Karnataka High Court

Canara Bank vs Sri Prasanna M. Ron on 14 March, 2025

                           1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

                      PRESENT
     THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                         AND
          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
         WRIT APPEAL NO.1444 OF 2024 (S-DE)

BETWEEN:
CANARA BANK
112, J.C. ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ASST. GENERAL MANAGER.
                                       ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE)
[
AND:
    SRI. M.H. RON
    SINCE DECEASED
    REP. BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS:

1 . SRI PRASANNA M. RON
    S/O LATE M.H. RON
    AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
2 . SRI. ANANDA M.N. RON
    S/O LATE M.H. RON
    AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
3 . SMT. DEEPALI
    W/O PARTHASARATHI
    AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
    ALL ARE RESIDING AT
    NO.15 C, PRIMROSE ROAD
    BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                    ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.P. KULKARNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE
ALONG WITH SRI. G. MADHUSUDHANAN, ADVOCATE )
                                 2




      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.06.2024 PASSED BY
THE    LEARNED      SINGLE     JUDGE     IN   WRIT    PETITION
NO.17802 OF 2005, ETC.

      THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, M.I.ARUN J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:


CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
       N. V. ANJARIA
       and
       HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN


                       CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN)

Aggrieved by the order passed in Writ Petition No.17802

of 2005, the respondent there is has preferred this writ appeal.

2. The appellant is a nationalized bank and one

Sri..M.H. Ron was its employee. On certain allegations,

disciplinary proceedings as well as criminal proceedings were

initiated against the said M.H..Ron. The allegations in both

disciplinary proceedings as well as the criminal proceedings

are similar. The employee has been discharged in the criminal

proceedings. However, he was found guilty in the departmental

inquiry conducted against him. In the meanwhile, after attaining

superannuation, the said M.H..Ron has expired. Respondents

herein are his legal representatives. The findings of the

departmental inquiry has been confirmed by the appellate

authority. Aggrieved by the same, respondents herein

preferred Writ Petition No.17802 of 2005. Learned Single

Judge on the ground that the allegations made in departmental

inquiry as well as in the criminal case are similar and that in the

criminal case, the delinquent employee has been discharged

and that the evidence adduced in the disciplinary proceedings

has not been appropriately appreciated by the disciplinary

authority and the appellate authority, has set aside the orders

passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority

and has allowed the writ petition and has in turn directed the

appellant herein to pay all the retirement benefits along with

the interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The writ appeal is

filed challenging the same.

3. It is the case of the appellant that mere discharge in

criminal proceedings does not absolve the delinquent

employee from disciplinary proceedings. It is further contended

that the evidence has been properly appreciated by the

disciplinary authority and the appellate authority but it has not

been so done by learned Single Judge. It is further contended

that learned Single Judge ought not to have done the exercise

of fact finding and for the said reason it is prayed that the writ

appeal be allowed and writ petition No.17802 of 2005 be

dismissed.

4. Per contra, respondents justify the order passed in Writ

Petition No.17802 of 2005 and prays for dismissal of the writ

appeal.

5. There have been three charges made against the

delinquent employee. The details of the charges, the inquiry

officer's conclusion and the disciplinary authority's order are as

follows,

"The charges in the Charge Sheet and Inquiry Officer's Opinion The petitioner has failed to discharge his duties with utmost honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence and he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a bank officer and thus contravened Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of the Canara Bank Officer

Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 [for short, the 'Canara Bank Conduct Regulations 1976']. Hence, the petitioner is guilty of misconduct which is punishable under the provisions of the Canara Bank officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 [for short, the 'Canara Bank Discipline and Appeal Regulations 1976'] because of the following [A] The petitioner, while The petitioner has got working as the Senior insured the cattle using Manager at Halge forged Veterinary Branch, has got Certificates with active insured 139 old assets association of [cattle] purchased by Sri.A.S.Shanbhag, beneficiaries during Development Officer, 1982-85 availing loans NIAC.

from the bank. These cattle are insured with the active association of Sri.A.S.Shanbhag, Development Officer, NIAC Karwar who has created forged Veterinary Health Certificates for the purpose of insurance.

[B] The Petitioner, based on
     the     forged       Health
     Certificates, has got        The       petitioner       has
     cattle    of     the     six  obtained   insurance    cover
     beneficiaries            [as  without the knowledge of
     mentioned         in    the   only     one      of       the
     Statement                 of  beneficiaries as against
     Imputation],        insured   the six referred to in the
     without                their  Charge Sheet No.BLC:
     knowledge.          Further   DAC:2022: CHO 10/94
     the     petitioner      has   dated 4.3.1994 and thus
     intentionally disbursed       he has failed to discharge
     more premium amount           his duties with utmost
     to     the      Insurance     honesty,            integrity,
     company though he             devotion     and   diligence
     was aware of the              and thereby contravened
     correct insurance fee         Canara Bank Conduct
     for the government            Regulations, 1976.





      sponsored schemes.

[C]    The petitioner has
      compelled           the
      beneficiaries to submit
      Panchanama Reports
      signed by the village
      leaders to report death
      of their cattle.

Article of Charges and Inquiry Officer's opinion

The petitioner has failed to discharge his duties with utmost honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a bank officer and thus contravened Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of the Canara Bank Conduct Regulations, 1976 and is guilty of misconduct punishable under the provisions of the Canara Bank Discipline & Appeal Regulations, 1976.

While working as the Senior Manager of The petitioner is guilty of the Halge Branch from charge of giving false 23.9.91, the petitioner declaration to NIAC, Karwar has made a false in respect of beneficiary, declaration to New India Sri.J.R.Bandekar to the Assurance Company effect that his cattle has (NIAC), Karwar to the died on 10.12.1987 and he effect that an animal has submitted a false claim owned by Sri. J.R. proposal whereafter NIAC Bandekar died on have settled the claim and 10.12.87, and he has suffered a loss of submitted a false claim Rs.1,500/-. proposal without the knowledge of the The charge to this extent is beneficiary. Based on partly proved, and has thus this false claim, NIAC failed to discharge his Karwar has settled the duties With utmost honesty, claim for Rs.1500/- and integrity, devotion and suffered a loss of diligence and has Rs.1500/-. The details contravened Regulation are more fully 3(1) read with Regulation enumerated in the 24 of Canara Bank Conduct

Statement of Regulations, 1976.

 Imputations     to    the
 Articles of Charge.

Article of Charges and Inquiry Officer's opinion in

The petitioner has failed to discharge his duties with utmost honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a bank officer and thus contravened Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of the Conduct Regulations, 1976 and has committed misconduct which is punishable under the provisions of the Canara Bank Discipline & Appeal Regulations, 1976

While working as the Senior The charge against the Manager of Halge Branch petitioner in sanction of from 23.9.91, the petitioner loan on false has made a false declaration documents in active to New India Assurance association with Sri. Company (NIAC), Karwar and A.S.Shanbhag is not has sanctioned 238 livestock proved. loans and loans for self-

employment, based on false However, the Charge documents, forms and that the petitioner has certificates in active accepted certain association with percentage of loan Sri.A.S.Shanbhag, amount as illegal Development Officer, NIAC gratification from 9 Karwar and there are reasons beneficiaries is proved, to believe that he has and thus he has failed accepted certain percentage to discharge his duties of loan amount as illegal with utmost honest, gratification from 23 integrity, devotion and loanees/beneficiaries. diligence and contravened regulations 3(1) read with regulation 24 of the Canara Bank Conduct Regulations 1976"

6. Based on the same charges, criminal proceedings were

also initiated against the delinquent employee and he has been

discharged.

The aforementioned facts are not in dispute.

7. In catena of judgments this Court as well as Hon'ble

Apex Court has held that when an employee is acquitted

honourably in a criminal case, then in that event he is entitled

to the benefit of same in disciplinary proceedings sought to be

initiated against him.

8. The culpable act on part of an employee can result in

initiation of both criminal proceedings as well as disciplinary

proceedings against him. The degree of burden of proof in

both proceedings differ. In a criminal proceedings, it is 'beyond

reasonable doubt' and in disciplinary proceedings it is 'balance

of probability'. The same has to be discharged by the

prosecution in criminal case and the employer in the

departmental inquiry. Thus, a mere acquittal does not

necessarily result in termination of disciplinary proceedings in

favour of delinquent employee. However, as both the

proceedings originate from the same set of facts and the

witnesses relied upon are the same and the charges levelled

are the same, if there is an honourable acquittal, it shows that

the accused was acquitted not merely because prosecution

failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, but on the

contrary failed to prove the case miserably and there was an

honourable acquittal, it will not serve any purpose in the same

witnesses being examined once again in the disciplinary

proceedings.

9. In the instant case, the delinquent employee has been

discharged in criminal proceedings, which is much more than a

honourable acquittal. Admittedly, charges in the criminal case

as well as the disciplinary proceedings are similar. No doubt

appreciating the evidence let in, disciplinary authorities as well

as the First Appellate Authority have concluded that the

delinquent employee is guilty of the charges proved. Learned

Single Judge under the given peculiar facts and circumstances

of the case, in the interest of justice has re-appreciated the

evidence and has concluded that there was no proper

appreciation of all the relevant materials placed before the

disciplinary authority and has come to the conclusion that

findings of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate

authority to be erroneous. Learned Single Judge has

specifically come to the conclusion that as per the article of

charge one A.S.Shanbhag was the person behind manipulation

of certain records and instigated the customers to file the

complaint against the petitioner and that the said Shanbhag

has admitted the same and this aspect has not been

considered the disciplinary authority and the appellate

authority. With regard to the second imputation against the

delinquent employee that he made a false declaration about

death of a cattle owned by one J.R.Bandekar, the disciplinary

authority has failed to take into consideration that the claim

was made by J.R.Bandekar by making necessary declaration

and that there is no material to show that the delinquent

employee conspired with him. Similarly with regard to the third

charge that delinquent employee has accepted certain

percentage of loan amount as illegal gratification, it is noticed

that the allegation pertains to the year 1987-88 and the

complaint is lodged only in the year 1993 and there is no direct

imputation of the delinquent employee concerned by any of the

witnesses. Based on the said conclusion, learned Single Judge

has allowed the writ petition.

10. Learned advocate for the appellant is unable to point out,

as to how the appreciation of material on record by learned

Single Judge is erroneous.

11. Under the circumstances, we do not see any reason to

interfere in the well reasoned order of learned Single Judge

and the writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.