T. Lakshmana Rao v. Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature Of Writ Of Mandamus and deciare the actions of the Respondent No 3 in passing he impugned Order as illegal, arbitral, unconstitutional , in violation 3 oZ r 31.08.2020 passed by this Hon'ble consequently set aside the Impugned order in the Board Meeting No. 94 held issued by reducing the scale of pay in Officers Service I Cadre. jA NO: 1 OF ?n9i of 2009 and passed by the Respondent No.3 on 23.10.2020 by which major penalty was pay by placing the Petitioner in fifth stage of Court in W.P.No. 7086 Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed i praying that in the circumstances stated in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to reconsider Impugned Order strictly in light of Of this hT I r T' '' Hon b e Court in the Order dated 31.08.2020 in W.P.No. 7086 of 2019 ounsel for the Petitioner: Ms.SODUM ANVESHA Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. V UMA DEVI The Court made the following Order: APHC010159022021 0MS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 9114/2021 Between: I.T. LAKSHMANA RAO,, S/0 T. APPARAO NAIDU, AGED 66 YEARS, ANDHRA PRADESH GRAMEENA COLONY, OCC- MANAGER (RETIRED), VIKAS BONDILIPURAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, STAFF BANK, PLOT N0.4, RIO- SBI ...PETITIONER AND

1.ANDHRA PRADESH GRAMEENA VIKAS BANK, CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT HEAD OFFICE, HANAMAKONDA, REP. BY ITS WARANGAL

2.THE CHAIRMANCILMDISCIPLINARY ANDHRA PRADESH GRAMEENA VIKAS BANK, HEAD OFFICE, SRIKAKULAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 532 001, ANDHRA PRADESH. AUTHORITY,

#3. BOARD OF DIRECTORSCUMAPPELLATE AUTHORITY, HEAD PRADESH GRAMEENA HANAMAKONDA, WARANGAL DISTRICT. BANK, VIKAS ANDHRA OFFICE,

4.THE GENERAL MANAGER I, , ANDHRA PRADESH GRAMEENA HEAD OFFICE, HANAMAKONDA, WARANGAL VIKAS DISTRICT. BANK,

5.ANDHRA PRADESH GRAMEENA BANK, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HEAD OFFICE AT D.NO.5-37-234, 4TH FLOOR, RAGHU MANSION, 4/1, BRODIPET, GUNTUR 2

#6. BOARD OF DIRECTORSCUMAPPELLATE AUTHORITY, ANDHRA PRADESH GRAMEENA BANK, HEAD OFFICE AT D.NO.5-37-234, 4TH FLOOR, RAGHU MANSION, 4/1, BRODIPET, GUNTUR RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6 IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 25.06.2025 VIDE I.A.N0.1 OF 2025 IN WP NO.9114 OF 2021. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue any order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and declare the actions of the Respondent No.3 in passing the Impugned Order as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, in violation of principles of natural justice, and contrary to the findings of the Order dated 31.08.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No. 7086 of 2009and consequently set Respondent No.3 in the Board Meeting No. 94 held on 23.10.2020 by which major penalty was issued by reducing the scale of pay by placing the Petitioner in fifth stage of pay in Officers Service I Cadre the Impugned order passed by lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to reconsider Impugned Order strictly in light of the explanation offered by the Petitioners and the observations and findings of this Hon'ble Court in the Order dated 31.08 2020 in W P No 7086 of 2019 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to implead the proposed Respondent Nos.5 & 6 as the Party Respondent Nos.5 & 6 in W.P.No.9114/2021 and Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.SODUM ANVESHA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.VUMA DEVI The Court made the following: ORDER: 3 Heard Ms. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent-Bank.

#2. It is contended that the petitioner who was working as a Branch Manager of respondent bank suspended in irregular manner from service

07.04.2006. The said suspension was revoked

02.08.2006. Subsequently, Charge Memo dated 05.06.2007 was served on the petitioner on 14.06.2007, not courteous to the customers of the Bank alleging that the petitioner was irregular to the duties and explanation to the Charge Sheet on 23.08.2007. explanation of the petitioner, the 2'^’^ The petitioner has filed an Being unsatisfied with the respondent ordered for a Departmental Enquiry and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. Enquiry officer has submitted his report on 06.06.2008. Basing on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the 2"^^ respondent passed an order dated 04.08.2008, imposing the penalty of reducing the employment to the lower time scale. passing the impugned order, the petitioner is stated that before It was not given any opportunity for filing objections.

#3. The petitioner appeal against 2"^ respondent on 18.09.2008, before the 3^^ respondent. The 3^^ respondent vide order dated 27.12.2008, dismissed the the 2"^ respondent-Disciplinary Authority, appeal by confirming the order of The petitioner further challenged the Appellate Authority order, by way of writ petition in W.P.No.7086 of 2009 '--s. 4 alleging non consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner and the charges framed are grossly disproportionate to the charges framed. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 31.08.2020, remitting the matter to the 3'^' respondent to reconsider the same in the light of the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, it is contended by the 3^^^ respondent to pass an order afresh, petitioner that he has made an application in the light of the explanation is stated that pursuant to the directions in W.P.No.7086 submitted by him. It of 2009 dated 31.08.2020, the matter was placed before the O''* respondent for passing appropriate orders. It is contended that despite specific directions given by this Court, the 3'^'^ respondent did not consider the matter in correct perspective and modified the punishment by placing the petitioner in stage of pay in Officers Service -I Cadre.

#4. The respondents filed counter affidavit stating that considering the petitioners long history of irregularities, tardiness, discourteous behavior towards customers of the bank and blatant disregard for the rules and regulations of the bank, disciplinary proceedings were concluded imposing a penalty of reduction to the lower scale. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, a punishment imposed was modified to that of reduction of scale of pay by placing the petitioner in fifth stage of pay in Officers Service - I Cadre. It is further stated that of the order passed by this Court, 3'"'^ respondent has considered the matter afresh and on the basis of documentary evidence on record, the punishment imposed was modified. As 5 regards disproportionality of the punishment deplorable conduct of the petitioner coupled with the bank has suffered i immensely and the the bank and its customers. However punishment imposed was modified. > and having regard to the unsatisfactory performance, same was caused embracement taking lenient view of the matter,

#5. Learned counsel for the submit referring to the articles of charges framed the earlier round of litigation. this Court had the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the regard to the same, the matter remanded to the 3'^^ petitioner Ms. Sodum Anvesha would against the petitioner that in come to a conclusion referring to charges framed that the charges proved. Having respondent in the light of the explanation of the petitioner. compliance to the directions of this the two line impugned order, which i Learned counsel further submits that in Court, the respondent Board passed IS cryptic and in disregard to the directions of this Court. Learned 3'^^ respondent that the counsel further submits that the observation of the explanation of the petitioner was considered is not depicted from the i impugned order. Learned argues that this Court has petitioner justifies the counsel for the petitioner further categorically observed that the explanation of the petitioner’s case. In the light of the said direction, the 3rd respondent Board, referring to its earlier explanation was considered by the Board i without considering the directions proceedings states that the its order dated 27.12.2008, of the Court, the punishment imposed was 6 modified to that of reduction of scale of pay by placing the petitioner in fifth stage of pay in Officers Service -1 Cadre.

#6. Learned Standing Counsel Ms. Uma Devi appearing for the respondents-Bank would submit that the pursuant to the directions of this Court, the Appellate Authority had passed the order exercising the discretion vested in it and modified the order of punishment. Learned counsel further submits that the explanation of the petitioner was considered by the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority need not give reasons if they are in agreement with original Authority, And the punishment disproportionate to the charges framed. The learned counsel further argues that the impugned order will not have any cumulative effect in any manner. Considered the rival submissions. This Court while disposing of the writ petition has observed as

#8. follows: “Broadly, the allegations against the petitioner are; unauthorized absence and discourteous towards the customers. As seen from the record, the explanation of the petitioner justifies his case. Hence, in the of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the punishment imposed on him appears to be disproportionate to the charges proved.” And observed as follows: “ The matter is remanded to the appellate authority i.e., the third respondent to reconsider the same in the light of the explanation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order....” 7

#9. Pursuant to the said directions, the 3"'^ respondent passed the impugned order. Perusal of the impugned order would reflect that the Appellate Authority has observed that the explanation of the petitioner was duly considered by the Appellate Authority in the meeting held on 27.12.2008 and thus passed the impugned order reducing the punishment imposed. In the impugned order, nowhere does the Appellate Authority has referred to the explanation of the petitioner while passing the order consequent to the directions of this Court, and above all that goes to the extent of saying that the explanation petitioner was considered earlier round of proceedings, implying that the same need not be considered now. It relevant to extract the relevant observation of the Appellate Authority. “ After thorough examination and careful consideration of the circumstances, we find that the explanation submitted by the petitioner in his appeal dated 18.09.2008 was duly considered in the \ \ N meeting on 27.12.2008 by the Board and Appellate Authority. However, in consideration of the' directions of the Hon’ble High court and considerinQ the lonp service put in by the petitioner in the bank, we the Board and Appellate Authority is inclined to consider the case and feel that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the punishment imposed vide orders dated 04.08.2008 is modified to that of reduction of scale of pay by placing in fifth stage of pay in OS-1 cadre.

#10. From the above, it can be seen that the direction of this Court, which has become final, has not been complied with by the Appellate Authority, as it observed that the explanation was already considered in 2008, by the Board and appellate authority implying that it need not be considered once again. 8

#11. Having regard to the fact that the 3'"'^ respondent had observed that the explanation of the petitioner was considered in 2008, implying that it need not be considered once again now, is in total disregard to the directions of this Court and also contemptuous. The 3™respondent in a predetermined manner passed high-handedness, and is impugned arbitrarily smacks Court. Thus, the impugned order modifying be set aside. in blatant disregard of the directions of the High the earlier punishment requires to

#12. Thousand, payable to the Andhra Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with costs of Rupees Ten Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee. closed. To, As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall stand //TRUE COPY// Sd/- B. PR^SADA assistant registrar SECTION OFFICER

#1. The Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, Head Office, Hanamakonda, Warangal District.

#2. The Secretary, A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi.

#3. The Chairman-cum-Disciplinary Authority, Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, Head Office, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh 532 001, Andhra Pradesh.

#4. Board Directors-cum-Appellate Authority, Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, Head Office, Hanamakonda, Warangal District.

#5. The General Manager I, Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, Head Office, Hanamakonda, Warangal District.

#6. The Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Grameena Bank, Head Office at D.No.5-37-234, 4th Floor, Raghu Mansion, 4/1, Brodipet, Guntur

#7. The Board of Directors-cum-Appellate Authority, Andhra Pradesh Grameena Bank, Head^ Office at D.No.5-37-234, 4th Floor, Raghu Mansion, 4/1, Brodipet, Guntur

#8. One CC to Ms. SODUM ANVESHA, Advocate [OPUC]

#9. One CC to Ms. V UMA DEVI, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies

#10. HIGH COURT DATED:10/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 9114 OF 2021 \ \ o 2 9 AUG 2025 )S Co SectjoD-^' ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION