Karnataka High Court
Ms N B Annapurna vs The Chairman And Managing Director ... on 12 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
WP No. 5598 of 2020
C/W WP No. 10996 of 2019
WP No. 29738 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 5598 OF 2020 (S-PRO)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 10996 OF 2019 (S-PRO)
WRIT PETITION NO. 29738 OF 2019 (S-DE)
IN W.P.NO.5598/2020:
BETWEEN:
MS. N.B. ANNAPURNA
WIFE OF LATE ARVIND DAS RAJBHAN,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
E 9317, MANAGER,
BENGALURU-RAJAJINAGAR BRANCH,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560010.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SWAMY N.B.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
THEN CORPORATION BANK
MOHANKUMAR NOW MERGED WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA,
B SHELAR HEAD OFFICE: MANGALADEVI TEMPLE ROAD,
Digitally signed by
PANDESHWAR,
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR
MANGALURU-575001.
Date: 2025.06.24
19:16:14 +0530
(AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 12.07.2022)
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER
THEN CORPORATION BANK
NOW MERGED WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA,
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT,
PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION DIVISION,
HEAD OFFICE: MANGALADEVI TEMPLE ROAD,
PANDESHWAR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
WP No. 5598 of 2020
C/W WP No. 10996 of 2019
WP No. 29738 of 2019
HC-KAR
MANGALURU-575001
(AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 12.07.2022)
3. MR. GURUPRASAD BALLAL
MANAGER,
THEN CORPORATION BANK
NOW MERGED WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA,
ZONAL OFFICE: UDUPI
CORPORATION BANK BUILDING,
CORPORATION BANK ROAD,
UDUPI-576101
(AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 12.07.2022)
4. MS. P. SARASWATHI
MANAGER,
THEN CORPORATION BANK
NOW MERGED WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA,
ASHOK NAGAR BRANCH,
ANMOL ARCADE,
ASHOK NAGAR,
MANGALORE-575006
(AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 12.07.2022)
5. MR. JITIN JAIN
MANAGER,
THEN CORPORATION BANK
NOW MERGED WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA,
ZONAL OFFICE: MEERUT,
RPG TOWERS, NO.495/1,
MANGAL PANDEY NAGAR,
UNIVERSITY ROAD,
MEERUT-250001
UTTAR PRADESH STATE
(AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 12.07.2022)
6. MR. RAGHUVARDHAN GADAMSETTY
MANAGER,
THEN CORPORATION BANK
NOW MERGED WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA,
CREDIT DIVISION (SANCTIONS)
HEAD OFFICE: MANGALADEVI TEMPLE ROAD,
PANDESHWAR,
MANGALURU-575001
(AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 12.07.2022)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
WP No. 5598 of 2020
C/W WP No. 10996 of 2019
WP No. 29738 of 2019
HC-KAR
7. MR. GURURAJ MAHENDRAKAR
MANAGER,
THEN CORPORATION BANK
NOW MERGED WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA,
FOREX HUB, NO.1/1, FIRST FLOOR,
JEEVAN SAMPIGE ROAD,
MALLESWARAM,
BANGALORE-560003
(AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 12.07.2022)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SYED KASHIF ALI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.R.KAMALACHARAN, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;
NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 7
AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN HO MEMORANDUM NO.44/2020 DATED 02 MARCH 2020
"ANNEXURE-D" OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT - THE GENERAL
MANAGER, THEN CORPORATION BANK, NOW MERGED WITH UNION
BANK OF INDIA, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, PERSONNEL
ADMINISTRATION DIVISION, HEAD OFFICE: MANGALURU AND
QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE SAME (ANNEXURE-"D").
IN W.P.NO.10996/2019:
BETWEEN:
MS. N.B. ANNAPURNA
WIFE OF LATE ARVIND DAS RAJBHAN
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
E 9317, MANAGER,
BENGALURU-RAJAJINAGAR BRANCH,
RAJAJINAGAR,,
BANGALORE-560 010
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SWAMY N.B.N., ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
WP No. 5598 of 2020
C/W WP No. 10996 of 2019
WP No. 29738 of 2019
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
THEN CORPORATION BANK
NOW MERGED WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA,
REGIONAL OFFICE: MANGALADEVI TEMPLE ROAD,
PANDESHWAR,
MANGALURU-575 001
(AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 12.07.2022)
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER
THEN CORPORATION BANK
NOW MERGED WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA,
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT,
PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION DIVISION,
HEAD OFFICE: MANGALADEVI TEMPLE ROAD,
PANDESHWAR
MANGALURU-575 001
(AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 12.07.2022)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SYED KASHIF ALI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.R. KAMALACHARAN, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN REF. PAD.DISC.256/2017:2076 DATED 20.02.2019 OF
THE GENERAL MANAGER, THEN CORPORATION BANK NOW MERGED
WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT,
PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION DIVISION, HEAD OFFICE:
MANGALURU AND QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE SAME (ANNEXURE-C).
IN W.P.NO.29738/2019:
BETWEEN:
MS. N.B. ANNAPURNA
WIFE OF LATE ARVIND DAS RAJBHAN,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
E 9317, MANAGER,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
WP No. 5598 of 2020
C/W WP No. 10996 of 2019
WP No. 29738 of 2019
HC-KAR
BENGALURU-RAJAJINAGAR BRANCH,
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SWAMY N.B.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
THEN CORPORATION BANK MERGED WITH
UNION BANK OF INDIA,
REGIONAL OFFICE: MANGALADEVI TEMPLE ROAD,
PANDESHWAR, MANGALURU-575001.
(AMENDED VIDE ORDER OF COURT DATED 12.07.2022)
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER
THEN CORPORATION BANK MERGED WITH
UNION BANK OF INDIA,
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT,
PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION DIVISION,
REGIONAL OFFICE: MANGALADEVI TEMPLE ROAD,
PANDESHWAR,
MANGALURU-575001
(AMENDED VIDE ORDER OF COURT DATED 12.07.2022)
3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER AND
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT,
PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION DIVISION,
(DISCIPLINARY CELL)
CORPORATION BANK MERGED WITH
UNION BANK OF INDIA,
REGIONAL OFFICE: MANGALADEVI TEMPLE ROAD,
PANDESHWAR, MANGALURU-575001
4. SRI. K.R. SATYANARAYANA
INTERNAL AUDITOR, E.NO.6470,
INSPECTION AND AUDIT DIVISION,
CORPORATE OFFICE,
CORPORATION BANK,
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
WP No. 5598 of 2020
C/W WP No. 10996 of 2019
WP No. 29738 of 2019
HC-KAR
DIVISION OF HEAD OFFICE:
MANGALADEVI TEMPLE ROAD,
PANDESHWAR,
MANGALURU-575001.
DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 24.02.2020
5. SRI. H. NINGARAJU
EX-BRANCH MANAGER,
CORPORATION BANK,
BRAHMANIPURA BRANCH,
NO.1084, GROUND FLOOR,
23RD MAIN, 24TH CROSS,
HSR LAYOUT SECTOR 2,
PARANGIPALYA,
BANGALORE-560102.
DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 24.02.2020
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SYED KASHIF ALI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.R.KAMALACHARAN, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3; VIDE ORDER DATED 24.02.2020,
RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5 ARE DELETED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN REF. PAD.DISC.256/2017:374:2019 DATED 10.05.2019
ON THE FILE OF SECOND RESPONDENT, THE GENERAL MANAGER,
CORPORATION BANK, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT,
PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION DIVISION, HEAD OFFICE:
MANGALURU AND QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE SAME (ANNEXURE-K)
AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER ON 11.03.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:-
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
WP No. 5598 of 2020
C/W WP No. 10996 of 2019
WP No. 29738 of 2019
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
W.P. No.29738/2019 is filed challenging an order bearing
No.PAD:DISC:346/2015:1592/2018 dated 30.11.2018 passed
by the respondent No.3 imposing major punishment and to
direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to restore all the service
benefits which were deprived pursuant to the order passed by
the respondent No.3. She has also challenged an order bearing
No. PAD:DISC:246/2017:374:2019 dated 10.05.2019 passed
by the respondent No.2 dismissing the appeal filed by the
petitioner.
2. W.P. No.10996/2019 is filed challenging an order
bearing No.PAD.DISC.256/2017:2076 dated 20.02.2019, by
which, the petitioner was denied permission to participate in the
promotion process for the year 2019-20.
3. W.P. No.5598/2020 is filed challenging an order
bearing in HO Memorandum No.44/2020 dated 02.03.2020, by
which, the respondent Nos.3 to 7 were promoted to Middle
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
Management Grade-IV in violation of an interim order granted
in WP No.10996/2019.
Facts as pleaded in the above petitions:
4. (i) The petitioner was appointed as an employee
of the respondent-Bank on 21.08.1986 and she served various
branches of the bank in various capacities from time to time.
The petitioner served as the branch head of the respondent-
Bank at its new rural branch Brahmanipura, Ramanagara Taluk
from 30.06.2012 till 12.07.2016 when she was promoted as
Scale-III officer and posted as Senior Manager of Whitefield
Branch, Bangalore. She contends that from 03.09.2015 to
12.07.2016, when she was at Brahmanipura branch, she was
not in charge of sanctioning of loans and that during the said
period, loans were sanctioned and approved by the Zonal Office
till the respondent No.5 took charge from her as the Branch
Head of Brahmanipura.
(ii) She contends that regular audits of the branch was
conducted from time to time for the period 30.06.2012 to
13.08.2015 and all the loans sanctioned and transactions made
during the said period was found to be in order and no adverse
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
report was made by the concerned auditor. Likewise, an internal
audit report dated 19.08.2015 covered the transactions and the
loans of the branch for the period 10.03.2014 to 13.08.2015.
Thereafter, the regular internal audit report dated 10.02.2017
covered the transactions and loans of the branch for the period
14.08.2015 to 03.02.2017. The regular internal audit report
dated 08.03.2018 covered the transactions and the loans
sanctioned by the branch between 04.02.2017 to 26.02.2018.
The petitioner contends that the audit report dated 10.02.2017
was extraneous, perverse and without jurisdiction, as it went
against the principles of audit. She contends that the audit team
could not have reviewed the previous audit done for the earlier
periods and the scope of audit was for transactions and loans of
the branch for the period 14.08.2015 to 03.02.2017 only and
not for the period earlier to it.
(iii) She contends that the inspection and audit division
of the respondent-Bank on the basis of a non-existing inspection
and special audit report dated 10.02.2017 sought rectification of
irregularities observed in the audit report dated 10.02.2017 by
letters dated 11.07.2017 and 18.07.2017. She contends that
she complied with irregularities pointed out. Nonetheless, the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
vigilance department of the respondent-Bank sought comments
on certain loans granted and the same was clarified and
intimated that all loans sanctioned by her were secured, keeping
the interest of the bank in mind. The respondent No.3
purportedly not being satisfied with the steps taken by the
petitioner, ordered for initiation of a major penalty disciplinary
proceedings. She contends that, although similar irregularities
as those imputed to her were observed in the audit reports
dated 10.02.2017 and 08.03.2018, the persons in the zonal
office who had sanctioned the loans of the said branch during
the relevant period, as well as Respondent No. 5, were not
subjected to any disciplinary proceedings, thereby discriminating
her. She contends that the disciplinary enquiry was conducted
against her in March 2018 on sixteen charges which were all
based on the special audit report dated 10.02.2017.
(iv) She contends that as per the Corporation Bank
Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982,
the petitioner being a scale-III officer, as on the date of
initiation of the enquiry and the irregularities were purportedly
committed when she was serving as a scale-II officer, the
competent disciplinary authority to hold enquiry against her was
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
an officer of the rank of Deputy General Manager and appellate
authority was the General Manager and the reviewing authority
was the Executive Director or in his absence, the Chairman and
Managing Director. She contends that the enquiry was not
conducted by competent disciplinary authority, but he appointed
a retired Assistant General Manager to enquire, though he was
not competent to hold any enquiry against scale-II or scale-III
officer, like the petitioner. She therefore contends that when the
enquiry was conducted by an incompetent person and the
enquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority on
30.11.2018, he without granting an opportunity of personal
hearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice,
imposed a major penalty of scaling down the petitioner from
Middle Management Grade (henceforth referred to as 'MMG' for
short)/scale-III to Middle Management Grade/scale-II with a
basic pay of Rs.44,640/- per month and thereby reducing her
basic pay by Rs.10,000/- from the last drawn pay. Being
aggrieved by this Order, the petitioner filed an appeal under
Regulation 17 of the Corporation Bank Officers (Discipline and
Appeal) Regulations, 1982.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
5. (i) The petitioner contends that she was eligible
for promotion from MMG/Scale-III to Senior Management Grade
/Scale-IV in the selection process for the vacancies to be filled in
2018-19. She passed the requisite test and attended the general
discussion and interview process. However, her name did not
figure in the promotion list for the simple reason that the
departmental enquiry was pending against her which was in no
way concerned with her conduct under the Corporation Bank
Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1982. The result of
the promotion of the petitioner for the year 2018-19 was placed
in a sealed over and was not acted upon by the respondents.
She contends that by this time, the appeal filed by her against
the order passed by the disciplinary authority was pending
consideration. She contends that as per the guidelines of sealed
cover procedure applicable to promotion policy of the officers of
the respondent-Bank, an officer is entitled to participate in the
selection process for promotion against vacancies in the
subsequent departmental promotion committee till the
disciplinary case against the officer concerned is concluded. She,
therefore, contends that the disciplinary proceedings against
her, which had not attained finality in view of an appeal filed by
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
her, did not render her ineligible to go through the selection
process for promotion from MMG/Scale-III to Senior
Management Grade/Scale-IV during the year 2019-2020 .
Accordingly, since she was eligible to go through the process of
selection for the year 2019-20, she represented before the
respondent No.2 to permit her to undergo the process of
selection for the year 2019-20 subject to the outcome or
decision that may be rendered in the appeal filed by her.
(ii) However, the respondent No.2 by his letter bearing
No.PAD.DISC.256/2017:2076 dated 20.02.2019 ordered that
the result of promotion of the petitioner for promotion from
MMG/Scale-III to Senior management grade/Scale-IV during the
year 2018-19 which was placed in a sealed cover cannot be
acted upon as major penalty was imposed on her. The
respondent No.2 also ordered that in the event of the orders of
the disciplinary authority being set aside her case would be
taken up as per the guidelines prescribed under the sealed cover
procedure. She contends that this order of respondent No.2 was
absurd as she was not permitted to face the promotion process
to be held during the year 2019-20, which also could have been
kept in a sealed cover. She contends that this decision of the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
respondent No.2 deprived her of an opportunity or another
opportunity to participate in the promotion process held in
2019-20 for no fault of hers though she was eligible and
satisfied all requirements prescribed under the promotion policy
of the respondent. The petitioner therefore challenged the order
of the respondent no.2 before this Court in W.P.No.10996/2019.
(iii) An interim order was granted by this court in
W.P.No.10996/2019 restraining the respondent bank from
going on with the promotion of MMG/Scale-III to Senior
management grade/Scale-IV. However, the interim order was
later modified on 26.04.2019, by which, it permitted the
respondent Bank to go on with the promotion process but
ordered that one post shall be reserved to enable the
petitioner, on promotion to occupy that post, which was subject
to outcome of the appeal filed by the petitioner. She contends
that as on the date of the modified interim order, the
promotion process for the year 2019-20 was underway and
there were 113 posts available and the 112th promotional
vacancy was filled up by Sri. C.Chandrashekar. The respondent
issued HO memorandum bearing No.44/2020 dated 02.03.2020
filling up the 113th vacancy of promotional process in
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
disobedience of interim order passed on 26.04.2019 in W.P.
No.10996/2019. Later, the respondents not only disobeyed the
interim order but also fraudulently created further vacancies
from 114 to 117. The petitioner has therefore challenged the
creation of vacancies and the appointment of the respondent
no.3 to 7 against 113th to 117th vacancy in W.P.No.5598/2020.
6. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.2 being the
appellate authority rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner
against the Order passed by the disciplinary authority. Being
aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner is before this Court
in W.P No.29738/2019.
7. (i) The petition in WP No.29738/2019 is opposed
by the respondents who inter alia contended that a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging an
order passed by the disciplinary authority, is not maintainable, if
the enquiry has been conducted as per the rules. It is contended
that Courts can interfere with disciplinary actions only where;
(a) It finds that the departmental enquiry was conducted
in utter violation of the principles of natural justice, resulting in
miscarriage of justice; (b) where the findings recorded by the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
enquiry officer and or the disciplinary authority, are not
supported by any legal evidence; (c) where the penalty imposed
on the delinquent official is shockingly disproportionate to the
gravity of the misconduct alleged against her and not on any
other ground. It is contended that unless the Court finds that
the finding of fact recorded by an authority, statutory or
otherwise, is based on no evidence, it cannot re-appreciate the
evidence led before the authority and come to a different
conclusion, than the one arrived at by the authority. That this
Court cannot act as an appellate authority over the decision
taken by the disciplinary authorities.
(ii) It is contended that on a perusal of the records, it is
clear that, the petitioner had participated in the enquiry
proceedings and was afforded a full and fair opportunity to
defend her case. Petitioner was given full opportunity to take
the assistance of a co-officer of her choice during the enquiry
proceedings. However, she decided to defend her case on her
own and participated in the enquiry and cross-examined the
management witnesses. Therefore, it is contended that the
petitioner cannot now contend that the enquiry was conducted
in an unfair or biased manner.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
(iii) It is claimed that good conduct and discipline are
inseparable for functioning of every officer, manager or
employee of a bank who deals with public funds and it is no
defence to say that no loss was caused, when a Senior Manager
acted without authority and contrary to the rules and the
scheme formulated by his/her employer. It claimed that acting
beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and a
breach of Regulation 3 of the Corporation Bank Officer
Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982 and
constitutes misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 24 of
the Corporation Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal)
Regulations, 1982. It contended that if the charged employee
holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt
requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with
the matter leniently. It contended that when a person deals with
public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in
fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and
trustworthiness is a must and no exception can be made. In the
instant case, it is claimed that the charges are so grave that the
punishment of reduction to a lower rank cannot by any stretch
of imagination, said to be shockingly disproportionate.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
(iv) It is contended that the petitioner was working as a
Manager/Senior Manager (Branch Head) at Brahmanipura
branch during 30.06.2012 and 12.07.2016. It is alleged that
the petitioner in violation of the group credit guidelines of the
bank in gross abuse and in blatant violation of the laid down
procedures, in gross negligence, dispersed various loans,
diverted sums, acted beyond her authority and violated laid
down systems and procedures. Accordingly, charge sheet dated
12.01.2018 was issued to the petitioner and as many as
sixteen charges were framed against her in respect of lapses
committed by her while working as Senior Manager at
Brahmanipura branch. By letter dated 05.03.2018 one
Mr.Shashidhar C Tatti was appointed as an enquiry officer and
by order dated 05.03.2018 a Senior Manager was appointed as
a presenting officer. The notice of the enquiry was issued to the
petitioner and the preliminary enquiry was fixed on 26.03.2018
at the Zonal Office (North) Bangalore. Petitioner appeared in
the preliminary enquiry proceedings held on 26.03.2018, her
statement was recorded and she denied the charges. Petitioner
also verified all the management documents in the said
proceedings. Petitioner was provided with an opportunity to
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
take assistance from any officer in the enquiry. However, she
did not choose to do so and decided to defend the enquiry on
her own. The enquiry was conducted on 23.04.2018. The
management got examined two witnesses and produced 132
exhibits. Petitioner has cross-examined both the management
witnesses. However, she did not choose to examine any
witness on her behalf and she did not produce any documents
in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with
the applicable rules and following the principles of natural
justice and the petitioner was provided reasonable and
sufficient opportunities to present her case. It is claimed that
after completion of the enquiry proceedings, the enquiry officer
submitted his report on 18.08.2018 indicating that out of the
16 charges levelled against the petitioner, 12 charges were
fully proved, 2 charges were partly proved and 2 charges were
not proved. The enquiry report was sent to the petitioner along
with a letter dated 28.08.2018 requesting her to submit her
explanation and reply to the findings of the enquiring authority.
The petitioner submitted her reply in terms of a letter dated
12.09.2018. After considering the case in its entirety and after
noticing that the enquiry is conducted in accordance with the
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
Corporation Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal)
Regulations, 1982 and principles of natural justice, the
disciplinary authority vide its order dated 30.11.2018, imposed
punishment of reduction to lower grade, i.e. from MMG/Scale-
III to MMG/Scale- II with basic pay of Rs.44,640/- per month.
(v) Being aggrieved by the said order of punishment,
petitioner filed an appeal dated 19.01.2018 which was beyond
the stipulated period of 45 days. However, the appellate
authority condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The appellate
authority examined the memorandum of appeal submitted by
the petitioner and after independently considering the same on
merits, concluded that there was no justification to interfere
with the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Accordingly,
the appeal was rejected in terms of the order dated 10.05.2019.
It is claimed that the petitioner is before this Court challenging
the aforesaid orders. It is contended that the departmental
enquiry has been held in accordance with the law following the
principles of natural justice and that petitioner was given full
and fair opportunity to put her defence and on the basis of the
entire evidence, material record, the disciplinary authority
submitted its findings holding that the petitioner was guilty of
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
the charges levelled against her. Therefore, it contends that it
does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner, that the principles of
natural justice were not followed. As regards the punishment to
be imposed in respect of the charges, it is contended that Courts
have consistently taken the view that it is a managerial function
and it is for the disciplinary authority to decide appropriate
punishment to be imposed in the facts and circumstances of the
case. It is only when the punishment imposed by the disciplinary
authorities is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the
charges would this Court interfere with and not otherwise. It is
contended that the petitioner was found guilty of serious
charges relating to gross violation of powers and norms, leading
to indiscriminate accommodation of a vendor, thereby exposing
the bank to the risk of losing the advances. The very act of
acting beyond authority and such course of conduct spread over
a sufficiently long period and in involving innumerable instances,
is by itself a misconduct. Hence, it is contended that the order of
punishment is just and proper and the petitioner is not entitled
to any relief.
(vi) Adverting to the grounds urged in the writ petition, it
is contended that in the earlier audit reports also, the auditors
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
had reported irregularities in respect of the loan sanctioned by
the petitioner. In the year 2012, the petitioner was cautioned
by the bank in respect of the irregularities reported against her.
Further, in the earlier audit reports also irregularities were
reported in the credit facility sanctioned by the petitioner. The
claim of the petitioner that Annexure-C is the audit report
conducted on the transactions and loans sanctioned for the
period 14.08.2015 to 03.02.2017 is denied. It is claimed that
the audit report dated 10.02.2017 also contains reports on loan
sanctioned on 05.06.2015, 30.03.2014, 15.04.2015,
10.12.2014, 29.04.2015 etc. Hence, it is claimed that the
contention of the petitioner that there were no adverse remarks
in the earlier audit reports is incorrect. It is contended that the
auditor has observed many irregularities in the loan sanctioned
by the petitioner while she was working as the Branch Head at
Brahmanipura branch. Hence, it is contended that the petitioner
cannot claim that the loans sanctioned and transactions made
during her tenure are in order. Further, it is claimed that the
petitioner having participated in the departmental enquiry
cannot now contend that the enquiry was discriminatory. It is
further contended that one of the charges was that the
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
petitioner had sanctioned loans beyond the command area.
Therefore, it is claimed that the petitioner is barred from
contending that only negligible procedural irregularities were
committed by her and that the same could not have culminated
in initiation of major penalty proceedings. It is claimed that it is
the paramount duty of an officer of the bank to protect the
interest of the bank. However, by blatantly violating the
guidelines of the bank, the petitioner put the bank in
unnecessary financial risk and hence, the claim that the loans
sanctioned by her was within the scope of her work is wrong
and misleading.
(vii) It is further claimed that the enquiry officer was a
public servant in accordance with sub-regulation 2 of
Regulation 6 of Corporation Bank Officers (Discipline and
Appeal) Regulations, 1982. Therefore, it is claimed that the
contention of the petitioner that the enquiry officer was not a
public servant is not justified. It is also contended that the
petitioner was given all the documents and all principles of
natural justice were complied with during the course of the
enquiry. A reading of the charge sheet and the findings of the
enquiry officer would categorically establish that the charges
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
levelled and proved are serious in nature and that while
arriving at the quantum of punishment, the disciplinary
authority has exercised discretion and therefore, this Court
should not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. It is claimed that the petitioner by
sanctioning credit facilities to ineligible persons has not only
acted against interest of the respondent-Bank, but also against
the economy in general. It is contended that the purpose of
taking securities is to protect the interest of the bank in the
eventuality the borrower is not able to repay the loan. It is
contended that sanctioning agriculture loans to ineligible
customers without following the guidelines and without even
verifying the end user of the funds, the petitioner deprived the
need of those eligible farmers who desperately needed the
loans and also exposed the bank to unnecessary risk. It is also
contended that one of the charges is that one customer availed
an agricultural loan from the bank and he had transferred
Rs.1,00,000/- to the account of the son-in-law of the petitioner.
Hence, it is contended that it is clear that the action of the
petitioner was not a genuine risk taking. With these and other
contentions, the respondents have claimed that the enquiry
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
conducted against a petitioner is well within the procedure
prescribed under the regulations and the punishment imposed
is just and proper does not warrant any interference at the
hands of this Court.
8. (i) The learned counsel for the petitioner while
assailing the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the
appellate authority, contends that under Regulation 6(2) of the
Corporation Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal)
Regulations, 1982, if the disciplinary authority is of the opinion
that there are grounds to inquire into the truth of any
imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour, he may himself
enquire into or appoint any other person who is or who was a
public servant to enquire into the truth thereof. He contends
that public servant is defined under Regulation 3(m) of the
Corporation Bank Officers (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations,
1982 as a person as defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal
Code. He contends that the enquiry officer in this case was a
retired Assistant General Manager of Corporation Bank, who did
not fit into the definition of a public servant. He submits that
since the Regulations, 1982 refers to a public servant as defined
in the IPC, the same has to be strictly construed. He contends
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
that under Section 46-A of the Banking Regulation Act,
employees of banks are treated as public servants for the
purpose of Chapter 9 of the IPC, which stood omitted in view of
Sections 7 to 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He
contends that though for the purpose of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 an employee of a bank is treated as a
public servant, but the same is not the case when it comes to
the Indian Penal Code. He therefore contends that the
appointment of the enquiry officer is faulty, and hence the
report submitted by him had no value in the eye of law. In
support of the above contention, he relied upon the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in CBI vs Ramesh Gelli - (2016) 3 SCC
788.
(ii) He further contends that the Articles of charge are
based on special audit report conducted by the inspection and
audit division of the bank based on certain observations
reported during regular inspections. He contends that no such
special audit was conducted and no records in that regard was
produced before the enquiring authority. Thus, he contends
that the very basis of the charge sheet was not proved at the
enquiry. He contends that the audit report dated 10.02.2017
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
was for the period 14.08.2015 to 03.02.2017. However, it
commented on the loan sanctioned prior to 14.08.2015, which
was found to be regular by the regular audit team. Thus, it is
contended that the audit report was for a period beyond the
mandate given to the audit team and hence, could not have
been relied upon at the enquiry.
iii) He further contends that all the loans sanctioned
were sufficiently secured and hence, the interest of the bank
was not compromised and no loss was caused to the bank. He
referred to para 11.9 of the order of the appellate authority to
contend that as on 31.12.2018, the branch had suffered no loss
from the date of opening. Therefore, he contends that the
charges levelled was ill motivated and ill designed.
(iv) He contends that in banking institutions, risk taking
forms an integral part of business. Therefore, every loss caused
to the organization, either in pecuniary or non pecuniary terms,
need not necessarily become the subject matter of a vigilance
enquiry. It would be quite unfair to use the benefit of hindsight
to question the technical merits of managerial decisions from
the vigilance point of view. Therefore, a distinction has to be
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
drawn between a business loss which is arising as a
consequence of a bonafide commercial decision and an
extraordinary loss which has occurred due to any malafide,
motivated or reckless performance of duties. He contends that
while the farmer has to be accepted as a normal part of
business and ignored from the vigilance point of view, the later
has to be viewed adversely and dealt with under the extant
disciplinary procedures. Thus, he contends that the disciplinary
proceedings initiated against the petitioner, is not justified. He
further contends that there are no malafides or motives or
reckless performance of duties alleged to justify the imposition
of a major penalty and hence, the impugned proceedings
initiated against the petitioner, warrants interference.
(v) He further contends that the petitioner is not guilty
of any misconduct under the conduct regulations. He contends
that under Regulation 24 of the conduct Regulations, an
employee, can be proceeded against for breach of the
Regulations and in the instant case, none of the allegations
made against the petitioner was in respect of any misconduct
as described under the conduct regulations. He also contends
that the disciplinary authority did not afford any opportunity of
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
being heard before imposing a major penalty and hence, the
impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority and upheld
by the appellate authority violates the principles of natural
justice.
vi) He also contends that the punishment imposed upon
the petitioner is highly disproportionate to the misconduct
alleged and therefore, the impugned order passed by the
discipline authority, has to be interfered with.
vii) He also contends that the petitioner has been
accused of violating certain guidelines issued by the bank from
time to time. He contends that these guidelines are not
mandatory in nature, but are directory. He contends that since
the interest of the bank is sufficiently taken care of by
obtaining appropriate security, minor lapses in documentation
cannot be treated as a misconduct and therefore, the
punishment imposed upon the petitioner is highly
disproportionate.
viii) He also contends that the petitioner was entitled to
be considered for promotion to MMG-IV by adopting the sealed
cover procedure since the order of disciplinary authority was
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
challenged before the appellate authority and the proceedings
had not attained finality. Therefore, he contends that sealed
cover procedure must have been adopted, even during
pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority. He
contends that though this Court had granted an interim order
and reserved one post in MMG-IV so that the petitioner could
occupy it, if she succeeds in the writ petition, the respondents
have proceeded to grant promotion to the other respondents
and thereby violated the interim order as well as spoiled the
chances of the promotion of the petitioner. He therefore
contends that the impugned orders passed by the respondents,
deserve to be interfered with.
9. (i) The learned counsel for the respondents on the
other hand, contended that this court should not ordinarily
exercise power under the Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, unless it is shown that the respondents have violated the
principles of natural justice or that the petitioner was not given
adequate opportunity at the enquiry. He contends that when all
procedural requirements have been followed and all principles of
natural justice have been complied with, this Court should not
ordinarily interfere with the order passed by the discipline
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
authority and upheld by the appellate authority. He also
contends that this Court in exercising power under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, cannot re-appreciate the evidence
recorded before the enquiry officer to return a different finding
than the one recorded by the disciplinary authority. He contends
that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is just and
proper having regard to the gravity of the allegations made
against the petitioner, which resulted in severe risk to the
respondents. He also contends that the punishment that was
imposed upon the petitioner was meant to act as a deterrent,
not only to the petitioner, but also others in the organization. He
contends that the gravity of the allegations is so severe that the
disciplinary authority found it appropriate to impose punishment
of reduction in rank.
ii) He next contends that the enquiry authority
appointed by the disciplinary authority is a public servant. He is
a member of a corporation established under a State Act.
Therefore, he contends that the enquiry report submitted by the
enquiring authorities is valid in the eyes of law and clearly
enforceable.
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
iii) He contends that the petitioner was accused of
gross misconduct in as much as, the petitioner had sanctioned
seven agricultural loans aggregating to 68.25 lakhs to the
members of one family. She did not comply with the post follow
up and did not obtain the required documents, such as due
diligence report, etc. He contends another charge proved
against the petitioner is that one customer availed an agriculture
loan from the branch and that the customer had transferred a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the account of the son-in-law of the
petitioner. Hence, it is contended that the petitioner had
blatantly violated the time tested guidelines which were made to
protect the interest of the bank. He also contended that the
petitioner was given all opportunities to defend herself at the
enquiry and the she did not produce any documents to establish
hat she had taken due care and caution before granting the loan
to the various individuals. He contends that the bank not
suffering any loss due to acts of the petitioner is not a ground to
exonerate the petitioner from the charges. He contends that the
guidelines are framed by the bank for orderly conduct by all the
employees of the bank and therefore, the petitioner cannot flout
the guidelines with impunity. He contends that if all the
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
employees, such as the petitioner indulge in such violation of
the guidelines, there would be total anarchy in the
administration of the respondents. Thus, he contends that the
impugned order passed by the authority is just and proper and
no interference is warranted with the impugned orders.
10. I have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the
respondents.
11. The respondents have framed the Corporation Bank
Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982 in
exercise of the powers conferred under Section 19 of the
Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1980. Regulation 6 of the regulations provide for the
procedure for imposing major penalties. Regulation 6(2) states
as follows:
"Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion
that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of
any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against
an officer employee, it may itself inquire into, or
appoint any other person who is, or has been, a public
servant (hereinafter referred to as "the Inquiring
authority") to inquire into the truth thereof."
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
Regulation 3(m) defines a public servant as a person
defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.
12. There is no dispute that in the instant case, a retired
Assistant General Manager of the respondent-Bank was
appointed as an enquiry officer. Therefore, the threshold
question that would arise for consideration is whether the
inquiring authority was a public servant as defined under
Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. A perusal of Section 21 of
IPC shows that one of the attributes of a public servant is as
follows:
"Every person, (a) in the service or pay of the
government, or remunerated by fees, or commission for
the performance of any public duty by the Government,
(b) in the service or pay of a local authority, a corporation
established by or under a Central, Provincial or state act,
or a Government company, as defined in Section 617 of
the Companies Act, 1956."
13. The respondent was established as a corresponding
new bank under Section 3 of the Banking Companies
(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 and by
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
virtue of Section 4 the undertaking of respondent stood
transferred to new bank. The Management of the newly
constituted respondent was vest in a Board of Directors who
were duly appointed by the Central Government and the
respondent was to be guided by the directions issued by the
Central Government from time to time. Therefore, the
respondent was a corporation established by the Central
government and hence, the employees of the respondent were
public servants as defined under Section 21 of the IPC. The
enquiry officer being an erstwhile employee of the respondent
bank "was a public servant" and therefore, he could be
appointed by the disciplinary authority to conduct and enquiry
against the petitioner. Hence, the contention of the petitioner
that the enquiry officer was not a public servant and therefore,
his report is not enforceable is liable to be rejected.
14. The respondent framed the following articles of
charge.
"11.01. (a) CHARGE NO-01.It is alleged against the CSO
that, " In violation of Group Credit Policy of the bank, in
gross abuse of official position and blatant violation of laid
down systems and procedures, without conducting Due
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
diligence of the borrowers, CSO sanctioned/disbursed 57
various loans aggregating Rs.304.10 lakh.
11.02. (a) CHARGE NO-02. It is alleged that the CSO, " In
violation of extant guidelines, in abuse of official position,
in gross negligence and in violation of systems and
procedures, without any specific purpose, CSO sanctioned
and disbursed 54 Agricultural demand Loans/terms loans
aggregating Rs 294.60 lakh."
11.03. (a) CHARGE NO-03. It is alleged that the CSO, " In
violation of extant guidelines, in abuse of official position,
without obtaining quotations/project report, without
evaluating project cost, CSO sanctioned and disbursed 54
Agricultural demand Loans/terms loans aggregating Rs
294.60 lakh resulting in over-finance.
11.04. (a) CHARGE NO-04. It is alleged that the CSO "In
violation of extant guidelines, in abuse of official position,
without insisting for any security. CSO sanctioned
/disbursed five AGTLs in the name of family members of
MsFairozunnisa (borrower under AGTL 150001) wherein
borrower were not having Agricultural land in their names,
aggregating Rs 48.75 lakh thereby CSO accommodated
the borrowers.
11.05. (a) CHARGE NO-05. It is alleged that the CSO, "In
violation of extant guidelines, in abuse of official position,
instead of taking Mortgage of agriculture Land as security
for the loan amount CSO sanctioned / disbursed eight
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
AGDLS. aggregating Rs 33.00lakh by taking collateral
security of Residential properties.
11.06. (a) CHARGE NO-06. It is alleged that the CSO, " In
violation of extant guidelines, in abuse of official position,
instead of taking Mortgage of agriculture land as security
for the loan amount, CSO sanctioned / disbursed three
agriculture loans aggregating Rs 9.50 lakh against
hypothecation of vehicles without any specific purpose.
11.07. (a) CHARGE NO-07. It is alleged that the CSO, " In
violation of extant guidelines, in abuse of official position,
CSO sanctioned / disbursed 25 AGTLS/AGDLS aggregating
Rs 143.00 lakh against collateral security of Agriculture
Land without any specific purpose, resulting in over
finance.
11.08. (a) CHARGE NO-08. It is alleged that the CSO In
violation of extant" guidelines, in abuse of official position,
CSO sanctioned / disbursed two Agriculture loans
aggregating Rs 2.50 lakh for business purpose and
thereby CSO failed to ensure end use of funds lent and by
diverting the loan proceeds, CSO accommodated the
borrowers.
11.09. (a) CHARGE NO-09. It is alleged that the CSO, " In
violation of extant guidelines, in gross abuse of official
position and in blatant violation of the laid down systems
and procedures, CSO sanctioned /disbursed seven
Agriculture loans aggregating Rs 26.75 lakh in the names
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
of members of the family without any specific purpose
thereby accommodated the borrowers.
11.10. (a) CHARGE NO-10. It is alleged that the CSO, " In
violation of extant guidelines, in gross abuse of official
position and in blatant violation of the laid down systems
and procedures, CSO sanctioned /disbursed 11 various
loans aggregating Rs 83.85 lakh beyond the command
area.
11.11. (a) CHARGE NO-11. It is alleged that the CSO, " In
violation of extant guidelines, in gross abuse of official
position and in blatant violation of the laid down systems
and procedures, CSO sanctioned /disbursed various 09
Loans with amount aggregating Rs 72.25 lakh beyond the
delegated lending powers.
11.12. (a) CHARGE NO-12. It is alleged that the CSO, "In
violation of extant guidelines, in gross abuse of official
position and in blatant violation of the laid down systems
and procedure without involving second line officer while
taking credit decision, CSO sanctioned /disbursed 57
various loans aggregating Rs 304.10.
11.13. (a) CHARGE NO-13. It is alleged that the CSO, " In
violation of extant guidelines, in gross abuse of official
position and in blatant violation of the laid down systems
and procedures, without ensuring end use of funds lent,
CSO credited the loan proceed of 55 loan accounts to the
SB accounts of the borrowers and borrowers were allowed
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
to withdraw cash in all loan accounts aggregating Rs
300.10 lakh.
11.14. (a) CHARGE NO-14. It is alleged that the CSO, " In
violation of extant guidelines, in gross abuse of official
position and in blatant violation of the laid down systems
and procedures, the CSO diverted Rs 1.00 lakh from the
AGTL-130002 to the SB account of Son-in law of CSO.
11.15. (a) CHARGE NO-15. It is alleged that the CSO, " In
violation of extant guidelines, in gross abuse of official
position and in blatant violation of the laid down systems
and procedures, the CSO sanctioned /disbursed DL
140002 and DL 150001 loan accounts aggregating Rs 4.00
lakh which have been classified as NPA within one year,
are cases of early mortality.
11.16. (a) CHARGE NO-16. It is alleged that the CSO, " In
violation of extant guidelines, in gross abuse of official
position and in blatant violation of the laid down systems
and procedures, CSO sanctioned/disbursed 55 various
loans aggregating Rs 300.10 lakh. Wherein post-sanction
visit report and bills/vouchers were not held and end use
was not ensured."
15. The petitioner has not placed the reply filed to these
articles of charge but what can be gathered from the report of
the enquiry officer is extracted below:
In respect of Charge No.1: It is not stated how the Group
Credit Policy of the Bank/Guidelines are applicable to the
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
individual loans/borrowers and it is not known what policy
guidelines of the Bank are applicable for sanction of
individual loans.
In respect of Charge No.2: It is not stated how the Group
Credit Policy of the Bank/Guidelines are applicable to the
individual loans/borrowers. That these guidelines are
applicable to project loans and not to the 54 loans
sanctioned to individuals.
In respect of Charge No.3: The loan sanctioned are purely
agricultural terms loans or agricultural demand loans and
not project loans where either a financial
paper/estimation/quotation or project report is required
but is based on the valuation of the property mortgaged to
the Bank or collateral security offered.
In respect of Charge No.4: The loans are
sanctioned/disbursed against the security of hypothecation
of crop as well as land and building and therefore, this
charge is without basis.
In respect of Charge No.5: In the Manual on Agricultural
Loans, it permits taking residential buildings as security
when agricultural land is not available and hence, there is
no violation of any guidelines as alleged.
In respect of Charge No.6: As per the Manual on
Agricultural Advances, it permits taking of an asset as
security and therefore, there is no violation of any
guidelines as alleged.
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
In respect of Charge No.8: That the loans
sanctioned/disbursed for business purpose was for allied
agricultural activity. Hence, there is no diversion of
proceeds of the loans. As per the Manual on Agricultural
Advances, the post sanctioned visits should be undertaken
by the branch officials in order ot ensure end use of fund
advanced. It does not cast duty solely on the Manager to
ensure end use of the fund. As per the Manual on
Agricultural Advances, at least two officers are normally
involved in any decision to advance loan. Therefore, when
loan was sanctioned by the petitioner, some other officer
of the branch had to ensure the end use of the funds lent.
In respect of Charge No.9: As per the Group Credit Policy
guidelines, it is mentioned at para 6.6 that "purpose of the
credit shall invariably be stated in all proposal but does
not state that specific purpose should be mentioned.
In respect of Charge No.10: That the borrowers reside
within 30 kms. radius of the branch and if the distance is
measured by road, it may be beyond 30 kms. Therefore,
no misconduct is committed in extending loans to
customers who reside within 30 kms. radius of the branch.
In respect of Charge No.11: The allegation that the Head
Office Circular No.234/2011 dated 30.03.2011 is violated
is vague as the charge does not spell out the delegated
lending powers, its limit and the alleged excess made by
her.
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
In respect of Charge No.12: The Group Credit Policy is not
applicable to the loans sanctioned by her as they are all
individual loans. The Second Line Officer, Mr. Yogesh Naik
was a Probationary and not in a position to sign the
documents. That she has not violated any systems and
procedures prescribed by the Bank.
In respect of Charge No.13: That the unit visit report
shows that the end use of fund was ensured as per the
statement of the borrowers. That it is not the sole
responsibility of the Branch Manager to ensure end use of
the funds lent as the other official responsible for credit
decision should also ensure the end use of the fund. That
there is no diversion of the funds or the loans sanctioned.
In respect of Charge No.14: When the borrower
admittedly transferred Rs.1,00,000/- to the account of her
son-in-law, question of she diverting the funds does not
arise. That the amount paid to the son-in-law was refund
of the loan and not quid pro quo to give any rise for
suspicion. The transfer of Rs.1,00,000/- was through
cheque and not cash payment and therefore, she had no
control over transaction.
In respect of Charge No.15: That it is for the incumbent
Branch Manager to recover the loan amount and petitioner
is not responsible for early mortality of the loan.
In respect of Charge No.16: This is a repetition of charge
No.13 and therefore, the reply to charge NO.13 is adopted
by answering this charge.
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
16. The reply submitted by the petitioner ex-facie was
evasive and did not answer the charges alleged against her. All
that the petitioner claimed was that sufficient security was taken
before sanctioning the loans and that the interest of the
respondent was well protected. The petitioner tried to wish away
the accusations made against her as frivolous and that the non
compliance of the stated norms did not affect the respondent in
any manner. This Court has no expertise to know the
consequences of the non compliance of the norms/
guidelines/directions framed by the respondent while
sanctioning loan, as no material in that regard is placed before
this court. However, this Court is certainly aware that when the
respondent is bound to follow a set pattern while sanctioning
loans, the non compliance of the pattern may raise concerns/
suspicion about the legitimacy of such loans, which may or may
not ultimately result in the loan becoming sticky. The
respondent is a large organization which has to deal with its
constituents uniformly and on a non discriminatory basis. It is in
order to achieve this that the respondent would have framed
rules/regulations, issued guidelines/directions/circulars etc.
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
Therefore, everyone concerned with the affairs of the
respondent is bound to comply with the aforesaid lest the whole
edifice would crumble to the ground.
17. Now coming to the question whether the framing of
charges against the petitioner were justified or not, as rightly
contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, this is
purely a decision of the management of the respondent. If the
petitioner is found to have violated or willfully ignored any
guidelines/directions/circulars issued by the respondent or has
acted negligently in the discharge of her duties, there can be no
second thought that the respondent has the authority to
proceed against its employee by treating it as a misconduct. The
contention of the petitioner that the internal audit of
Brahmanipura branch in respect of loans sanctioned by her in
the previous years did not show any misgivings, cannot itself
protect the petitioner against any deliberate let up that was then
either not noticed or not capable of being noticed. A wrong
however miniscule remains a wrong forever and cannot be
equated to an inadvertent error. A perusal of the articles of
charge show that the petitioner who was the senior manager at
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
Brahmanipura branch had failed to do the basic due diligence
such as:
"(a) Charge No-01. It is alleged against the CSO that, In
violation of Group Credit Policy of the bank, in gross abuse
of official position and blatant violation of laid down
systems and procedures, without conducting Due diligence
of the borrowers, CSO sanctioned/disbursed 57 various
loans aggregating Rs.304.10 lakhs.
(b) In respect of above charge, the CSO, in her Written
brief dated 16.06.2018,has stated that, when Ex M-71
refer to circular about Group Credit Policy guidelines of the
bank, it is not elicited how it would be applicable to
individual loans /borrowers or what policy guidelines of the
bank is for sanction of individual loans.
(c) The Presenting Officer(P O) in his written brief dated
25.05.2018, has stated that, the CSO while giving
clarification dated 10.07.2017(Ex M-07), to the Vigilance
Officer (MW-1) the CSO has stated that "wherever there is
absence of due diligence or CIBIL report, the said loans
are based on collateral security, keeping the interest of
bank's money secured". In view of the above the CSO
admitted that she has sanctioned the loans without due
diligence and CSO not submitted any proof that she had
obtained due diligence report of borrowers."
It may be that it is humanly impossible for one person
such as the petitioner to personally oversee with precision
various activities of the bank commencing from its
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
establishment, running of the branch, pre loan visits,
documentation, verification, advances, post advance follow ups,
recoveries, statutory compliances, audits, internal compliances
etc. It could also be that the branches are provided with targets
both for advances and recoveries and in many a case it could
affect their promotional prospects. In this scenario, it could
quite be possible that there could be some errors or mistakes
that happen inadvertently. In the instant case, the petitioner
has not made any attempt to establish that the mistakes
pointed out in the articles of charge were inadvertent or were
due to any reason beyond her control. This Court does not wish
to go into the specifics of each charge and defence raised to
ascertain whether the mistake committed was inadvertent or
deliberate. This must have been stated in the reply filed by the
petitioner to the articles of charge which she has not done.
18. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
respondent, this Court cannot upset the findings of fact recorded
by the enquiry officer and accepted by the disciplinary authority
unless it is shown that such finding is either based on no
evidence or based on misconception of evidence or when
incontrovertible evidence on record is ignored to return a finding
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
to implicate an employee. This Court is also aware that in
exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
this Court should not voyage into a discovery of facts or
reassess the evidence on record to render a different finding. So
long as the enquiry undertaken by the enquiry officer is just and
proper and complies with the principles of natural justice and
the disciplinary authority gives all reasonable opportunity, the
Court would be hesitant to interfere, unless the reasons
mentioned in the preceding sentence exists. However, the Court
would exercise jurisdiction whenever the disciplinary authority
imposes a punishment which is thoroughly disproportionate to
the charges made against a delinquent employee. The
disciplinary authority should be alive to human frailties,
limitations and the possibility of they committing mistakes etc.,
before imposing harsh penalties. Punishment should be
commensurate to the misconduct alleged so that the delinquent
employee reforms himself. In the instant case, though the
petitioner has negligently failed to comply mandatory
compliances, yet the silver lining is the fact that all the loans
sanctioned by the petitioner was sufficiently secured, thereby
meaning that the interest of the respondent was not
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
compromised or jeopardised. It is undisputed that the
Brahmanipura branch of the respondent did not suffer any loss
till 31-12-2018. This should be a mitigating factor while
considering the punishment to be imposed upon the petitioner.
19. Now, the question that would arise for consideration
is the reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled to. It is found that
the petitioner was aged 55 years when she filed this writ
petition. Therefore, by now, the petitioner must have attained
the age of superannuation. This Court had granted an interim
order directing the respondents to reserve one post in MMG
/Scale-IV. However, the respondents without reserving the post
in the year 2019-20 have proceeded to fill up the four posts,
namely, vacancy Nos.113, 114, 115 and 116. In the ordinary
course, the vacancy No.113 must have been reserved for the
petitioner.
20. Consequently, if the petitioner succeeds in writ
petition 29738/2019 the petitioner is entitled to be granted the
promotion with effect from the date when the respondent No.3
in WP No.5598/2020 was granted the promotion. As a
consequence, the petitioner shall be entitled to restoration of
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
her grade (MMG-III) and pay as also promotion with effect to
the MMG Scale-IV with effect from the date when respondent
No.3 in WP No.5598/2020 was promoted. The petitioner would
also be entitled to all consequential benefits.
21. In view of the fact that the misconduct imputed
against the petitioner is proved and taking into account that
such misconduct has not resulted in any financial impact on the
respondent, this Court is of the opinion that the punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority is harsh and excessive.
Consequently, the same deserves to be modified and a minor
penalty deserves to be imposed on the petitioner.
22. Hence, W.P.No.29738/2019 is allowed-in-part and
the major penalty of reduction from MMG-III to MMG-II with
basic pay of Rs.44,640/- per month is set aside and minor
penalty of reduction of one annual increment with cumulative
effect is imposed. Consequently, W.P.No.10996/2019 is
allowed. The promotion of the petitioner to MMG-IV for the
year 2018-19, kept in a sealed cover shall be opened and the
petitioner shall be granted promotion to MMG-IV from the date
when the vacancy arose in 2018-19 and if there were no
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20245
HC-KAR
vacancies, then to grant promotion to MMG-IV Grade from the
date of promotion of respondent No.3 in W.P.No.5598/2020. As
a result of the above, the Grade and Pay of the petitioner in
MMG-III shall stand restored and the respondent shall grant the
promotion and all consequential benefits. In view of the Order
allowing W.P.No.10996/2019 no orders are required to be
passed in W.P.No.5598/2020 and the same stand disposed.
23. The restoration of the grade and pay of the
petitioner and the grant of promotion to MMG-IV with all
consequential benefits shall be granted within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
BKN
