Telangana High Court
N. Tukaram Naik, vs The Canara Bank, on 1 May, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
wp_41185_2014
NBK, J
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.41185 of 2014
ORDER:
The petitioner challenges the punishment of Compulsory
Retirement imposed on him pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings
conducted with regard to the allegations in the Charge Memo dated
15.02.2013.
2. The facts of the case, precisely, as per the writ affidavit, is as
follows:
The petitioner joined the respondent-BankasaClerkin1984, and
subsequently obtained promotions and, as of 2010, he became a Scale
III Officer. He is stated to have earned recognition for improving the
performance of the Branch by achieving loan disbursal and recovery
targets. It is alleged that when he worked as Branch Manager at
Akulavarighanapur Branch, Warangal District, in the year 2012, he
indiscriminately disbursed loans to Kauldars (Tenant Farmers), and
demanded and accepted bribes to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,500/-
for disbursing/crediting the loan amount to the accounts of the farmers.
A preliminary enquiry was conducted on 28.08.2012 and 29.08.2012,
wherein nothing could be elicited about the alleged bribes, except for
that the petitioner was not available in the bank when the farmers came
to the bank for loans. It is alleged that the impatience on the part of
some loan applicants led to the complaint and preliminary enquiry, and
as nothing came out in the enquiry against the petitioner, a complaint
was obtained from the farmers showing a uniform bribe amount of
wp_41185_2014
NBK, J
Rs.12,500/-. Based on preliminary enquiry report, the Proceedings dated
16.10.2012 were issued seeking explanation of the petitioner and the
petitioner replied to the same on 09.11.2012. Not satisfied with the
explanation, a Charge Memo dated 15.02.2013 was issued, to which the
petitioner submitted his explanation dated 01.03.2013, however, an
enquiry was conducted on 21.05.2013 and 22.05.2013 at
Akulavarighanapur, and on 31.05.2013 at Hyderabad, and the enquiry
was later postponed to 01.06.2013 the date on which the petitioner
sought adjournment as his defense representative could not be present
due to a promotion interview, but the respondent proceeded with the
enquiry and examined some witnesses and held the enquiry ex parte on
that day and the enquiry was posted for 12.08.2013 and the defense
representative again could not be present as he got the promotion and
posted to Bangalore and the enquiry was posted for 20.08.2013, on
which day the witnesses examined on 01.06.2013 were called and only
five of them attended and they were cross-examined.And thereafter the
written brief of the Presenting Officer dated 05.08.2013 was
communicated to the petitioner on 05.10.2013 and within two days, i.e.,
on 07.10.2013 the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the
disciplinary authority which was communicated to the petitioner on
09.10.2013, and even before submitting the defense of the petitioner, the
enquiry report was submitted on 07.10.2013, thereby the defense of the
petitioner was not considered at the enquiry report stage. Thereafter,
both the defense and the enquiry report were submitted to the
Disciplinary Authority and the Authority without looking into the issues
raised by the petitioner in the representation dated 21.10.2013, imposed
the punishment of Dismissal from Service vide order dated 28.11.2013
wp_41185_2014
NBK, J
by a non-speaking order. Petitioner filed an Appeal before the 2nd
respondent on 26.12.2013, the punishment was modified to that of
Compulsory Retirement from service, by order dated 04.07.2013; and
the subsequent review petition filed before the 1st respondent was
rejected by order dated 27.10.2014.
Aggrieved by the punishment imposed, and also aggrieved by the
entire proceedings of respondent authorities right from the beginning of
preliminary enquiry, the petitioner filed this writ petition invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. Heard Mr. Nageswar Rao Pujari, learned counsel for the
petitioner; and Mr. Manav Gecil Thomas, learned counsel for the
respondent-Bank. Perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the charge memo
dated 15.02.2013 contained vague allegations, like favoritism,
tampering with records, including the allegation of bribery, and the
allegations were based solely on a Preliminary Enquiry Report, which
was conducted without providing the petitioner a fair opportunity to
respond. It is contended that the disciplinary authority failed to provide
the petitioner with a proper list of witnesses, and instead, the witnesses
who were not even named in the charge memo were examined exparte
on 01.06.2013. It is contended that the inquiry proceedings were with
undue haste and the presenting officer's brief was submitted
prematurely on 05.08.2013, leaving no time for the petitioner to respond
before the inquiry concluded. It is contended that the inquiry officer,
wp_41185_2014
NBK, J
despite having received the petitioner's representation on 09.10.2013,
failed to consider it and instead submitted the inquiry report on
07.10.2013 itself, thereby denying the petitioner the opportunity to
defend himself properly. It is contended that the disciplinary authority
passed a non-speaking order of dismissal on 21.10.2013 without
addressing the petitioner's written brief and defense. It is further
contended that the order of the appellate authority, dated 04.07.2024,
merely modified the punishment; and the review application was
dismissed without any reasoned order. He relies on the judgment in
Allahabad Bank & Ors. v. Krishna Narayan Tewari1.
5. Learned Standing Counsel contends that the charges of
misconduct against the petitioner are grave in nature, as the allegations
of bribe were proven during the departmental proceedings. It is
contended that the petitioner's argument that the charges were vague is
an unfounded argument, as the charges are specific and clear, and the
petitioner had a full understanding of the charges against him. It is
contended that the petitioner's claims of a violation of natural justice are
without merit, as he was afforded ample opportunities during the
disciplinary proceedings. It is contended that the petitioner deliberately
delayed the proceedings by failing to attend hearings and cross-
examinations on 01.06.2013 and 12.08.2013, and failed to present any
witnesses or evidence in support of his claims. It is contended that there
is significant evidence of the petitioner's involvement in illegal
gratification, being irregular in attending duties, and violating Bank
protocols by sharing his Login ID and Password which constitute a data
2017 (2) SCC 308
wp_41185_2014
NBK, J
breach. Learned counsel contends that the disciplinary proceedings were
conducted in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice.
6. At the outset, it may be noted that it is settled law that this Court
under Article 226 would not act like an appellate authority to
reappreciate the evidence in a departmental enquiry, and would not
interfereexcept in situations where the findings are not supported by
evidence, or principles of natural justice are violated, or the enquiry is
vitiated for the reason on non-conformity with the due process.
7. In the instant case, it may be noted that on the complaint of tenant
farmers alleging that the petitioner demanded and accepted bribes of
Rs.12,500/- for sanctioning of loans, a Charge Memo dated 15.02.2013
was issued. A perusal of the Articles of Charge would show that
complaints have been received from tenant farmers alleging that the
petitioner demanded and accepted illegal gratification from the
borrowers, showing favouritism etc., which is a misconduct as per the
Regulations of the Bank. Further, the "Statement of Imputations to the
Articles of Charge", in a tabular format, contains the name of loan
applicants, loan account numbers, date of sanction, the amount received
by the petitioner under the Column "Amt Recd by you (Rs.)" indicating
that he received Rs.12,500/-,from some of the borrowers,and
Rs.10,000/- from the other applicants. Further, there is also a specific
allegation against the petitioner that he shared his Login ID and
Passwordswhichconstitutes breach of data; and further he recorded his
presence/attendance in spite of not attending the office/bank in the
month of September, 2012 on the dates 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 22nd
wp_41185_2014
NBK, J
September, 2012. In that view of the matter, the allegations being very
specific, the contention of the petitioner that the allegations are entirely
vague cannot be countenanced.
8. A perusal of the record would show that the petitioner sought
adjournment of hearing on 01.06.2013 on the ground that his defense
representative would not be present due to a promotion interview.
However, his request was denied and the authorities proceeded with the
enquiry ex parte on 01.06.2013. Thereafter, the enquiry was posted for
12.08.2013 and again the defense representative could not be present as
he is said to have been posted out to Bangalore on promotion.
Thereafter, the enquiry was posted for 20.08.2013, and the witnesses
examined in the ex parte enquiry on 01.06.2013 were called for cross-
examination, andonly five of them attended and they were cross-
examined. Further, the Written Brief of the Presenting Officer dated
05.08.2013 is stated to have been communicated to the petitioner after
two months i.e., on 05.10.2013. Within two days thereafter, i.e., on
07.10.2013, the Enquiry Officer submitted his Report to the disciplinary
authority, and a copy of the same was communicated to the petitioner on
09.10.2013, thereby the petitioner had no time to respond to the report.
Further, the order dated 28.11.2013 passed by the disciplinary authority
does not refer to the petitioner's representation dated 21.10.2013.
Further, it is the specific contention of the petitioner that the list of
provisional witnesses included only one person named Mr. Y.
Amareshwara Rao, and other witnesses have not been specified, and
further the witnesses who were not even mentioned in the provisional
list were examined ex parte on 01.06.2013. Further, it is also contended
wp_41185_2014
NBK, J
that the inquiry was conducted without sufficient time for the petitioner
to respond.
9. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the
record, it may be noted that though the Rules stipulate a timeframe
within which departmental proceedings have to be completed, it is to be
noted that in cases where the likely punishment is going to be major,
entailing dismissal from service, the charge-sheeted official has to be
afforded a reasonable time to respond with witnesses and evidence on
his side. It is not in dispute that the inquiry on 01.06.2013 was ex parte,
and only five witnesses who attended on 01.06.2013 were present on
20.08.2013 for cross-examination. Further, the short duration of two
days in communicating the enquiry report to the petitioner on
09.10.2013, after submitting the report on 07.10.2013, did not provide
the opportunity to submit his objections to the enquiry report. Further,
the impugned order does not make a mention about the petitioner's
representation dated 21.10.2013. It cannot be said that the list of
witnesses and documents being relied on by the respondent-Bank has
been furnished to the petitioner, in view of the specific contention that
one person by name Mr. Y. Amareshwara Rao is the only "named
witness" and there is no other named witness, and further the witnesses
who were not mentioned in the provisional list have been examined ex
parteon 01.06.2013.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, and in
view of the law laid down by the Hon' ble Supreme Court in S.C.
wp_41185_2014
NBK, J
Girotra v. United Commercial Bank (UCO Bank)2,this Court is of the
view that the respondent-bank ought to have afforded reasonable
opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses of the ex
parte inquiry of 01.06.2013 who were not present on 20.08.2013.
Further there is no reason for the respondent Bank to not afford an
opportunity to submit objections to the Enquiry Report, as the report
was submitted to the disciplinary authority on 07.10.2013 and a copy
was given to the petitioner thereafter on 09.10.2013.
11. Therefore, this Court deems that it is just and equitable to set
aside the inquiry proceedings from the stage as on 01.06.2013, and
respondent-Bank shall permit the petitioner to examine/cross-examine
the witnesses who were not examined. The Enquiry Officer shall
thereafter furnish his Report, with a copy to the petitioner, giving the
petitioner one week to submit his objections/comments on the Enquiry
Report. The respondent-Bank shall thereafter consider the Enquiry
Report and objections, if any, furnished by the petitioner and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is made clear that only the
witnesses who were not examined/cross-examined, if any, would be
permitted to be examined, and no re-examination of examined/cross-
examined witnesses shall be permitted.At this juncture, considering the
submission that the petitioner had already attained the age of
superannuation/retirement, this Court directs the respondent-authorities
to complete the aforesaid exercise within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order, at any rate not later than
10.08.2025.
1995 Supp (3) SCC 212
wp_41185_2014
NBK, J
12. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.
No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
01st May, 2025
ksm
