Kerala High Court

K.S.Anilkumar vs Union Of India on 27 January, 2021

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 7TH MAGHA, 1942

                     WP(C).No.17581 OF 2016(W)


PETITIONER:
              K.S.ANILKUMAR, AGED 54, S/O.LATE K.K.SREEDHARAN,
              SREESARAS, POOTHOTTA P.O., MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE,
              KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 307.

              SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
              SMT.SEENU SADIQUE

RESPONDENTS:
       1     UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
             BANKING AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI.

      2       STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE
              HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA TRIVANDRUM 695 012, REP. BY
              ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

      3       MANAGING DIRECTOR
              STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA,
              TRIVANDRUM - 695 012.

      4       THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
              STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA
              TRIVANDRUM - 695 012.

      5       THE GENERAL MANAGER (HR & SAMG)
              STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA,
              TRIVANDRUM 695 012.

      6       THE GENERAL MANAGER (OPERATION)
              DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,
              HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM - 695 012.

      7       THE CHIEF MANAGER (ENQUIRY)
              STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA,
              TRIVANDRUM 695 012.

              SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC
              SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC
              SRI P M MANOJ SR GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD           ON
27.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.17581 OF 2016(W)

                                     2


                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 27th day of January 2021

The petitioner says that while he was working as a Middle

Management Grade II Officer in the services of the second

respondent - State Bank of Travancore (which subsequently

has merged with State Bank of India), he was proceeded under

a disciplinary enquiry, on the basis of an allegation that he was

implicated in a criminal case. The petitioner says that the

criminal case against him was registered before the Court of

the Special Judge, (SPE/CBI) and that he was acquitted by the

said Court, as is evident from Ext.P15. The petitioner says that

he has, therefore, preferred a further review before the

competent Authority of the Bank, seeking that his punishment

be revisited , on account of the fact that he has been

honourably acquitted by the Trial Court.

2. However, in response to the submissions made on

behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel, Sri.Varghese

C.Kuriakose, the learned standing counsel for the Bank -

Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, submitted that the petitioner cannot claim

any locus to approach this Court in this manner because he

was found guilty through a disciplinary enquiry and removed WP(C).No.17581 OF 2016(W)

from service, by imposing a punishment of compulsory

retirement as early as in the year 2005. He submitted that, as

is evident from the impugned orders, they were all considered

by the competent and disciplinary Authorities and that all his

contentions had been validly rejected, thus confirming the

punishment against him. He submitted that since the petitioner

has already invoked his remedy of review before the Authority

earlier, a second review at this stage is not possible; adding to

his submissions saying that, in any event of the matter, the

impugned orders would show that the petitioner's punishment

imposed by the Bank was not solely based on the criminal

proceedings but on cogent and reliable evidence against him,

that were gathered and proved during enquiry.

3. The learned standing counsel relied on State Bank of

Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya [(2011) 4 SCC

584] and Deputy Inspector General of Police v.

S.Samuthiram [(2013) 1 SCC 598] in support of his

contentions that the disciplinary enquiry is an independent

proceeding from the criminal action and that even if a person is

subsequently acquitted, it would not amount to the obliteration

of the findings in the disciplinary enquiry. He, therefore, WP(C).No.17581 OF 2016(W)

prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

4. Even though I find substantial force in the submissions

of Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, the fact remains that the petitioner was

facing a criminal trial before the Court of the Special Judge,

(SPE/CBI) at the time when the impugned orders were issued.

There is no doubt that the Bank maintains that the petitioner

was found guilty independently of the criminal charges against

him and that he had been awarded the punishment of removal

from service on the basis of evidence obtained and established

during the disciplinary proceedings.

5. Moving on, it is also without doubt that it is a settled

position of law that merely because a person is acquitted

subsequently, he would not be entitled to challenge disciplinary

action, if the same had proceeded following due procedure and

had led to the punishment being imposed based on reliable

evidence.

6. That said, however, one aspect that persuades my mind

to offer some latitude to the petitioner is that his punishment

and all the impugned orders were issued at the time when he

was thought to be involved in a criminal offence and when the

trial before the Court of the Special Judge, (SPE/CBI) was WP(C).No.17581 OF 2016(W)

pending. However, through Ext.P15, he says that he has been

honourably acquitted and I am, therefore, of the view that the

Bank must, at the least, show him the lenitude of

reconsidering his matter based on this information, though I

am not saying for a moment that merely because he has been

acquitted, his disciplinary action would stand set aside. I am

not saying so and it may not be construed as such, but I am

persuaded to grant one opportunity to the petitioner, so that he

can approach the Authority,, based on Ext.P15, for review of

his punishment and nothing else.

7. I hasten to add that I am allowing this benefit to the

petitioner only because of the afore reasons and therefore, that

it will only be up to the competent Authority of the Bank to

consider whether the punishment of the petitioner can be

reduced to some extent, based on Ext.P15; but I leave it to the

discretion of the said Authority to take a final decision based

on all the precedents that are cited on either side.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and

direct the competent Authority of the Bank to take up the

representation of the petitioner and consider the same in the

light of Ext.P15 judgment and take a decision as to whether the WP(C).No.17581 OF 2016(W)

petitioner's punishment, ordered through the impugned orders,

would require to be reviewed or whether it deserves to be

sustained, based on the relevant inputs.

The afore exercise shall be completed by the competent

Authority, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being

heard - either physically or through video conferencing - thus

leading to an appropriate decision thereon, as expeditiously as

is possible, but not later than two months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

I reiteratingly clarify that I have not gone into the merits

of any of the rival contentions of the parties and that I leave it

to the discretion of the competent Authority of the Bank to take

a final decision in terms of this judgment.




                                        Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

   Stu                                           JUDGE
 WP(C).No.17581 OF 2016(W)





                            Spoken to on 05.02.2021

The judgment in this writ petition was dictated by me on

on 27.01.2021. However, subsequently Sri.P.Ramakrishnan,

learned Standing Counsel for the Bank submitted that it was

omitted to be brought to the notice of this Court that Ext.P17

order had been issued on 22.04.2016, informing the petitioner

that second review is not permissible as per the provisions of

the applicable regulations. He therefore, prayed that the

judgment be vacated.

2. However, when I examine Ext.P17, it is clear that

the Bank has refused to consider the petitioner's review,

namely Ext.P16, saying that a second one is not maintainable

because his earlier review petition, submitted before the order

of acquittal had been issued stood rejected. Of course, Ext.P17

also says that an acquittal by a criminal court does not render

a completed discriminatory proceedings void.

3. It is obvious that the petitioner's contentions based

on acquittal has never been considered by the Bank properly

since they have rejected Ext.P16 for want of provisions to

consider a second revision petition as per the regulations. WP(C).No.17581 OF 2016(W)

4. That said, though an acquittal by a criminal court

does not automatically obliterate the disciplinary proceedings,

the fact remains that it will have some bearing on the findings

and punishment imposed through such enquiry.

5. I, therefore, cannot see any reason why the Bank

should not reconsider the petitioner's review, namely Ext.P16,

on its merits, in terms of my directions above especially since I

have directed it to be dealt with in any particular manner.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not think that any

modification to my judgment is necessary.

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

LEK WP(C).No.17581 OF 2016(W)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST THAT WAS MADE BY M/S.TARGET OVERSEAS EXPORTS PVT. LTD TO KADUTHURUTHY BRANCH OF 2ND RESPONDENT WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY S.MUKHERJEE THE THEN MANAGER.

P2 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16/11/1998.

P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.RM3/K/33 DATED 17/6/1999.

P4 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.AGM 3K DATED 9/9/99

P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COVERING NOTE AGM II/CH/ DATED 15/9/1999.

P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SANCTION ORDER DATED 27/12/1999

P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTE PREPARED BY THE ASST.

GENERAL MANAGER TO THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER RECOMMENDING SANCTION

P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE R.C.NO.20A/2003/CBI/KER FILED BY THE INSPECTOR CBI

P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED 19/11/2004 ISSUED BY GENERAL MANAGER (OPERATIONS)

P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 31/12/2004

P11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT DATED 7/9/2005 ISSUED BY 7TH RESPONDENT

P12 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/12/2005 PASSED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT