Karnataka High Court
Nanjundappa vs State Bank Of India on 8 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31874
WP No. 36835 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.36835 OF 2014 (S-DE)
BETWEEN:
NANJUNDAPPA
S/O UNTHURAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
EARLIER WORKING AS DEPUTY MANAGER
STATE BANK OF MYSORE
SINCE ILLEGALLY DISMISSED FROM SERVICE
AND R/A NO.23/1, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS
RRMR EXTENSION, K.H. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 027.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SUVARNA M.L., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K. PUTTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
HAVING ITS LOCAL HEAD OFFICE AT
Digitally ST. MARKS ROAD,
signed by BANGALORE-560 009.
SUMA
Location: AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER
HIGH
COURT OF DATED 22.10.2019
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. K. SUBHA ANANTHI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE
RECORDS LEADING TO THE ORDERS DATED 29.10.2010 AND
13.04.2011 AND QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.DPD/P.1780-
1882/C.2050/4431 DATED 29.10.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-P TO THE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31874
WP No. 36835 of 2014
PETITION PASSED BY THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY AND ORDER
BEARING NO.PAD/DPD/C.2065/APPEAL.140 DATED 13.04.2011
PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY COPY OF WHICH IS
COMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER VIDE COMMUNICATION
NO.PAD/DPD/C.2065/APPEAL.548 DATED 25.05.2011 VIDE
ANNEXURE-R TO THE WRIT PETITION BY ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT/BANK TO
REINSTATE THE PETITIONER TO SERVICE FORTHWITH ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING ARREARS OF SALARY FROM
THE DATE OF DISMISSAL TILL THE DATE OF REINSTATEMENT WITH
INTEREST AT 18% PER ANNUM AND ALL SERVICE BENEFITS LIKE
PROMOTION ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged an order bearing
No.DPD/P.1780-1882/C 2050/4431 dated 29.10.2010 passed
by the Disciplinary Authority by which the service of the
petitioner was terminated. The petitioner has also challenged
an order bearing No.PAD/DPD/C.2065/Appeal.140 dated
13.04.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority by which the
order of dismissal of the petitioner from service was upheld.
NC: 2024:KHC:31874
2. The petitioner while serving the respondent as
Deputy Manager (Advances) at Wilson garden Branch of the
State Bank of Mysore (henceforth referred to as 'the Bank') at
Bengaluru was placed under suspension in terms of an order
dated 26.04.2008 in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding
for the alleged irregularities, acts of omissions and
commissions. Later, the articles of charge (titled as charge
sheet) dated 18.02.2009 and his statement of imputation were
served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to
each of the charges on 01.06.2009 following which an
additional charge along with the statement of imputation was
served on the petitioner on 12.06.2009. The petitioner replied
to this additional charge on 17.07.2009. The Disciplinary
Authority not satisfied with the reply submitted by the
petitioner, ordered a disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner
and appointed an Enquiry Officer, who issued a notice of
hearing on 05.12.2009 fixing the date of preliminary hearing as
17.12.2009. The petitioner did not attend the enquiry and
therefore, the enquiry stood adjourned to 26.12.2009 and
thereafter, it was adjourned to 13.01.2010. Since the notice of
the adjourned date of enquiry was not served on the petitioner,
NC: 2024:KHC:31874
the proceedings of the enquiry began on 25.01.2010 by
allowing the petitioner to inspect the documents and also to
furnish a list of document witnesses. The proceedings then
began on 09.02.2010. On the said day, the petitioner informed
the Enquiry Officer that he had approached the Officers'
Association to identify a defence representative for the enquiry
and that they were not still able to find a suitable defence
representative and therefore, he requested for permission to
cross-examine the witness if need be after a defence
representative was nominated. The case stood adjourned by
the Enquiry Officer on 09.03.2010. On the said date, the
petitioner informed the Enquiry Officer that despite his best
efforts, the Officers' Association did not provide him the
assistance of defence representative and therefore, requested
for permission to appoint an Advocate to present his case. This
was however rejected by the Enquiry Officer as the case was
not complicated and did not require the assistance of an
Advocate. The Enquiry Officer recorded that the petitioner
undertook to defend the case on his own. The enquiry
proceedings began by recording the evidence of a few
witnesses. Thereafter, the enquiry proceedings were held on
NC: 2024:KHC:31874
10.03.2010 following which the Presenting officer was directed
to submit his written brief. The petitioner by a representation
dated 15.03.2010 addressed to the Disciplinary Authority,
informed him that he was not provided with a defence
representative and therefore, requested him to instruct the
Enquiry Officer not to proceed with the enquiry. He claimed
that he informed the Enquiry Officer that without the assistance
of a defence representative, he cannot proceed with the cross-
examination of the management witnesses. Nonetheless, the
Enquiry Officer recorded that the petitioner was not willing to
cross-examine the management witnesses. He also informed
the Disciplinary Authority that he had never mentioned before
the Enquiry Officer that he would not cross-examine the
management witnesses. He therefore prayed the Disciplinary
Authority to direct the Enquiry Officer to reopen the enquiry
and permit him to engage the services of an Advocate as his
defence representative. This representation of the petitioner
was never considered by the Disciplinary Authority. Following
this, the Presenting Officer submitted his written brief before
the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner was called upon to submit
his written brief failing which it was ordered that the
NC: 2024:KHC:31874
proceedings of the enquiry would be concluded. The Enquiry
Officer thereafter submitted a report holding that the charges
alleged against the petitioner were proved. The Disciplinary
Authority without even issuing a show cause notice to the
petitioner soliciting his reply on the findings of the enquiry
report and without even informing him the steps that he would
be taking, proceeded to pass an order of dismissal of the
petitioner from service. Being aggrieved by the said order of
the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner filed an appeal before
the Appellate Authority, who also in terms of the impugned
order dated 13.04.2011, rejected the appeal.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the
petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner is thoroughly
faulty for not complying with the principles of natural justice.
She submits that the right to avail the services of a defence
representative is one of the facets of natural justice which the
Disciplinary Authority was bound to comply. She submits that
without the defence representative, the petitioner was
NC: 2024:KHC:31874
defenceless and the Enquiry Officer proceeded hastily without
granting sufficient opportunity to enable the petitioner to avail
the services of a defence representative. She contends that
the report of the Enquiry Officer was not even furnished to the
petitioner and the Disciplinary Authority did not even issue a
show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to offer his
comments on the report of the Enquiry Officer. She, therefore,
contends that the impugned order of Disciplinary Authority as
well as the order of the Appellate Authority are without proper
application of mind and without complying with the principles of
natural justice and therefore, the same deserve to be set at
naught. She contends that the petitioner has now attained the
age of superannuation and therefore, in the event of the
impugned orders being set aside, the petitioner should be
granted all service benefits.
5. The petition is opposed by the respondent who
contends that the charges against the petitioner related to
unauthorized debits and withdrawals for debits after
fraudulently opening a housing loan account and making
several unauthorized transactions in the term loan account of
various customers and using certain accounts as a conduit for
NC: 2024:KHC:31874
crediting unauthorized debits and making unauthorized
transactions. It is contended that the charges against the
petitioner were "grave" and major penalty proceedings was
initiated against him. It is contended that the Enquiry Officer
provided sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to submit his
reply but the petitioner did not submit any reply or placed any
material in his defence. The respondent has admitted that the
petitioner stated before the Enquiry Officer that the members
of the Officers' Association had "declined" to defend the
petitioner in the enquiry and therefore, he requested for
assistance of an Advocate which was not accepted by the
Enquiry Officer and that the Enquiry Officer concluded the
proceedings. It is contended that since the charges were held
to be proved against the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority
passed an order of dismissal of the petitioner from service in
terms of Regulation 67(j) of the State Bank of Mysore Officers
Service Regulations, 1979 (for short, 'the Regulations, 1979').
It is contended that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the
Appellate Authority was also dismissed having regard to the
nature and gravity of the charges. He contended that the
Regulations, 1979 provide for the procedure that had to be
NC: 2024:KHC:31874
followed while conducting a domestic enquiry in respect of an
officer of the Bank and Regulation 68(2)(VII) reads as follows:
"The officer may take the assistance of an officer as
defined in clause (j) of Regulation 3 (hereinafter
referred to as Officer's Representative), but shall not
engage a legal practitioner for the purpose. Provided
that where the Presenting Officer is a public servant
other than an officer of the Bank, the officer may
take the assistance of any public servant."
It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner was not entitled
to the services of an Advocate to defend him at the enquiry.
6. The facts as stated above establish beyond doubt
that even as per the case of the respondent, the charges
against the petitioner were "grave". The petitioner was indeed
entitled to the services of a defence representative as per
Regulation 68(2)(VII) of the Regulations, 1979 quoted by the
respondent in the statement of objections. When the
Management was entitled to appoint a Presenting Officer to
present the case of the Management, the provision permitting
the charge sheeted official to avail the services of a defence
representative was to create a level playing field between the
Management and the charge sheeted employee. It could be
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31874
that the charge sheeted employee may not be in a position to
defend himself effectively at the enquiry and therefore, the
petitioner was entitled to avail the services of a defence
representative which incidentally is also one of the facets of the
principles of natural justice. Therefore, when a request was
made by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer, to postpone
the proceedings till his request for a defence representative
was considered by the Officers' Association, the Enquiry Officer
must have given him ample opportunity. However, the Enquiry
Officer has held the proceedings on two dates and recorded the
evidence of the Management witnesses. The petitioner did not
cross-examine the management witnesses but he escalated the
issue before the Disciplinary Authority again requesting for the
services of an Advocate since the Officers' Association had not
provided a suitable officer to defend him at the enquiry. The
Disciplinary Authority must have immediately taken remedial
measures to redress the grievance of the petitioner by
appointing an officer to assist the petitioner at the enquiry.
However, the Disciplinary Authority did nothing but allowed the
enquiry to proceed and thereafter on receipt of the report of
the Enquiry Officer, proceeded to pass the order of major
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31874
punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service without
even issuing a second show cause notice calling upon him to
offer his comments on the report of the Enquiry Officer. This
was the second instance when the principles of natural justice
were violated by the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, the
entire enquiry was held behind the back of the petitioner and in
flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. The
reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on
the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State
Bank of Patiala and Others v. S.K. Sharma [(1996) 3 SCC
364] where it was held that interference with the departmental
enquiry would not be proper if no prejudice is caused by not
providing an opportunity of hearing, is not applicable to the
facts of this case as what was in question in that case was, a
procedural lapse in not providing the copies of the statements
of witnesses to the delinquent official. In the case on hand,
there is a total non-compliance of the principles of natural
justice and hence, the contentions urged by the learned counsel
for the respondent would not support him in any manner.
Therefore, the following:
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31874
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order bearing No.DPD/P.1780-
1882/C.2050/4431 dated 29.10.2010 passed by the
Disciplinary Authority dismissing the petitioner from
service and the confirmation order bearing
No.PAD/DPD/C.2065/APPEAL.140 dated 13.04.2011
passed by the Appellate Authority are set aside.
iii. It is open for the respondent to conduct a fresh
enquiry if needed after providing the assistance of a
defence representative to the petitioner.
iv. It is made clear that if the respondent desires
to continue the enquiry, the same shall be concluded
within a period of four months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
SMA
