Karnataka High Court
Smt Swarna M Kanath W/O H Muralidhar ... vs General Manager And Appellate ... on 4 June, 2024
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:19475
WP No. 9696 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9696 OF 2012 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT SWARNA M KANATH
W/O H MURALIDHAR KAMATH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO 256, 5TH MAIN,
3RD CROSS CANARA BANK COLONY
NAGARABHAVI ROAD,
BANGALORE 72.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVAYOGI B HALLUR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GENERAL MANAGER AND
Digitally
signed by APPELLATE AUTHORITY
NARASIMHA CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE,
MURTHY
VANAMALA J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE.
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF 2. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA
CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE,
J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T. P. MUTHANNA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:19475
WP No. 9696 of 2012
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.9.2010, ANNEXURE-F IN
SO FAR AS IT IMPOSE THE PUNISHMENT OF
1. REDUCTION OF THE PETITIONER TO A LOWER
STAGE IN TIME SCALE OF PAY BY TWO STAGES FOR A
PERIOD OF TWO YEARS WITH CUMULATIVE EFFECT.
2. PERIOD OF SUSPENSION WHICH IS TREATED "NOT
ON DUTY". 3. DIRECT THE R1 TO GRANT PETITIONER
WITH ALL HER FINANCIAL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS
OF REINSTATEMENT FROM 22.11.06 DTD OF
SUSPENSION TILL 24.6.2008, TREATING THE PERIOOD
OF SUSPENSION AS ON DUTY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner was working during the relevant
time [from 27.06.2004 till 08.11.2006] as an officer
with the respondent at its Vijayanagar Branch,
Bengaluru. The departmental proceedings are
commenced against her under the respondent's
relevant regulations with the service of Article of
Charges. The sum and substance of the allegations
against the petitioner is that she has canvassed and
processed loan applications for Can Budget /Can
Jewel loans amongst those purportedly in
NC: 2024:KHC:19475
employment with M/s Coastal Infotech Limited
without verifying the records such as address proof
and salary documents. It is alleged that the
applications for loans were processed on the basis of
unauthenticated salary slips without any due
verification and she signed Withdrawal Forms
without the necessary details being filled, and that
the amounts were disbursed through these
Withdrawal Forms without even the presence of the
borrowers.
2. It is further alleged that these loans are
sanctioned and disbursed in the name of purported
employees of the aforesaid company to assist the
promoters of such company, and the Article of
Charges also refer to certain remittances made on
behalf of the promoters of this company. The
disciplinary proceedings have culminated with the
enquiry officer holding that the imputations against
the petitioner are established and the disciplinary
NC: 2024:KHC:19475
authority accepting such report imposing the
punishment of dismissal from service which would
ordinarily be a disqualification for future
employment. The petitioner aggrieved by this report
has availed appellate remedy before the prescribed
appellate authority, and the appellate authority has
modified the punishment from dismissal to reduction
to a lower scale in time scale of pay by two stages for
a period of two years with cumulative effect.
3. It is undisputed that on similar charges
penal proceedings are initiated against the petitioner
and others, which have resulted in the petitioner's
conviction for certain offences under the provisions of
Indian Penal Code,1861 and the Prevention of
Corruption Act,1988. The petitioner has availed the
appellate remedy as against the judgment of
conviction and sentence, and such appeal is pending.
Further, it is undisputed that the petitioner,
consequent to the appellate authority's order, has
NC: 2024:KHC:19475
been reinstated and has currently retired from
service.
4. Sri Shivayogi B Hallur, the learned
counsel for the petitioner, submits that the
petitioner's role in sanction of the loan and
disbursement of the amount is only confined to
canvassing for the loans along with the Chief
Manager in terms of the programme finalized by the
Bank and that though the loan amount is disbursed
by others, the petitioner is singled out. Sri T.P.
Muthanna, the learned counsel for the respondent -
Bank is heard in the light of these submissions and
the records are perused.
5. This Court must first record that the
interference by this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is essentially confined to those
cases where it is demonstrated that the departmental
proceedings are not conducted in a fair manner [there
is violation of prescribed procedure or the principles
NC: 2024:KHC:19475
of natural justice] or the proceedings have
culminated in a result which is not substantiated by
evidence or when the punishment imposed shocks
the judicial conscience. The appellate authority, after
perusal of the records, has opined that the enquiry is
conducted in a fair manner by giving opportunity to
the petitioner, a finding that is not seriously
disputed.
6. Insofar as the lack of evidence, it would
suffice for this Court to observe that the petitioner
does not dispute that she has processed loan
applications and has also approved the Withdrawals
Forms enabling withdrawal and that this exercise for
loan sanction is complete only on the basis of the
computer generated salary slips without verification
to ascertain the necessary fact that the borrowers
were in fact on the rolls of the concerned company
and receiving salaries as indicated in such slips. As
such, this Court cannot opine that the petitioner has
NC: 2024:KHC:19475
been served with punishment without any evidence.
Hence, this Court cannot, on the scale of
preponderance of probabilities, opine that there is no
evidence at all.
7. The appellate authority, with the
petitioner's participation in the loan disbursement
being thus established, has interfered with the order
of dismissal which would ordinarily be a
disqualification for future employment imposing the
punishment of reduction to a lower stage in time
scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years
with cumulative effect. This Court could only opine
that the punishment cannot be described as being so
disproportionate as would shock the judicial
conscience of this Court.
Therefore, the petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
nv
