03. It has been decided to treat the period spent by
you under suspension as "not on duty". Accordingly,
you will not be eligible for any back wages and other
attendant benefits other than what has already been
paid to you by way of subsistence allowance."
3. This was challenged in the writ petition by the
aggrieved employee. The learned Writ Court did not
10. Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
writ petition, shall stand closed."
4. The appellant-Bank being aggrieved has preferred
this Appeal. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-
Bank, inter alia, submits that the charges have been
proved, which are serious in nature and amount to grave
misconduct. The learned Writ Court did not interfere with
the findings of the Enquiry Officer, and rightly so, as the
procedure prescribed for conducting such proceedings was
duly followed. However, the learned Writ Court modified
the punishment by treating the monetary recovery of
Rs.1,65,000/- as not a punishment, particularly in view of
the fact that the entire amount had subsequently been
recovered by the Bank from the borrowers. So far as the
2nd punishment is concerned, learned Writ Court was of
the view that a major penalty of reduction to a lower stage
in time scale of pay by five (5) stages with cumulative effect
is not provided under Rule 39(1)(b)(i) of Andhra Pradesh
Grameena Vikas Bank (Officers and Employees) Service
Regulations, 2010 (for short, Regulations, 2010). Learned
Writ Court therefore reduced a major penalty imposed by
the disciplinary authority to a reduction to a lower stage in
time scale of pay by two stages with cumulative effect. The
appellant-Bank was directed to give consequential effect to
the monetary benefits to the writ petitioner and pay the
same to him within a stipulated period. Learned Senior
Counsel for the appellant-Bank has drawn the attention of
this Court to the relevant Disciplinary Rules, which are at
page Nos.51 and 52.
5. It is submitted that the learned Writ Court perhaps
mixed the provisions under Rule 39(1)(b)(i) read with Rule
39(1)(a)(v) of the Regulations, 2010, the latter of which falls
under the category of 'minor penalties'. In fact, the Writ
Court, while reducing/ modifying the major penalty,
applied it with cumulative effect, though such a course is
not permissible under Regulation 39(1)(a)(v). It is submitted
that in such circumstances, even if the learned Writ Court,
in exercise of judicial review, is of the opinion that the
penalty imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the
established misconduct, the appropriate course would be
to remand the matter to the disciplinary authority to pass a
fresh order on penalty. Moreover, the disciplinary
authority, having taken into account the age of the writ
petitioner and also the fact that he was at the fag end of
his service, did not impose a major penalty, such as
removal or dismissal from service. Rather, a penalty of
reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by five
stages with cumulative effect was imposed with further
direction that writ petitioner will not earn any increments
during the said period.
6. He further submitted that learned Writ Court ought
not to have interfered with the quantum of penalty,
particularly, when serious charges of misappropriation
were proved after conducting a full-fledged disciplinary
proceedings. Therefore, the impugned order may be set
aside.
7. Leaned Senior Counsel for the respondent/writ
petitioner has submitted on merits of findings of Enquiry
Officer. He submitted that the Enquiry Officer has failed to
take into account that the charges levelled against the writ
petitioner did not pertain to deliberate misconduct, but on
account of transitional issues in the Bank's operations
from manual processing to computerization. He further
submitted that the Writ Court has therefore proceeded to
interfere with the quantum of penalty and reduced the
same. It is further submitted that advances made to the
concerned borrowers were recovered in the meantime.
Therefore, learned Writ Court found it inappropriate to
allow recovery of the said amount from the writ petitioner.
The appellant-Bank was therefore directed to refund the
amount recovered from the concerned borrowers and pay
the same to the writ petitioner. It is stated that writ
petitioner has retired now. If the impugned order is
interfered with, it may lead to severe financial hardships to
the writ petitioner. Therefore, this Court may refrain from
interfering with the matter in the instant Appeal.
8. We have considered the submissions of learned
counsel for the parties and taken note of material placed
on record. Let it be indicted herein that findings of the
Enquiry Officer on the charges established against the writ
petitioner have not been touched upon by the learned Writ
Court. The learned Writ Court however proceeded to modify
the penalty in the manner indicated above. In this regard it
is pertinent to refer to the relevant Disciplinary Rules,
which are extracted hereunder:
"R.39. Penalties:- Without prejudice to the foregoing
regulations of this Chapter, an officer or employee who
commits a breach of these regulations or who displays
negligence, inefficiency or indolence or who commits acts
detrimental to the interests of the Bank or in conflict
with its instructions, or who commits a breach of
discipline or is guilty of any other acts of misconduct,
shall be liable for any one or more penalties as follows,
namely, -
1. Officers:
(a) Minor Penalties
(i) Censure;
(ii) withholding or stoppage of increments of pay
without cumulative effect;
(iii) withholding of promotion;
(iv) recovery from emoluments or such other
amounts as may be due to him, of the whole or
part or any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank by
negligence or breach of orders;
(v) reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay
for a period not exceeding two years without
cumulative effect;
(b) Major Penalties:
(i) same as provided in item (v) of clause (a) of
sub-regulation (1) of regulation 39, reduction to a
lower stage in time scale of pay for a specified
period with further directions as to whether or not
the officer shall earn increments of pay during the
period of such reduction and whether on expiry of
such period the reduction shall or shall not have
the effect of postponing the future increments of
his pay;
(ii) reduction to a lower grade or post;
(iii) compulsory retirement;
(iv) removal from service which shall not be a
disqualification for future employment;
(v) dismissal which shall ordinarily be a
disqualification for future employment."
9. Perusal of the penalty provided under the
Regulations, 2010 would show that the disciplinary
authority may save as provided in item (v) of clause (a) of
Regulation 39, impose a major penalty of reduction to a
lower stage in time scale of pay for a specified period with
further directions as to whether or not the officer shall
earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction
and whether on expiry of such period the reductions hall or
shall not have the effect to postponing the future
increments of his pay.
10. We have been informed that in the Banking service,
the officers may go up to the time scale of pay upto
stage-17. Therefore, it appears that the penalty rules do
not stipulate as to the period for which reduction to a lower
stage in time scale of pay can be ordered depending on the
gravity of the charges. The Disciplinary Authority has
chosen to impose a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in
time scale of pay by five stages with cumulative effect in
case of the delinquent employee taking into account not
only the gravity of the charges established, but also
considering the age of the employee.
11. The learned Writ Court appears to have
misinterpreted the provisions under Regulation 39(1)(b)(i),
which provides for 'major penalty', with the 'minor penalty'
prescribed under Rule 39(1)(a)(v), which provides for
reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay for a period
not exceeding two years without cumulative effect. The
imposition of a reduction in time scale of pay with
cumulative effect is not contemplated under the minor
penalty provisions. In any case, if the writ Court in exercise
of judicial review is of the opinion that penalty imposed is
shockingly disproportionate to the established misconduct,
the Writ Court may remand the matter to the disciplinary
authority to pass a fresh order on the quantum of penalty.
In this case, the charges levelled against the writ petitioner
were serious in nature and also relate to misappropriation.
The charges have been established. The findings of the
Enquiry Officer have not been interfered by the learned
Writ Court. Writ petitioner was not imposed with a major
penalty of removal or dismissal from the service, which
could have been treated as shockingly disproportionate to
the established misconduct.
12. In such circumstances, it appears that the learned
Writ Court erred in modifying the penalty imposed by the
disciplinary authority and substituting it with a penalty of
reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay for a period
not exceeding two years with cumulative effect. We are
therefore inclined to interfere with the impugned order so
far as it has been interfered with the quantum of penalty
imposed by the disciplinary authority.
13. For all the above reasons, the present Appeal is
allowed. The order of the leaned Writ Court so far relates to
modification in quantum of penalty and payment of
consequential benefits to the writ petitioner stands set
aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
Date: 23.07.2025
Kkm
