his report to the Disciplinary Authority. The

respondent No.1 herein on receipt of the enquiry

report, forwarded the same to petitioner to submit his

reply. The second show cause notice was issued on

04.02.2013. Thereafter, first respondent by

impugned order dated 16.05.2014 imposed

punishment of Recovery of financial loss of

Rs.98,911/- from the petitioner. Aggrieved by the

same, the petitioner preferred appeal to the second

respondent. The second respondent on consideration

of material on record, rejected the appeal by order

dated 15.09.2014 - Annexure-B.

5. Aggrieved by both the orders of Disciplinary

Authority and Appellate Authority, the petitioner is

before this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the order imposing penalty is in gross violation of

natural justice and imposing the penalty of Recovery

is not justified. Further, it is stated that the theft had

taken place during the year, 2005, whereas the

petitioner was posted to the said Kalukunte Branch

only in July, 2010. Therefore, it is contended that the

petitioner cannot be held responsible. Further, it is

stated that the petitioner had appeared before the

Consumer Forum. However, it is submitted that it is

the responsibility of the Bank to settle the dispute of

the customer, who had lost his gold ornaments. The

Bank had settled claims of other customers and the

claim of the customer by name Sri Manjunath Halabal

was also required to be settled by the respondent -

Bank. Further, it is submitted that the Consumer

Forum had directed Bank to pay the amount and it

had not personally held liable the petitioner. Hence,

imposing of recovery is illegal and arbitrary.

7. Sri. T.P. Muthanna, learned counsel for

respondents submits that even though the theft had

taken place in the year 2005, the customer had

submitted representation to the Bank when the

petitioner was working as Manager of the said branch.

The petitioner failed to take action on the said

representation and also to represent the Bank before

the Consumer Forum, which led to adverse order

against the respondent - Bank. The petitioner, who is

a responsible Officer of the Bank and who was in

charge of the entire Bank was responsible to answer

to the representation and make arrangements to

represent the Bank before the Consumer Forum. This

action of the petitioner amounts to misconduct and

dereliction in terms of the Service Regulation 20 of

Cauvery Kalpatharu Grameena Bank (Officers and

Employees) Service Regulations 2010. Learned

counsel invites the attention of this Court to

proceedings of the inquiry dated 27.12.2012 and

submits that, the petitioner admitted all the charges

and even though petitioner admitted all the charges,

the Enquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and

submitted report. The Bank had examined the

witnesses cited in the charge memo and made

available all the relevant documents. Based on the

evidence and documents placed on record, the

Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that the

charge against the petitioner is proved. It is

submitted by the learned counsel Sri. T.P. Muthanna

for respondents that inquiry is held in accordance with

the staff regulations and by affording opportunity to

the petitioner. Further he submits that the

punishment is not disproportionate as alleged. The

Bank imposed punishment of recovery of loss suffered

by the Bank. Thus, the learned counsel for

respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

8. The only point which falls of consideration in this

writ petition is as to "whether the order of punishment

and Appellate order requires interference by this court

in the facts and circumstances of the case"?

9. The answer would be in the 'Negative', for the

following reasons.

10. The High Court in exercise of its power under

Article 226, in the matter of disciplinary proceedings

would examine as to whether the enquiry is by

competent authority and whether the enquiry is

conducted in accordance with the prescribed

procedure by following the principles of natural justice

and particularly it would not act as an appellate

authority. In sum and substance judicial review is

confined to examine the process of enquiry and not

the conclusion or result of the enquiry. In this regard,

the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2015) 2 SCC 610 (Union

of India Vs. Gunasekaran), has laid down principles

in which High Court could examine a matter arising

out of a disciplinary proceedings. Relevant

paragraphs no. 12, 13 and 16 reads as follows:

12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re- appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer.

The finding on Charge no. I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the

Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re- appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:

a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority;

b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;

c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;

d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;

e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;

f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;

g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;

h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;

i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence.

13. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:

(i). re-appreciate the evidence;

(ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;

(iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence;

(iv). go into the reliability of the evidence;

(v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.

(vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

(vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.

16. These principles have been succinctly summed-up by the living legend and centenarian Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer in State of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh[3]. To quote the unparalled and inimitable expressions:

"4. .... in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and Administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor text books, although we have been taken through case-law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fairplay is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good. ..."

11. In the instance case on hand, the petitioner was

posted to Kalkunte Branch in July, 2010. On his

posting to the branch, while he was working as

Manager of the said branch, charge sheet dated

22.09.2012 was issued to the petitioner alleging two

charges against the petitioner. Charge No.1 and 2

against the petitioner, reads as under:-

CHARGE NO.1.

Even though, Regulation 20 of Cauvery Kalpatharu Grameena Bank (offiers and Employees) Service Regulations 2010 clearly stipulates that "Every officer or employee shall serve the Bank honestly and faithfully and shall use his utmost endeavor to promote the interests of the Bank, shall show courtesy and attention in all transactions and dealings with officers of Government, the Bank's constituents and customers" it has transpired that: You have not responded to the representation dated 19.03.2010 of Sri Manjunath Halasbal S/o Basappa, Kalkute Agrahara, Kalkunte Agrahar Post, via: Kadugodi, Hosakote Taluk, Bengaluru- 560 067, a customer of our Kalkunte Branch to provide him a copy of the FIR (in respect of police case filed by the Bank in the incident of Gold ornaments and Cash stolen) and address of Ombudsman with Telephone No. Due to non- receipt of the reply, the customer has made one more representation vide letter dated 23.10.2010 for compromise settlement. You

have not responded for that representation also even though you have acknowledged the letter. Further, customer has issued legal notice dated 25.01.2011 to you alleging your non-compliance and claimed return of gold ornaments and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with cost of Rs.5,000/-, which also has not been responded to.

Since you have not responded to any of the above letter/acts of the borrower, he has filed a complaint before the Bangalore Rural and Urban 1st Additional District Consumer Disputes redressal forum on 23.02.2011. Redressal forum has sent notice dated 03.03.2011 advising you to appear before the forum on 22.03.2011 at 11.00 a.m. The notice is duly acknowledged by you. But you did not attend the forum hearing either in person or through legal advisor. You have also not brought the above developments to the knowledge of the competent authorities. Your above act is prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and is in violation of the service regulation of the Bank. CHARGE II.

It is transpired that since you did not attend the forum hearing the case was heard by the forum exparte of the Bank passing the following order on 01.04.2011.

a) The Bank is directed to pay Rs.66,899/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of the order failing which it shall pay the said amount with interest at 12% per annum from the date of complaint till payment within 60 days from the date of the order.

b) The Bank is directed to pay Rs.2,100/- to the complainant as costs of this litigation.

c) If for any reason, Bank fails to pay the amount as ordered within 60 days, then the

Bank is directed to pay the amount as above together with interest and also compensation of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.

You have not reported any of the above developments to your controllers/competent authorities except forwarding the order of the Redressal forum dated 01.04.2011 seeking further advise.

Due to your negligence in duty, the image of the Bank is lowered in front of the forum, the customer and the Public and Bank is liable to pay the amount/interest/penalty as per the order.

12. The charge in sum and substance would state

that the petitioner failed to take action on the

representation submitted by one Sri. Manjunatha

Halasabala, wherein he requested the branch to

furnish F.I.R filed by the Bank in respect of the theft

which had taken place at the branch. As the

petitioner failed to answer the representations, the

said customer issued legal notice claiming damages as

well as gold ornaments for which also the petitioner

failed to answer. Thereafter, the said customer filed

complaint before the Consumer Forum where also the

petitioner failed to make arrangements to represent

the Bank. Due to which, the order came to be passed

against the respondent - Bank directing to pay a sum

of `66,899/- with interest at 12% per annum with

cost. The petitioner was responsible for such an order

from Consumer Forum.

13. During the enquiry proceedings on 27.12.2012,

while recording of plea, the petitioner admitted both

the charge. The relevant portion of the proceedings is

as follows:-

"You have not reported any of the above developments to your controllers/competent authorities except forwarding the order of the Redressal forum dated 01.04.2011 seeking further advice.

Due to your negligence in duty, the image of the Bank is lowered in front of the forum, the customer and the public and Bank is liable to pay the amount/interest/penalty as per the order.

2. The above chares, if established, amount to violation of Regulations 17, 18 and 20 of Cauvery Kalpatharu Grameena Bank (Officers' & Employees) Service Regulations 2010 and you are liable to the penalty under Regulations 39 I(b) (Major penalties) of Cauvery Kalpatharu

Grameena Bank (Officers' & Employees) Service Regulations 2010.

EO: Mr. CSO, have you received the above charge sheet?

CSO: Yes sir, I have received the above charge sheet.

EO: Mr. CSO, have you understood the contents of charges of charge sheet - vide No.CKGB/DPD/E.137/195/2012-2013 dated 22.09.2012.

CSO: Yes sir, I have understood the contents of charges of charge sheet- vide No.CKGB/DPD/E.137/195/2012-2013 dated 22.09.2012.

EO: Do you accept or deny the charges framed against you I mean do you plead guilty or not? CSO: Sir, I accept the charges EO: Do you accept or deny the charge No.1 -

vide                  charge               sheet
No.CKGB/DPD/E.137/195/2012-2013            dated
22.09.2012

CSO: Yes sir, I accept charge No.1 of - vide charge sheet No.CKGB/DPD/E.137/195/2012- 2013 dated 22.09.2012 EO: Do you accept or deny the charge No.II -

vide                  charge               sheet
No.CKGB/DPD/E.137/195/2012-2013            dated
22.09.2012?

CSO: Yes sir, I accept charge No.II of - vide charge sheet No. .CKGB/DPD/E.137/195/2012- 2013 dated 22.09.2012.

EO: Do you mean to say that you accept the charge sheet as a whole - vide charge sheet No. CKGB/DPD/E.137/195/2012-2013 dated 22.09.2012?

CSO: Yes sir, I accept the charge sheet as a whole- vide charge sheet

No.CKGB/DPD/E.137/195/2012-2013 dated 22.09.2012 CSO: Yes sir, I accept the charge sheet as a whole - vide charge sheet No.CKGB/DPD/E.137/195/2012-2013 dated 22.09.2012 EO: Mr. CSO, have you thought well before taking your decision to accept the charges? Are there no compulsions on you to take your decision to accept the charges?

CSO: Sir, I have thought well before taking my decision to accept the charges and there are no compulsions on me to accept the charges. It is my considered decision to accept the charges.

14. The proceedings of 27.12.2012 is signed by the

Enquiry Officer, Presenting Officer as well as the

charge sheeted Officer, i.e. petitioner. On perusal of

the proceedings of 27.12.2012, it is clear that the

petitioner unequivocally admitted the charge and has

specifically stated that he has thought well before

taking decision to accept the charges and there are no

compulsions on him to accept the charges, which is

his considered opinion to accept charges. Based on

the said admission of charges, the Enquiry Officer

submitted his report. The petitioner was also provided

with an opportunity by issuing second show cause

notice to which the petitioner has also replied. When

the petitioner has admitted his guilt and charges

leveled against him, it is not open for the petitioner to

contend that imposing of Recovery of financial loss is

not proper. When the charges are admitted by the

petitioner, it is also not open for the petitioner to

contend that punishment imposed is disproportionate

to gravity and nature of charge. In fact, it appears

that the respondent Bank has chosen only to recover

financial loss from the petitioner and has not imposed

any other punishment for petitioner's negligence in

performing his duties as Branch Manager.

15. The contention of the petitioner that the

punishment of recovery imposed is in violation of the

Service Regulation 20 of Cauvery Kalpatharu

Grameena Bank (officers and Employees) Service

Regulations 2010 and principles of natural justice is

also not tenable. The petitioner was afforded

sufficient opportunity to defend himself. When the

petitioner himself admitted that the charges and

pleaded guilty, the petitioner cannot complain

violation of principles of natural justice. Moreover,

either before the enquiry officer or before the

disciplinary authority at the stage of second show

cause notice, the petitioner has raised contention of

violation of service regulation nor violation of

principles of natural justice.

There is no merit in any of the contention raised

by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is

dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE

AG