Telangana High Court
V.V.S.Gupta, vs The Indian Bank, on 26 April, 2024
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.6583 of 2013
ORDER:
Petitioner is aggrieved of the Order, dated 10.02.2012 passed by the
4th respondent dismissing him from service and the subsequent orders
passed by the 3rd and 2nd respondents dismissing the appeal and revision
respectively. He is further aggrieved of not returning his documents
pledged for obtaining house loan, even after discharging the liability.
2. Heard both sides and perused the record.
3. Petitioner has worked as a Manager with the Respondents' Bank. A
charge sheet, dated 29.12.2010 was issued to him framing 16 charges
relating to the period when he worked as the Branch Manager of
Mahabubabad and Kothaguda Branches. The gist of the charges framed
against the petitioner is that he credited the amounts of crop loan incentive
scheme to the parking account instead of crediting the same to the
respective accounts of the beneficiaries, and thereafter, transferred such
amount from parking account to the sundry deposit account and withdrawn
cash on different dates. Out of 16 charges, which are similar in nature, 10
were proved, 3 were partially proved and 3 were not proved in the inquiry
2 JS, J
conducted. Therefore, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The
appeal and revision filed by him were also dismissed.
4. The main contention of petitioner is that the impugned order of
dismissal has been passed without conducting proper inquiry and without
following the principles of natural justice. It is also his case that the appeal
and revision were also mechanically rejected without considering his
contentions. Therefore, he prays to set aside the orders passed by the
disciplinary authority, the appellate authority as well as the revisional
authority. It is his further case that the respondents are not returning the
documents deposited by him at the time of obtaining house loan in spite of
his paying the entire loan amount and closing such account.
5. Respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner
has committed misconduct on multiple occasions therefore, a charge sheet
was issued to him framing 16 charges as he diverted the amounts to be
credited to the accounts of beneficiaries of Government schemes and
withdrawn in cash, which is unbecoming of an employee of the Bank.
Since 10 charges have been absolutely proved and three have been
partially proved, the impugned order of dismissal has been passed, as the
petitioner is not eligible to be continued in the service of the Bank. It is
stated that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the procedure laid
3 JS, J
down and also by observing the principles of natural justice. The appeal
and revision filed by the petitioner were also rejected by passing well-
reasoned orders and the petitioner was also communicated all the orders
from time to time. Petitioner was given ample opportunities to defend
himself in the inquiry proceedings and he has also offered his explanations
on different occasions. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to make a
vague allegation that the inquiry was not properly conducted.
Accordingly, they prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
6. The allegations against the petitioner are that he has misused his
position as Scale-II Manager of the Bank and indulged in lot of deviations
like not releasing the crop loan incentives to the beneficiaries directly and
mis-utilizing the amounts by issuing DDs in favour of parties who were
not entitled to such funds and unauthorizedly drawing amounts from the
sundry account by transferring funds first to the parking account and from
there to the sundry account. According to the respondents, out of the 16
charges levelled against the petitioner, 10 were completely proved, 3 were
partly proved and 3 were not proved. Therefore, keeping in view the
gravity of the charges which are not expected of a Manager of the Branch,
the petitioner was dismissed from service. The only grievance projected
by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the inquiry was not properly
4 JS, J
conducted and that the principles of natural justice are not followed. It is
to be seen that during the inquiry proceedings, the petitioner has
participated and has given his explanations on each and every charge and
only after considering such explanations, findings were recorded by the
Inquiry Officer. When the petitioner was afforded with an opportunity to
putforth his contentions on each and every charge and having submitted his
explanations for such charges, it is not open for him to contend that proper
opportunity was not given to him and that the principles of natural justice
were violated. It is also to be seen that after passing orders in the
disciplinary proceedings, such orders were communicated to the petitioner
so as to avail the remedies available under law. Petitioner has failed to
narrate as to how the inquiry was not properly conducted and as to how the
principles of natural justice were violated. Having not done so, he cannot
make the vague allegation to that effect.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner, in support of his case, has relied on
the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in Vinu Madhavan v. State
Bank of India 1, wherein, after closure of loan account, the respondents
were directed to release the title documents and other security documents
furnished by the petitioner therein. This judgment is applicable to the case
2023 SCC OnLine Ker 1608
5 JS, J
of the petitioner, as in the present case also, according to the petitioner, he
has discharged the entire loan amount and the account was also closed.
Therefore, he is entitled for return of such documents.
8. The petitioner has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in
State Bank of India v. D.C. Aggarwal and another 2, wherein, it is held
that once the Disciplinary Authority found that the action of respondent did
not cause any harm to the bank nor the respondent gained out of it, the
High Court cannot be said to have misdirected itself in quashing the order
of procedural error. The above judgment is not applicable to the case on
hand, as in the present case, the petitioner, in spite of crediting the amounts
to the beneficiaries accounts, has first credited to the parking account, from
there sundry account and later withdrawn cash for himself. Thus, he
caused loss to the bank and gained for himself.
9. Counsel for petitioner has also relied on another judgment of the
Apex Court in Union Bank of India and others v. C.G.Ajay Babu and
another3, wherein, it is held that forfeiture of gratuity is not automatic on
dismissal from service and that it is subject to sub-Sections (5) and (6) of
Section 4 of The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. This judgment is squarely
applicable to the case of petitioner and the petitioner herein is also entitled
AIR 1993 SC 1197
Civil Appeal No.8251 of 2018, dated 14.08.2018
6 JS, J
for gratuity and other benefits, however, after forfeiting the amounts to the
extent of damage or loss caused to the Bank.
10. The learned counsel for petitioner has further relied on another
judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan and
others4, wherein, the order of termination as well as the orders of appellate
and revisional authorities were set aside since the witnesses examined and
the documents produced in the departmental inquiry as well as the criminal
proceedings are identical and the criminal Court has held the charges as
not proved. This judgment is not applicable to the case of the petitioner
herein, as in the present case, the witnesses examined and the documents
relied on in the inquiry proceedings are different from that of the
documents marked in the criminal case. Though two witnesses examined
in the inquiry proceedings were also examined in the criminal case, two
more witnesses were examined in the criminal case. Similarly, the Inquiry
Officer has relied on 15 documents in the inquiry proceedings, whereas, in
the criminal case, only six documents were marked i.e. the complaint,
report of PW.3, FIR and three vouchers. Therefore, the evidence in the
departmental proceedings is different from that of the evidence in the
criminal case. Thus, the petitioner cannot rely on the aforesaid judgment
Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2023, dated 04.12.2023
7 JS, J
so as to seek for quashing the departmental proceedings on the ground that
he was acquitted in the criminal case registered against him in C.C.No.488
of 2011 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsampet.
11. For the aforesaid reasons and as the punishment of dismissal is
commensurate with the gravity of the charges proved against the petitioner,
this Court is of the considered view that it is not a case to interfere with the
proceedings initiated against the petitioner and the writ petition is liable to
be dismissed.
12. However, the respondents themselves have admitted in the counter
affidavit that they have filed civil suit in O.S.No.55 of 2013 before
competent Civil Court claiming damages from the petitioner and the same
is still pending. It is to be further noted that some of the beneficiaries
whose amounts were diverted to the accounts of unauthorized persons,
have received such amounts from the petitioner and the same has also been
recorded in the inquiry report. Since the suit for damages is pending and
since the beneficiaries are paid their amounts, this Court is of the
considered view that the petitioner is entitled for the terminal benefits after
withholding the amount claimed under the suit.
8 JS, J
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the
respondents to return the house loan documents of the petitioner, if such
loan is completely repaid and the account is closed. Further, the
respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner, the gratuity and other
service benefits, if not already paid, by withholding the amounts claimed in
the Civil Suit filed against him. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 26.04.2024
Ksk
