Telangana High Court
Telangana Grameena Bank vs V.V.J.Rama Rao on 3 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL Nos.587, 595, 627, 645, 649, 665 and 699 of 2025
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Mr. Mujib Kumar Sadasivuni, learned counsel for the
appellants-Bank.
Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents in W.A.Nos.587, 595, 645, 649 and 665 of 2025.
Ms. K.Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the respondents in
W.A.Nos.627 and 699 of 2025.
2. By the common impugned order dated 03.03.2025, the
learned writ Court has quashed the impugned orders of
dismissal from service imposed upon the writ petitioners.
The learned writ Court has directed the appellants-Bank to
reconsider imposing lesser punishment than dismissal from
service or for re-initiating action against the employees by
following the due process of law. The Bank authorities were
directed to release provisional pension to all the writ
petitioners till a decision is taken as to whether the enquiry is
to be re-conducted in accordance with law or if lesser
punishment than dismissal from service has to be imposed.
The writ petitioners were Bank employees in different scales
working in the same Bank, Aziz Nagar Branch. They were
proceeded in a departmental enquiry for dereliction of duty
and alleged large scale misappropriation of funds and loss to
the Bank. The enquiry report indicted the employees leading
to their dismissal from service, which was the subject matter
of challenge. The writ petitioners raised the following
objections in their challenge:
"(a) Whether the photocopies of the Bank records can be
marked as exhibits and whether they constitute admissible
evidence in the enquiry?
(b) Whether, mere marking of the documents, without
proving the contents of the documents would satisfy the
requirement of proof of misconduct in the domestic
enquiry?
(c) Whether the charges against the petitioners stood
proved in the domestic enquiry keeping in view the nature
of the documents filed in the enquiry and also the nature of
oral evidence adduced?
(d) Whether the scope of judicial review under Article
226 of the Constitution of India will be confined merely to
see whether the procedure of domestic enquiry was
followed by the Bank, more particularly when the charges
themselves are not proved?
(e) In case the contentions of the petitioners are found
valid, what is the relief the petitioners are entitled to?"
3. The learned writ Court took up the first question to be
decided as to whether the photocopies of the Bank records
can be marked as exhibits and whether they constitute
admissible evidence in the enquiry. The Bank had taken a
stand that the photostat copies of the documents relied upon
by the enquiry officer were obtained from the custody of the
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and duly certified to be
true by the Bank official before producing it in the enquiry
proceedings. The learned writ Court held that photocopies of
the Bank records unless specified to be so by the authority
under whose possession the original documents are there,
cannot be considered as admissible evidence. In these cases,
admittedly, the original documents were in the custody of
CBI. When the documents were in the custody of CBI, upon
a proper search and seizure or production to the investigating
agency by the Bank officials, the copies of those documents
could have been obtained by taking permission from the
Special CBI Court.
4. In the instant cases, the Bank, in their counter affidavit
before the writ Court, has taken a stand at paragraph 9 that
the officer of the Bank had approached the investigating
officer of the CBI and obtained the photocopies thereof and
then certified it to be true. The course was not proper as
such evidence could not be adduced as secondary evidence
by the Bank officer during enquiry when the copies thereof
were not certified to be true by the officer of the investigating
agency upon permission granted by the learned Special CBI
Court.
5. The learned writ Court found the procedure to be
illegal. The learned writ Court also answered the questions
No.b and c in the negative. It held that mere marking of
exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof as
required to be done in accordance with law. Having arrived
at such a finding, the learned writ Court proceeded to set
aside the order of dismissal, but taking into account that
some of the writ petitioners may have attained the age of
superannuation and sufficient time had lapsed, also gave
liberty to the appellants-Bank authorities to choose either of
the course i.e., either to re-initiate action against the
employees by following due process of law or to impose a
lesser punishment than dismissal from service. The latter
course adopted by the learned writ Court does not appeal to
us. If the disciplinary enquiry was found to suffer from
serious infirmities in the matter of adducing of material
evidence as exhibits relied upon by the enquiry officer, the
proper course was to remit the matter to the enquiry officer
to conduct the proceedings from the stage of adducing of
evidence by the presenting officer and cross-examination etc.,
by the charged officers. The allegations are of serious nature
involving dereliction of duty resulting in loss to the Bank. In
such cases, when the enquiry proceedings were found to be
vitiated, the learned writ Court ought not to have given an
option to the disciplinary authority to impose a lesser
punishment and let go the employees in question. Except
one of the writ petitioner, others are superannuated.
6. Regulation 45 of the Deccan Grameena Bank (Officers
and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 permits conduct of
disciplinary proceedings after retirement. It is quoted
hereunder:
"45. Disciplinary proceedings after retirement.-
(1) An officer or employee who is under suspension on a
charge of misconduct and who attains the age of
superannuation, shall be deemed to be in service even after
the age of superannuation for the specific purpose of
continuation and conclusion of the disciplinary
proceedings and issue of final orders thereon.
(2) The officer or employee who is under suspension shall
not be eligible for any subsistence allowance for the period
beyond the date of superannuation.
(3) The officer or employee against whom disciplinary
proceeding has been initiated shall cease to be in service on
the date of superannuation but the disciplinary proceeding
shall continue as if he was in service until the proceedings
are concluded and final order is passed in respect thereof.
(4) The officer or employee against whom disciplinary
proceedings has been initiated shall not receive any pay
and/or allowances after the date of superannuation and
also not be entitled for the payment of retirement benefits
till the proceeding is completed and final order is passed
thereon except his own contribution to Contributory
Provident Fund (CPF).
Explanation: For the purposes of this regulation, the
normal retirement benefits such as encashment of privilege
leave and Gratuity may be withheld till the completion of
the disciplinary proceeding and passing of final order by
the Competent Authority and the release of benefits shall
be as per the final order of the Competent Authority."
7. When the matters were taken up on the previous date,
learned counsel for the appellants-Bank was asked to
produce the relevant Rules. Apart from the Rules, the
procedure to be followed by the Bank while furnishing
documents in matters relating to police complaint or
insurance claim in a fraud case have been adverted to. The
circular vide Cir.No.GB/2010-11/22 dated 30.06.2010
issued by the Chairman of the Deccan Grameena Bank to all
Branches/administrative officers provides that the Branch
Manager should take at least three Xerox copies of the
original documents being submitted to police and keep them
in safe or in joint custody duly attested by the Branch
Manager for future enquiry/D.P cases etc., if the police has
asked for submission of relevant original documents during
course of investigation. The stand taken by the appellants-
Bank in their counter affidavit shows that these documents
were not prepared before submission of the original
documents to the Bank report. They obtained it from the
custody of the CBI officer without seeking any permission of
the Special CBI Court, which course was not proper or
permissible in law. The learned writ Court, therefore, rightly
held that the proceedings suffer from such infirmity apart
from what has been referred to hereinabove.
8. In such circumstances, we are inclined to interfere with
the latter part of the impugned direction whereby the Bank
authorities have been given the discretion to impose lesser
punishment to the writ petitioners. Accordingly, the said
direction is set aside.
9. Let it be indicated that if documents relied upon during
enquiry proceedings have been duly obtained with permission
of the Special CBI Court or copies thereof have been prepared
before submission of the relevant documents to the CBI, the
necessity of seeking fresh permission for adducing those
documents during course of enquiry will not be required.
10. Except one of the writ petitioner, others have retired.
Taking into account that the proceedings have remained
pending since last six years, the disciplinary authority shall
endeavour to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a
time bound manner, preferably six months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitioners/charged
officers shall cooperate in the enquiry proceedings. Needless
to say if they fail to cooperate, it would be open for the
disciplinary authority to take a decision, in accordance with
law, within the time specified.
11. Writ Appeals are, accordingly, allowed. However, there
shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
Date: 03.09.2025
KL
