Telangana High Court
Sarat Babu, Hyderabad vs The General Manager Hr, Hyderabad on 1 February, 2024
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.26169 of 2011
ORDER:
Petitioner in this writ petition has questioned the order, dated
30.11.2010 passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing him from
service and the order, dated 08.04.2011 passed by the Appellate
Authority confirming the earlier order of dismissal and sought for
consequential direction to the respondents to pay arrears of salary.
2. Heard both sides and perused the record.
3. Petitioner has joined the service of Respondent-Bank and his
services were regularized in Grade-III with effect from 14.11.1981.
While so, a charge sheet was issued to him on 29.06.2010 alleging
that on 12.06.2009, he had entered and posted for payment, a
cheque for Rs.5,40,00,000-00 received in clearing, despite several
discrepancies in the instrument, by colluding with outsiders in
perpetration of a fraud to the said amount. It is stated that at
relevant point of time, the petitioner had worked as a Deputy
Manager in the Cheque Processing Centre at Hyderabad. He sought
for time for submitting the explanation on the charge levelled against
him, however, without waiting for his explanation, an Inquiry Officer
was appointed. He participated in the inquiry on 18.09.2010 and
pleaded not guilty and requested for defence Assistant. It is
2 JS, J
contended that two witnesses were examined on behalf of the
department as MW-1 and MW-2, who were not concerned with his
work at Cheque Processing Centre. It is the case of petitioner that
the process of passing of cheque is that, first of all, the cheque will
go to the Service Centre from where it will be sent to the Cheque
Processing Centre along with the floppy received from the clearing
house. The duty of the Officer Incharge of Cheque Processing Centre
is to upload the floppy containing the total data relating to the
cheques. It is stated that the subject cheque bearing No.760585,
dated 09.06.2009 favouring M/s. Vishal Computer Peripherals &
Solutions issued by the A.P. State Finance Corporation and presented
through ICICI Bank, was sent to the Assistant Manager to verify the
signature on the cheque and the particulars entered by the clerk
concerned with regard to payees name, date of instrument and the
balance position in the payees account. According to petitioner, his
duty was to upload the floppy received from the clearing house and
to allot the branch wise cheques to the staff. In the affidavit, the
petitioner has summarized his duties as under.
i. To upload floppy
ii. To distribute all cheques
iii. SOLID closing
3 JS, J
4. Thus, it is his contention that he followed the guidelines and
discharged his duties diligently as per the regulations by taking
abundant care and caution, and inspite of the same, the Disciplinary
Authority has awarded major penalty of dismissing him from service.
The Appellate Authority also failed to consider the grounds raised by
him and mechanically dismissed the appeal without taking into
consideration the fact whether the Deputy Manager is obligated to
verify the cheque or not and verification of the said instrument is
beyond the duties that are entrusted to him. Accordingly, he prayed
for setting aside the impugned orders of punishment.
5. Respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that the
petitioner had joined the service of the erstwhile Andhra Bank
initially in clerical cadre and thereafter as G-I Officer with effect from
14.11.1981 and subsequently promoted as Deputy Manager i.e. as
Middle Manager Grade Scale-II cadre. It is stated that while the
petitioner was working as Deputy Manager in Cheque Processing
Centre of the Bank at Hyderabad, he was alleged to have perpetrated
a fraud on the Bank for a huge amount of Rs.5,40,00,000-00. It is
stated that on 12.06.2009, ICICI Bank Limited, Service Centre,
Hyderabad, presented in clearing, a cheque No.760585, dated
09.06.2009 for the aforesaid amount favouring M/s. Vishal
Computers Peripheral & S. Solutions purportedly issued by M/s. A.P.
4 JS, J
State Financial Corporation. The transaction for processing the said
cheque was entered and posted at the Cheque Processing Centre,
Service Centre, Hyderabad, by the petitioner herein despite various
discrepancies, narrated as under.
a. Colour of the instrument was different when compared with
other Cheques.
b. Printing is not sharp.
c. Size of MICR Bandwidth is different.
d. Width of white band at the top of the Cheque differs.
e. Alignment of Bank Logo differs in comparison to other
Cheques of the account hold.
f. Colour of Bank Logo defers.
g. Signatures of the drawers as the instrument appear to be
scanned.
6. The above fact has come to light when a phone call was
received from the ICICI Bank enquiring as to the genuineness of the
above cheque. On that, the respondent has enquired with the A.P.
State Finance Corporation with regard to issuance of cheque, upon
which, it was informed to them that the above numbered cheque was
issued for Rs.2,384-00 on 15.06.2009 in favour of one M.Ramesh
and that the said cheque was not even delivered to him. Therefore,
they lodged a complaint with the Police on 17.06.2009 which was
registered as Crime No.151 of 2009 for the offence under Section
420 of IPC by the Central Crime Station, D.D., Hyderabad. During
5 JS, J
the course of investigation, the Police arrested the petitioner and his
son and seized an amount of Rs.15 Lakhs from the petitioner and
Rs.188.50 lakhs from his son. Police have also seized some more
amounts from four other persons and in total, they seized an amount
of Rs.3,29,50,000-00. It is the case of respondent that the
petitioner, in collusion with outsiders, has perpetrated the fraud on
the Bank by entering and posting the aforesaid fake/fabricated
cheque favouring M/s. Vishal Computer Peripherals Solutions.
7. With regard to the inquiry conducted, it is stated that a charge
sheet was served on the petitioner on 29.06.2010 asking him to
submit his statement of defence within ten days. Since the petitioner
did not submit his statement of defence within the stipulated time,
an inquiry was ordered by appointing an Inquiry Officer. The inquiry
was adjourned on various dates due to non-attendance of the
petitioner and ultimately, the petitioner had attended the same on
18.09.2019 and pleaded not guilty of the charges. Accordingly, the
inquiry was concluded on 05.10.2010. It is stated that two witnesses
were examined on behalf of the department as MWs.1 and 2 and the
petitioner had also cross-examined them. The documents marked in
the inquiry proceedings as exhibits MEX1 to MEX5 have also been
furnished to the petitioner and he was also provided with the
opportunity of verifying the documents with originals with regard to
6 JS, J
duties of petitioner. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the
cheque in question was entered and passed by the petitioner on
02.06.2009 as per a pre-plan and in collusion with the outsiders who
have perpetrated fraud on the Bank. It is denied that a false case
was foisted against the petitioner and stated that there is no need for
the Bank to foist a false case against its own employee without there
being any fraud. The penalty of dismissal from service is imposed on
the petitioner after taking into consideration all relevant factors such
as seriousness of the charge, material available on record and also
the submissions of petitioner from time to time and the appellate
authority also considered the appeal on merits and dismissed the
same. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition as there
are no merits to interfere with the impugned orders.
8. The charge against the petitioner is that on 12.06.2009, the
Service Centre of ICICI Bank, Hyderabad has presented a cheque
bearing No.760585, dated 09.06.2009 for Rs.5,40,00,000-00
favouring M/s. Vishal Computers Peripheral & S. Solutions issued by
M/s. A.P. State Financial Corporation and the petitioner, who was
working as a Deputy Manager in the Cheque Processing Centre, has
entered and posted the aforesaid cheque for payment despite glaring
discrepancies, namely, the colour of the instrument was different,
etc. as extracted above. On receiving a phone call from the ICICI
7 JS, J
Bank with regard to the genuineness of the above cheque, they
enquired with the A.P. State Financial Corporation with regard to the
same, upon which, they came to know that cheque bearing
No.760585 was issued for Rs.2,384-00 on 15.06.2009 in favour of
one Mr.M.Ramesh and that the said cheque was not even delivered
to him. Thus, it came to light that the petitioner, in collusion with
some outsiders, has played fraud on the Bank by preparing a fraud
cheque. It has come on record that pursuant to the criminal
complaint lodged by the Respondent-Bank, the Police have
investigated into the matter and seized a total sum of
Rs.3,29,50,000-00 from the petitioner, his son, Assistant Manager of
ICICI Bank and three outsiders. The defence taken by the petitioner
is that he was fraudulently made responsible for the charge, as being
a Deputy Manager, he was authorized to clear the cheques valued up
to Rs.10 Lakhs only and since the present cheque was for
Rs.5,40,00,000-00, he cannot be made responsible for the same.
The other defence is that he was acquitted from the criminal case by
a competent Court and the appeal preferred against such acquittal
has also ended in dismissal, and thus, contend that he is not liable
for the charge levelled.
9. With regard to the above defence taken by the petitioner, it is
to be seen that during the course of inquiry, petitioner had
8 JS, J
participated in the proceedings by engaging a defence assistant to
defend his case. He has also cross-examined the two witnesses who
were examined in support of the Bank and he was also afforded with
the opportunity of examining the five documents marked by the Bank
in the inquiry. After considering the entire evidence, the Inquiry
Officer has observed that the petitioner had acted hand-in-glove with
outsiders and cheated the Bank. The recovery of an amount of
Rs.203 Lakhs from the petitioner and his son apart from some more
amount from four other persons also established the involvement of
petitioner in the matter. Having participated in the inquiry and
having cross-examined the witnesses and also having examined the
documents marked during the course of inquiry, the petitioner
cannot contend that the inquiry was not properly conducted.
Further, it is settled law that acquittal in a criminal case has no
bearing on the departmental proceedings.
10. Counsel for petitioner has referred to the judgment of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in W.P.No.21578 of 2013,
dated 14.09.2023, wherein, the order passed by the Tribunal
confirming the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner therein
was set aside in view of the clear acquittal of petitioner therein in the
criminal case. This judgment is not applicable to the case of the
petitioner because he was acquitted in the criminal case on the
9 JS, J
ground that there was no chance for the petitioner to scan the
signatures of the officials of A.P. State Financial Corporation. It is to
be seen that the charge against the petitioner is that he, in collusion
with some others, had altogether fabricated a cheque and posted for
payment. The glaring discrepancies extracted above demonstrate
that the cheque was a fabricated one. Therefore, the petitioner
cannot rely on the verdict of the Criminal Court when the charge
against him has been established in the inquiry proceedings.
11. Counsel for respondent, in support of his case, has relied on
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and
others v. Constable Sunil Kumar 1, wherein, when a Division
Bench of High Court has set aside the order of dismissal, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has set aside the said judgment by allowing the
appeal filed by the department holding that the punishment imposed
was not disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. The
respondent has also relied on another judgment of Supreme Court in
State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy 2, wherein, it is held that in a
disciplinary proceedings, the question of burden of proof would
depend upon the nature of the charge. Further, in the case of State
Bank of India and Others v. P.Zadenga 3 relied on by the counsel
for respondent, it is held that the acquittal by a Criminal Court would
(2023) 3 Supreme Court Cases 622
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1064
2023 SCC Online SC 1240
10 JS, J
not debar an employer from exercising the power of conducting
departmental proceedings in accordance with the rules and
regulations and the two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are
entirely different and operate in different fields and have different
objectives.
12. All the aforesaid judgments relied on by the counsel for
respondent support their case. In this case, the petitioner was given
ample opportunity to participate in the inquiry proceedings and he
has also participated in the inquiry, cross-examined the witnesses of
the department, he was provided with all the documents marked by
the department during the inquiry proceedings and only after
considering the defence of the petitioner, the charge against the
petitioner was held proved. Though the petitioner contends that he
was not having power to deal with cheques valued more than Rs.10
Lakhs as a Deputy Manager, it has come on record and proved
beyond doubt that he dealt with the cheque in question and posted it
for payment, as has been proved through the documents produced
before the Inquiry Officer. If the petitioner was not having power to
deal with subject cheque as has been contended by him, he ought to
have declined to deal with it, but instead of doing so, he posted it for
payment, and hence, the said defence cannot be accepted. Since the
allegation against the petitioner has been established in the inquiry
11 JS, J
proceedings, the order of dismissal has been passed and this Court is
of the considered view that the punishment of dismissal from service
is also proportionate to the gravity of the charge proved. Hence, the
petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this writ petition.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed as
devoid of merit. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date:01.02.2024
Ksk
