P. Ramachandra Reddy vs Nagarjuna Grameena Bank, Khammam
2021 Latest Caselaw 4083 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI


               WRIT PETITION NO.23902 OF 2003


                              ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to

quash the proceedings of the 1st respondent dt.12.03.2003 in

V&DP/4/96/03 whereby the petitioner was imposed with a

punishment of reduction to the lower post by declaring the same as

illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and to issue a consequential

direction to the 1st respondent to continue the petitioner as Officer

Scale-I with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or

orders as the Court may deem fit and proper.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this Writ Petition are that the

petitioner joined the service of the 1st respondent bank in the year

1977 as a Clerk-cum-Cashier and later on he was selected to the post

of Branch Manager in March, 1978. The petitioner was deputed to

work in the Farmers Service Cooperative Society, Tungathurthi in the

year 1981 which was sponsored by the 1st respondent bank and

worked there till he was repatriated in the year 1986. In the year 1991,

the said society had been sold by the 1st respondent to the District

Cooperative Central Bank, Nalgonda. On 21.04.1992, the petitioner

was issued a charge sheet by the 1st respondent alleging that there

were certain acts of misconduct committed by the petitioner while W.P.No.23902 of 2003

working in the society. The petitioner submitted his explanation

denying the charges levelled against him. The 1st respondent

appointed one Mr. Laxminarayana, Scale-II Officer as the enquiry

officer and initiated the proceedings. None of the documents

pertaining to the society were available since the society itself was

sold away by the 1st respondent to the District Cooperative Central

Bank. The enquiry officer was thereafter changed and one Mr.

Suleman, Scale-II Officer was appointed in place of Mr.

Lakshminarayana. The enquiry proceedings were dragged on by the

presenting officer of the bank for over a period of 11 years and there

was no evidence during the course of the enquiry. It was concluded.

Thereafter, the enquiry officer's report dated nil was supplied to the

petitioner and a show-cause notice dt.26.02.2003 was issued, wherein

it was held that all the charges have been proved against the petitioner

by the enquiry officer and hence he has come to a conclusion to

impose the punishment of reversion to the lower post. The petitioner

requested for a personal hearing and after hearing the petitioner, the

punishment of reversion to the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier was

awarded. Against the said reversal order, the petitioner preferred an

Appeal to the 2nd respondent. However, the same was not disposed of

in spite of lapse of six months and therefore, the petitioner filed this

Writ Petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vedula Srinivas,

submitted that the enquiry officer was appointed in the year 1992.

W.P.No.23902 of 2003

However, the enquiry report is neither dated nor signed by any officer

and it is not known as to the officer who has conducted the enquiry

and completed the enquiry. He submitted that such an enquiry report

cannot be considered nor relied upon for imposing any punishment

much less the punishment of reversion of the petitioner to the post of

Clerk-cum-Cashier. He further submitted that the enquiry even if it is

presumed to have been completed in accordance with law, has been

long drawn process and therefore it is vitiated by delay. He submitted

that the show-cause notice issued by the bank, which is placed at page

35 of the paper book, itself proves that the Chairman and Disciplinary

Authority had predetermined the punishment to be imposed on the

petitioner even before giving him a personal hearing. Therefore, there

is violation of the principles of natural justice. He therefore prayed

that the impugned order be set aside and the petitioner be allowed to

continue in the post of Officer, Scale-I with all consequential benefits.

In support of his contention that where there is a long delay, it vitiates

the proceedings and such proceedings cannot be relied upon, he

placed reliance upon the following decisions:

          (i)     BSNL and others Vs. Ram Pratap and another1


          (ii)     State of A.P. Vs. N. Radhakishan2





    1028 LawSuit(Del) 4051

    AIR 1998 SC 1833
                                                        W.P.No.23902 of 2003

4. Sri B. Raghavender Rao, learned counsel appeared for the

respondents and supported the impugned order.

5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on

record, it is seen that the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on

21.04.1992, whereas the show-cause notice for punishment was issued

on 26.02.2003 i.e., after 11 years of issuing the charge sheet. The

enquiry report is neither signed nor dated and it is not known as to the

enquiry officer who has conducted the enquiry. The gap between the

charge sheet and the show-cause notice has to be treated as the period

of enquiry and without there being any name of the enquiry officer

and also the date on which such an enquiry report has been submitted,

the enquiry report itself is vitiated and cannot be relied upon. The

judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner

support this view.

6. In the case of BSNL and others Vs. Ram Pratap and another

(1 supra) also, the show-cause notice was issued to the applicant

therein nearly after 10 years of the incident and it has been held that

where there was a delay of almost 19 years, grave prejudice has been

caused to the respondent No.1 therein and therefore, the proceedings

are vitiated.

7. In the case of State of A.P. Vs. N. Radhakishan (2 supra) also,

the charge memo was issued after 10 years and the case was

depending only on the departmental records and the enquiry officer W.P.No.23902 of 2003

had not examined them. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble High

Court of Delhi has quashed the charge memo.

8. The facts and circumstances in this case also being similar, this

Court quashes the punishment order dt.12.03.2003 and directs the 1st

respondent to treat the petitioner as Officer, Scale-I from the date of

the impugned order with all consequential benefits and back wages.

All the benefits shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three

(3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

10. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition

shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

Dt. .12.2021 Svv