Rampure Surirao Gyanojirao vs The Chief Manager
2023 Latest Caselaw 858 Kant

                                       WP NO.71410 OF 2012



   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

       WRIT PETTION NO.71410 OF 2012 (S-DIS)

Between:

  Rampure Surirao Gyanojirao
  Since deceased by is LRs

  1A   Smt. R. Rukmini Bai
       W/o Suri Rao
       56 years
       Occ: Household
       R/o P.G.Bank, 12th Cross
       29th Ward, 1975/C
       M.J. Nagar
       Hospet 583 201

  1B   R. Sudharani
       D/o R. Surirao
       Age 37 years
       Occ: Household
       R/o P.G.Bank, 12th Cross
       29th Ward, 1975/C
       M.J. Nagar
       Hospet 583 201

  1C   Smt. S. Vanita
       W/o S. Vishwanathrao
       Age 35 years
       Occ: Household Work
       R/o near Vaikunteshwar Kalyan Mantap
       Taljk: Shiruguppa
       District: Ballari
                                    2

                                            WP NO.71410 OF 2012




  1D    Smt.R. Roopashri
        W/o Udayashankar Rao
        Age 31 years
        Occ: Software Engineer
        R/o Laxminarayan Nilaya
        Plot No.D1, 31st Ward
        Vivekanand Nagar, Near RTO Office
        Hospet 583 201

  1E.   R. Arunkumar
        S/o R. Surirao
        Age 30 years
        Occ: Software Engineer
        R/o P.G.Bank, 12th Cross
        29th Ward, 1975/C
        M.J. Nagar
        Hospet 583 201

                                                    ...Petitioners
(by Sri Jagdish Patil, Advocate)

And:

  1.    The Chief Manager
        Pragati Grameena Bank
        Post Box No.55, Gandhinagar
        Bellary

  2.    The Chairman
        Pragati Grameena Bank
        Head Office
        Gandhinagar
        Bellary

  3.    The Appellate Authority
        Pragati Grameena Bank
        Head Office
        Gandhinagar
                                  3

                                              WP NO.71410 OF 2012



        Bellary

                                                     ...Respondents
(by Sri Harsh Desai, Advocate for R1 to R2;
 R1 and R3 served)

       This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying for writ of mandamus directing the
respondent No.1 to reinstate the petitioner with full back
wages/consequential relief to the petitioner by allowing the writ
petition; and etc.

      In this writ petition, arguments being heard, judgment
reserved, coming on for "pronouncement of orders", this day,
the Court made the following:

                            ORDER

In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order

dated 30th December, 2011 (Annexure-H) passed by the second

respondent and the order dated 24th May, 2012 (Annexure-K)

passed by the Appellate Authority, dismissing the petitioner from

the service.

2. It is the case of the petitioner, that the petitioner was

appointed as Clerk with the respondent-Bank on 30th January,

1978 and thereafter, he was promoted as Field Officer during

July, 1982. Later, the petitioner was promoted as a Manager

with Scale-I in the year 1983. Thereafter, during 1998, he was

WP NO.71410 OF 2012

promoted as Scale-II Manager and was working sincerely with

the respondent-Bank at Somalapur Branch. It is the case of the

petitioner that an allegation was made against the petitioner

regarding shortage of paddy bags stored in the private go-downs

of the various borrowers in villages and camps. It is stated that

the borrowers have availed loan from the respondent-Bank by

pledging paddy bags. The Officers of the respondent-Bank,

conducted stock verification between 16th June, 2010 and 23rd

June, 2010 and found shortage of paddy bags as per Annexure-A

to the writ petition and as such, issued notice to the petitioner to

furnish details of account relating to release of loan in favour of

the borrowers as well as missing of number of paddy bags in go-

downs. Petitioner replied to the same as per Annexure-C.

Having not satisfied with the reply made by the petitioner, the

respondent-Bank initiated departmental enquiry against the

petitioner and as such, issued letter dated 10th August, 2010

(Annexure-D) placing the petitioner under suspension pending

enquiry. Charge sheet was issued by the respondent-Bank as

per Annexure-F in terms of Regulation No.38(1) of Pragathi

Grameena Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations,

WP NO.71410 OF 2012

2005. Petitioner made reply to the charge sheet as per

Annexure-G. The respondent-Bank conducted enquiry and by

Order dated 30th July, 2011 (Annexure-H), dismissed the

petitioner from service. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner

filed appeal (Annexure-J) before the Appellate Authority. The

Appellate Authority, by order dated 08th June, 2012, considered

the material on record and dismissed the appeal. Feeling

aggrieved by the same, petitioner has approached this Court in

the present writ petition.

3. Heard Sri Jagdish Patil, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and Sri Harash Desai, learned counsel appearing

for respondent No.2.

4. Sri Jagadish Patil, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, contended that the respondent-Bank has not

extended fair opportunity to the petitioner during the

departmental enquiry. He further contended that the procedure

adopted by the respondent-bank to verify the stock of the paddy

bags which has been hypothecated by the borrowers, is not

correct and there is technical lapse on the part of the

WP NO.71410 OF 2012

respondent-Bank and it is humanely not possible to count

1,35,000 bags and therefore, sought for interference of this

Court.

5. Per contra, Sri Harsh Desai, learned counsel appearing

for the respondent-Bank invited the attention of the Court to the

averments made in the statement of objection and contended

that prior to the alleged departmental enquiry initiated against

the petitioner, the respondent-Bank has warned the petitioner as

per the Vigilance Cell letter dated 29th July, 2011 and therefore,

contended that no sympathy be extended to the petitioner. He

further submitted that the enquiry has been conducted by the

respondent-Bank affording fullest opportunity to the petitioner

and in this regard, he referred to the guidelines of Loans And

Advances Against Warehouse Receipt/Pledge of Agriculture

Commodities in own Go-Downs/Go-Downs obtained in lease for

approved Private Warehouse/Cold Storage, particularly Clause

13, and argued that the petitioner herein has committed grave

misconduct while dealing with the paddy bags of the borrowers

of loan and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.

WP NO.71410 OF 2012

6. In the light of the submission made by the learned

counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the

petitioner was working as Manager at the relevant period where

the respondent-Bank initiated departmental enquiry against the

petitioner. On careful examination of the letter of the Vigilance

Cell dated 29th July, 2011 (Annrexure-R1), the same would

indicate that on seven occasions, the respondent-Bank has

warned the petitioner with regard to the misconduct on his part.

It is also forthcoming from the report of the vigilance that the

charge sheet was issued against the petitioner for the alleged

missing of paddy bags from the go-downs. It is not in dispute

that an enquiry was conducted after affording opportunity to the

petitioner to file replies/counter and therefore, I am of the view

that there is no violation of principles of natural justice while

conducting the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer as per the Enquiry

Report dated 12th October, 2011. Suffice to say that, learned

counsel for the petitioner fails to point out as to how the

proceedings before the Enquiry Officer prejudice to the interest

of the petitioner. Perusal of the enquiry report would indicate

that the respondent Bank has provided all the material to the

WP NO.71410 OF 2012

petitioner to defend his case. In that view of the matter,

following the procedure contemplated under the Pragathi

Grameena Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations,

2005, Enquiry was conducted; Disciplinary Authority, after

applying its mind, passed the impugned order of dismissal from

service; and same was re-appreciated by the Appellate Authority

and in that view of the matter, I do not find any material

illegality in the orders impugned and accordingly, writ petition

deserves to be dismissed. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

PRAVIN KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in

(2020)9 SCC 471; and in the case of DEPUTY GENERAL

MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) AND OTHERS v. AJAI

KUMAR SRIVASTAV reported in (2021)2 SCC 612 laid down the

procedure to be followed while conducting Departmental Enquiry.

Applying the aforementioned principle to the procedure adopted

by the respondent-Bank while conducting the enquiry, I do not

find any illegality in the decision making process and therefore, I

do not find any acceptable ground to interfere with the orders

impugned in this petition. It is well-settled principle in law by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of IC-56663X-COL. ANIL

WP NO.71410 OF 2012

KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2022

SC 5626, wherein it is held that the High Court, under Article

226 of the Constitution of India while exercising extraordinary

jurisdiction of judicial review, shall evaluate the decision making

process and not the decision itself and in that view of the

matter, writ petition deserves to be dismissed, accordingly

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

lnn