Kerala High Court
K.P Raju vs The Chairman And Managing Director on 5 August, 2025
2025:KER:58543
W.P.(C).No.14177 of 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 14177 OF 2014
PETITIONER:
K.P RAJU
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.K.P.PARAMESWARAN,(MANAGER PUNJAB & SIND BANK
REMOVED FROM SERVICE)R/A.T C NO 15/1625, HOUSE
No.ETN, THYKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADV SHRI.P.V.MOHANAN
RESPONDENT:
THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
PUNJAB & SIND BANK, HEAD OFFICE, 140 BANK HOUSE,
21 RAJENDRA PALACE, NEW DELHI-110008
BY ADVS.
SRI.ABEL SUNIL GEORGE
SRI.DENU JOSEPH
SRI.SAJI MATHEW
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 05.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:58543
W.P.(C).No.14177 of 2014
2
S.MANU, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.14177 of 2014
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 05th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was an employee of the respondent Bank. He
entered into service on 10.7.1974. While he was working as the
Manager of the Thiruvananthapuram branch of the Bank he was
placed under suspension on 13.10.1992 contemplating
disciplinary action. Memo of charges was issued vide
proceedings dated 17.6.1993. Thereafter enquiry was conducted
and report was submitted on 30.11.1994. The enquiry officer
concluded that the petitioner was guilty of the charges.
2. Allegation against the petitioner and other employees
proceeded along with him was that there were serious lapses
and irregularities in the matter of providing accommodation to
one of the bank's customers and its associates. The said
customer firm was unauthorisedly accommodated beyond the
2025:KER:58543
sanctioned limit. The petitioner did not submit any written
statement of defence in response to the charges. Though he
participated in the enquiry, before the enquiry officer, he
admitted the various acts of misconduct alleged against him.
3. On the basis of the enquiry report, by proceedings
dated 24.6.1995, penalty of removal from service was imposed
on the petitioner. Though he filed appeal against the penalty
before the General Manager, it was rejected by order dated
21.9.1995. A review petition was submitted before the
Chairman and Managing Director. The same was also rejected
by order dated 25.11.1995.
4. The Central Bureau of Investigation conducted
investigation into the irregularities and charge sheet was filed.
When the disciplinary proceedings were concluded and the
petitioner was removed from service the criminal proceedings
were pending. Finally, by judgment dated 20.6.2007 the
petitioner was acquitted.
2025:KER:58543
5. Petitioner filed O.P.No.1503/1998 challenging the
order of punishment in the disciplinary proceedings. The
criminal court acquitted the petitioner during the pendency of
the said original petition. The original petition was disposed of
by this Court on 1.6.2010. This Court found that the petitioner
had admitted his guilt in the disciplinary proceedings and hence
he cannot take advantage of the acquittal in the criminal case to
contend that the order removing him from service was liable to
be set aside. This Court opined that the respondents should
consider, having regard to the judgment of the criminal court,
whether the decision removing the petitioner from service
should be reconsidered. The original petition was disposed of
with the observation that in the event of the petitioner filing an
appropriate representation before the Chairman and Managing
Director, the said authority shall consider the same, if necessary,
by placing it before the Board.
6. Pursuant to the judgment in O.P.No.1503/1998
petitioner submitted a representation to the Chairman and
2025:KER:58543
Managing Director on 09.07.2010. The representation was
considered by the Board and it was rejected. This was conveyed
to the petitioner by Ext.P9 communication dated 20.9.2010.
Petitioner, on 09.08.2011, submitted Ext.P10 request to the
Chairman and Managing Director to review the decision. By
Ext.P11 dated 24.10.2011 it was intimated by the Bank that the
earlier representation was considered by the Board and was
rejected. It was pointed out that there is no provision to review
such a decision. Petitioner thereafter filed the instant writ
petition.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
the acquittal of the petitioner was not properly taken into
account by the authorities while considering the request
submitted pursuant to the judgment of this Court. He also
contended that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated and
punishment imposed was improper. The learned counsel
contended that the Punjab and Sind Bank Employees' Pension
Regulations, 1995 contained a provision that resignation or
2025:KER:58543
dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the
service of the Bank shall entail for forfeiture of his entire past
service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary
benefits. He submitted that in April, 2002 a bipartite settlement
was entered into on disciplinary action and procedure therefor.
Removal from service with superannuation benefits was included
as a punishment for gross misconduct. Inter play of these
provisions was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
judgment in Civil Appeal No.10956/2013. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that employees who are otherwise entitled to
superannuation benefits under the Regulation, if visited with the
penalty of removal from service with superannuation benefits,
shall be entitled for those benefits. He hence contended that the
said aspect ought to have been noted by the Board while
considering the representation of the petitioner seeking review
of the punishment. The learned counsel further contended that
the Punjab and Sind Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995
was thereafter amended taking note of the judgment of the
2025:KER:58543
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, the position obtained after the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is totally different. The
learned counsel pointed out the proviso inserted in Regulation
22 which reads as under:-
"Provided that the removal of an employee,
who is employed in the service of the Bank as
a workman on full time work on permanent
basis or on part-time work on permanent basis
on scale wages, shall not entail for forfeiture of
his entire past service and shall qualify for
pensionary benefits."
8. He relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Channan Singh and another v. Smt.Jai Kaur [AIR
1970 SC 349] and Zile Singh v. State of Haryana and others
[(2004) 8 SCC 1] to contend that amendment made to the
Regulation in 2024 would operate retrospectively and hence the
petitioner would be entitled for the benefit of the same. The
learned counsel submitted that the orders impugned are
therefore liable to be set aside and may be declared that the
2025:KER:58543
petitioner is entitled to get pensionary benefits and other
terminal benefits.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank
submitted that the petitioner had admitted his guilt in the
enquiry and had not submitted even a written statement in
defence. He hence argued that the findings of the enquiry
officer and the decision of the disciplinary authority were
perfectly justified. He made reference to the judgment of the
criminal court and pointed out that the petitioner was granted
the benefit of doubt and the acquittal was therefore not
honourable. He contended that this Court in the earlier round of
litigation had found that there was no scope to interfere with the
findings and disciplinary action. However, out of leniency, this
Court directed the Bank to consider whether the punishment
imposed should be reconsidered. The matter was thereafter
placed before the Board. The Board after evaluating all relevant
facts and circumstances concluded that the punishment need
not be reviewed. He pointed out that the petitioner again
2025:KER:58543
submitted a representation which was ill conceived. He
submitted that the proceedings against the petitioner were
governed by the Punjab and Sind Bank Officer Employees'
(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981. The removal from
service, which shall not be a disqualification for future
employment, imposed on the petitioner was a major penalty
under the said Regulation. The Bank desisted from imposing the
punishment of dismissal which shall be a disqualification for
future employment. He submitted that the limited scope of this
writ petition is to examine whether the decision taken by the
Board of the respondent Bank not to revisit the punishment
imposed on the petitioner is proper or not. Relying on the
following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he
submitted that it is not the function of the High Court to sit in
appeal over the findings of the disciplinary authority. So long as
the findings of the disciplinary authority are supported by
evidence and the punishment is lawful, there is no scope for
interference under Article 226.
2025:KER:58543
1. State Bank of India v. Ram Lal Bhaskar and
Another [(2011) 10 SCC 249].
2. State Bank of India v. A.G.D.Reddy [2023 KHC
6803].
3. State of Rajasthan v. Bhupendra Singh [2024
SCC OnLine SC 1908].
10. He also contended that it is of utmost importance
that the officers and employees of the Banks shall maintain
discipline. The learned counsel relied on the following judgments
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard:-
1. Disciplinary Authority cum Regional
Manager and others v. Nikunja Bihari
Patnaik [(1996) 9 SCC 69].
2. Chairman and Managing Director, United
Commercial Bank and others v.
P.C.Kakkar [2003 (4) SCC 364].
11. He therefore submitted that integrity and honesty are
essential for officers of Banks and that higher standards are
expected from them. They are expected to discharge duties with
2025:KER:58543
utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do
nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. The petitioner
committed grave acts of misconduct and admitted the same.
He hence submitted that no interference is required in the
matter of punishment imposed on the petitioner.
12. The learned counsel for the Bank refuted the
submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding
the amendment made to the Punjab and Sind Bank Employees'
Pension Regulations, 1995. The learned counsel submitted that
the said amendment made in 2024 cannot be pressed in service
by the petitioner who was removed from service long ago. The
appellate remedies were also exhausted without success by the
petitioner even before the acquittal by the criminal court.
Moreover, the amendment to Regulation 22 of the Punjab and
Sind Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995 would apply
only in the case of workmen. Similarly, the terms of the bipartite
agreement were also applicable only in the case of workmen.
However, the petitioner was a Branch Manager at the time of
2025:KER:58543
removal and hence he cannot be considered as a workman. The
learned counsel hence submitted that the contentions raised by
the petitioner based on the bipartite settlement and recent
amendment to the Punjab and Sind Bank Employees' Pension
Regulations, 1995 are without merits.
13. I have analysed the contentions of both sides and
perused the pleadings and documents. In the earlier original
petition filed by the petitioner this Court concluded that the
disciplinary proceedings were justified and conclusions of the
enquiry authority and disciplinary authority were proper as the
petitioner had admitted his guilt. This Court also held that
acquittal by the criminal court cannot be a reason to set aside
the punishment imposed on the petitioner. This Court granted
only a very limited relief to the petitioner by permitting him to
submit a representation to the Chairman and Managing Director
of the Bank and directing the Bank to consider whether the
punishment imposed should be reconsidered. The matter was
thereafter considered by the Board which is the highest
2025:KER:58543
authority of the Bank. The Board concluded that the punishment
imposed on the petitioner was proper and need not be
reconsidered. The Board also noticed that the acquittal of the
petitioner was not honourable. Board further noticed that the
Bank had been put to huge loss due to the misconduct of the
petitioner and the penalty was imposed as he admitted the
misconduct. Thus, the Board decided to reject the
representation of the petitioner.
14. The punishment imposed was a major penalty
provided under the Punjab and Sind Bank Officer Employees'
(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981. Imposition of
penalty, as per the Regulations cannot be held as illegal or
improper. Only question to be considered is as to whether the
Board of the Bank ought to have considered the terms of the
bipartite settlement also while deciding to reject the
representation of the petitioner. It is to be noted that the
amendment relied on by the petitioner was only in the year
2024. Hence, the only relevant aspect was the applicability of
2025:KER:58543
the bipartite settlement. In this regard I find considerable force
in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank
that the bipartite settlement applied only in the case of
workmen. The petitioner was a Branch Manager and hence he
cannot be permitted to rely on the bipartite settlement.
Petitioner has no case that the Punjab and Sind Bank Officer
Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981 was not
applicable to him. In fact, the disciplinary proceedings including
the enquiry was conducted under the Regulation.
15. Scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings
while exercising the power of judicial review by the High Court is
very limited. In the instant case the petitioner admitted his guilt
in the disciplinary proceedings and a punishment provided under
the relevant Regulation was imposed on him. Appeal and
Review Applications were considered and rejected. Above all,
this Court found that the conclusions of the enquiry authority
and disciplinary authority were proper. As a matter of
indulgence, this Court, in the previous round of litigation,
2025:KER:58543
permitted the petitioner to submit a request for reconsidering
the punishment. The highest authority of the Bank, after
considering the request, found that no sufficient reasons are
there for revisiting the punishment. In such circumstances, I am
of the view that no relief can be granted in this writ petition.
In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
S.MANU
JUDGE
skj
2025:KER:58543
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14177/2014
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF CHARGES DTD 17/6/1993.
P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER DTD
30/11/1994
P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 24/6/1995
P4:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 21/9/1995
P5:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 25/11/1995
P6:-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO 47/1998 DTD
20/6/2007
P7:-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO 1503/1998(D)DTD
1/6/2010
P8:-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 9/7/2010
P9:-TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING HO/PERS/DAC/7497 DTD
20/9/2010
P10:-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 9/8/2011
P11:-TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING HO(P)/DAC/9697 DTD
24/10/2011
P12:-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO
10956/2013 DTD 11/12/2013
