Sri. L v. Ramana Rao, Senior Manager and Enquiry Officer, H. R. Department, Head Office, An

Brief facts reading to the fiting of the present writ petition are that the Petitioner ParticiPated in the selection process of probationary officer in the year 2012 and was selected to Andhra Bank and was initiallY Posted as Probationary Officer at Puttaparthy branch in Ananthapuram District' Andhra Pradesh and worked there from May' 2013 to June, 2014, where the petitioner was not dealing with any loan transactlons Thereafter, the Petitioner's services were confirmed bY declaring his Probation and he was transferred and posted as Assistant Manager to Hagart Bommanahalli Branch, Hospet Taluk' Bellary District, Kamataka State tn June, 2014. It is submitted that the petitioner's duties as an Assistant Manager were to issue DDs' Cheques' RTGS, etc., but it did not include dealing with or sanctioning of loans nor releasing of loan amounts' 3. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from Hagart Bommanaha[i branch to Seethammapet, District, Andhra Pradesh' where he worked for one month and was again transferred to Bhyripuram branch' Cheepurupalli Mandal' Vizianagaram Oi\i"t, Andhra Pradesh and he worked there till the date of receiving of the impugned charge memo dated 07'04'2018' palakonda Mandal, Srikakuram / 3 W t, No.l8l7 of202l

4. It is submitted that the charges in the charge memo were that while the petitioner was working at Hagari Bommanahalli branch' Kamataka State, there were certain financial irregularities committed by him, but the details of the alleged irregularities were not mentioned therein. Thereafter' another letter dated ll'09'2018 was issued stating that the respondent No.5 i.e., Sri L'V'Ramana Rao' the Senior Manager' was appointed as Enquiry Officer' Vide letter dated 27'07'2018' the disciplinary authority raised about 26 charges against the petitioner alleging that he has committed financial irregularities while he was working as the Assistant Manager at Hagari Bommanahalli branch' Kamataka State. According to the petitioner' these 26 charges were not directly connected to the petitioner's duties' The petitioner claims to have submitted a detailed reply dated 07'08'2018 to the said charges denying his direct involvement in such transactions as he was working as the Assistant Manager under the supervision and guidance of the Branch Manager Sri K.Gopala Krishna Rao' who was responsible for all Officer Sri K'APPala the charges made against him' The Presenting Raju, Manager, Andhra Bank Head Office has submitted his presentation copy before the Enquiry Officer by serving a copy to the petitioner on 09. 1 2.201 8 and the petitioner was given permission to - I W.P.No. I8l 7 ol'2021 engage any one ol the olficers of the bank as his defence officer. The petitioner engaged the services of Sri D.V.Ranga Rao, the Chief Manager, Training, Visakhapatnarn, as his defence officer and submitted his defence statement dated, lO.l2.Z0l8. Thereafter, the petitioner received another repoft from Credit Monitoring and Review Department, Andhra Bank, Zonal Office, Hubli, vide Letter No.27 18126,IA3D20| t8-19, dated 05.01.2019, requiring the petirioner to submit his views to the observations made in the said report. In the said report, charges were only with regard to the seven loarts said to have been issued by the Hagari Bommanahalli branch, in which certain irregularities were flound. The petitioner submitted his reply dated

18.01.2019 sraring rhat as far as his duty as Assistant Manager is concemed, he was not responsible and for any of the irregularities and that, it is the Branch Manager, who was wholly and solely responsible for the same. He also placed reliance upon Clause 3(3) of the Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, now Union Bank of India Regulations, wherein it is provided that no officer employee shall, in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under the directions of his superior officiar. It is submitted I 5 W.t' No.l6l7 ol l02l that since the petitioner was newly appointed in Hagari Bommanahalli branch after declaration of his probation and was also new officer in the said branch, he was very honest in discharging his duties and that the then Manager of Andhra Bank, Hagari Bommanahalli branch, Sri K.Gopala Krishna Rao who was also charged with the same allegations, was simply transferred to Hubti Zonal officer, whereas the petitioner was put under suspension and the enquiry was prolonged with ulterior an motive to save the said Branch Manager Sri K'Gopala Krishna Rao and the petitioner was made a scapegoat and the major punishment of dismissal from service was awarded, which is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. It is submitted that the authorities did not consider the detailed explanation submitted by the petitioner to each and every charge levelled against him. He also submitted that the charges levelled by the Credit Monitoring and Review Department, Zonat Office' Hubti' were limited to seven loan transactions only, whereas the impugned charges levelled were about 26, which was only an afterthought to save the then Branch Manager Sri K.Gopala Krishna Rao and that he was allowed to retire unconditionally in February,2020. It is submitted that certain alleged loans, when sanctioned, were not on bank working days' It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer has not looked into the 6 W.P.No.l8l7 of 2021 explanation submirted by the petitioner and to the enquiry report of the respondent No.3 dt.t1.03.2019 and that the petitioner again submitted a detailed explanation to each and every charge levelled against him. It is alteged that even the disciplinary authority has not taken the said explanation into consideration under the influence of the then Branch Manager Sri K.Gopala Krishna Rao, the impugned dismissal order was passed. [t is submitted that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.4 on 24.09.2019, but the same was dismissed by reiterating the reasons given in the dismissal order without giving any independent findings on rhe contentions raised by the petitioner and therefore, it is alleged that the impugned order is partisan and is without any application of mind. It is submitted that though the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 27 .12.2019, the petitioner could not approach the Court immediately due ro Covid- 19 pandemic and also due to financial problems and he therefore, prayed to set aside the dismissal order and also the order of the appellate authority confirming the dismissal order. He has raised the following grounds in support of his contenttons: (i) the alleged 26 charges mentioned in the charge memo are in respect of certain flnancial irregularities which are not directly 7 W.P.No. l8l7 ol'2021 connected to the petitioner's duties and the charges are also contrary to the Service Regulations; (ii) as per the Bank Otficers' Service Regulations, the sanctioning of loans, etc., are the duties of the Branch Manager and the petitioner was working only as an Assistant Manager at Hagari Bommanahalli branch at the relevant point of time and therefore, he was in no way concemed with such transactions except for forwarding the same as per the instructions of the Branch Manager; (iii) the respondents,, while dealing with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner vis-d-vis against the Branch Manager Sri K.Gopala Krishna Rao, have discharged the said Branch Manager without any proceeding and without any fuither action against him and made the petitioner a scapegoat which was nothing but clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are vitiated and the same are unconstitutional and are liable to be set aside as it is also prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above submissions made in the writ affidavit and has drawn the attention ol 8 W.P.No l8l7 of 2021 this Court to all the relevant documents in support of his contentions. He also filed a comparative table of the charges and the petitioner's submissions thereon in the fbrm of paper book on 08.04.2024.

6. Leamed Standing C-ounsel lor the respondents, on the other hand, relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and therefore, the writ petition has to be dismissed in limine as not maintainable and that there is no violation of any rule or law by the respondents and in the absence ol'any such violation, the writ petition is not maintainable and is accordingly liable to be dismissed.

7. The respondents have also taken a preliminary objection that the charges were alleged to have been committed by the petitioner while he was working as the Assistant Manager at Hagari Bommanahalli branch of the erstwhile Andhra Bank in Hospet Taluk, Bellary District, Kamataka State i.e., within the territorial .lurisdiction of the Hon'ble Kamataka High Court and therelbre, he could not have filed the writ petition in this Court. It is also stated that though the disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner fiom the Head Office, Hyderabad, at the time of placing the petitioner under suspension and serving the order I W.P.N().lEl7of202l of dismissal, the petitioner was on the rolls of Bhyripuram Branch, Cheepurupalli Mandal, Y iziay anagaram District, Andhra Pradesh, i.e., within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and therefore, this Court does not have the tenitorial jurisdiction to enterlain the writ petition oniy on the ground that the disciptinary action against the petitioner was initiated from the Head Ofhce of the bank situated at Hyderabad.

8. As regards the merits of the case, it is submitted that the petitioner, alter completion of his probation, was transferred to Hagari Bommanahalli branch in Hospet Taluk, Bellary District,, Kamataka State in June, 2014 and the petitioner, being the second line officer, was designated as the Sub-Manager of the branch and amongst the other, the duties of the petitioner at the said branch includes (i) processing/ appraisal of loan proposals as per the loan policy guidelines of the bank; (ii) disbursing the loan amounts as per norrns and monitoring the loan amounts as per norms and monitoring the loan accounts. It is submitted that on the request of the petitioner, he was transferred to Srikakulam Zone of the bank in July,2017.It is submitted that as the petitioner has indulged in certain serious irregularities rvhile working at Hagari I l0 W.P.No.l8 i 7 of 2021 t. Bommanahalli branch, the petitioner u'as placed under suspension vide orders dated 07.04.20t8 and the charge sheet dated 27.07.2018 was served on the petitioner along with a detailed statement of allegations enumerating the irregularities alleged to have been committed by him. The charge sheet was issued by the Assistant General Manager and Disciplinary Authority, H.R.Department, Head Office, Hyderabad. It is submitted that the allegations/charges No. I to 22 relate to the failure of the petitioner in following the taid down guidelines in apprising and recommending sanction of loan proposals and disbursing the loan amounts and monitoring the loan accounts. It is submitted that the allegatiorVcharge No.23 relates to the unauthorized transactions resorted to by the petitioner i.e., debiting the accounts of the customers/staff and crediting the amounts to various unrelated accounts without any mandate/consent of the account holders. The allegation/charge No.24 relates to opening of an SB Account in the name of the father of the petitioner, who was already having a Savings Bank Account with Puritipenta Branch of the bank and he used the same customer ID for opening the nerv account at Hagari Bommanahalli branch, but the specimen signature of the account with Puritipenta Branch available in [e system did not appear to be the same as per the signature scanned for W.P.No.l8l7 ol'2021 the account opened at Hagari Bommanahalli branch and further the account openlng tbrnr was not available with the branch and the petitioner utilized the said account for his personal gains and a number of rmauthorized/fraudulent transactions have taken place in the said account. It is submitted that the allegation/charge No'25 is that on 02.03.2017 a sum of Rs.24,000A was paid to the petitioner by way of a cheque by lWs. Bharath Kisan Krishi Kendra in the account of which proceeds of various loan accounts were routed unauthorizedly and the allegatior/charge No.26 relates to issuance of 10 Demand Drafts for a total amounr of Rs. I,99,400/- during demonetization period, which were later cancelled and the proceeds of which were credited to the accounts of the respective purchasers of DDs' It is submitted that the relative vouchers were not available on branch record and cancelled DDs were not signed by any official either at the time of issue or at the time of cancellation.Itissubmittedthatthedisciplinaryauthorityhastakenthe explanation of the petitioner into consideration that he was not responsible for sanctioning or disbursing of loan amount and has ordered for departmental enquiry and has given sufficient opportunities to the petitioner and that all the charges against the petitioner have been held as proved by the enquiry officer' It is submitted that the petitioner \ \ l -r t2 W.1,. No. l8 t 7 of 202 I I was supplied with the copy of the enquiry report and thus, made his detailed representation and it is only after consideration of the said contentions' rhat the disciprinary authority has awarded the punishment of dismissar from service and there were no irregularities or illegarities in the order passed by the disciprinary authority or confirmation of the said order by the appelrate authority. He therefore, justified the orders of the authorities below.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations made by the respondents. l0' Having regard to the rivar contentions and the materiar on record, this Court finds that out of 26 charges, charges I to 2l relate to the irregularities committed by the petitioner in sanctioning and disbursing loan amounts and utilisation of h ousing loans by various borrowers. The common allegations are: (a) The officer has failed to ensure end use of funds, (b) The loan amount was released to the credit of the borrower,s SB Account without ensuring the progress of the construction and / 13 W.P.No.l8 t7 of 2021 without obtaining stage-wise construction ceftificates from the Engineers, (c) CPV report is not obtained, (d)The account slipped into NPA and (e) The house was valued at lesser amount than the loan amount sanctioned. It is noticed that the petitioner has submitted detailed explanations to all these allegations and the enquiry officer has held as follows in respect of respective charges: Proved Partly proved Not proved Charge No.1 Charge No.2(a) Charge No.2(b) Charge No.3 Charge No.a@) Charge No.4(a) Charge No.5 t4 W.t'.No.l8l7 ol202l h Charge No.6 Charge No.7 Charge No.8 Charge No.9(b) I I Charge No.l0(b) Charge No. l0(a) Charge No. I I Charge No. 12(a) Charge No.l3(b) Charge No.l4(b) I t- I I I l I Charge No.9(a) Charge No.l2(b) Charge No. l3(a) Charge No. l4(a) Charge No. 15(b) Charge No. l5(a) ctra.ee t,to. t6la) &(b) I I I Charge No.l7(a) & (b) ctraree No.ltl{a) & (b) I I | Charge No.l9(b) _l I I Charge No. 19(a) I I I I I t5 W.P.No.lE l7 of 2021 Charge No.20(a) & (b) Charge No.2l(b) Charge No.2i(a) Sub-charge (b) of all the Charges is about obtaining of CPV, i.e., Contract Point Verification. The petitioner had contended that the provision of CPV services was not available or provided in Hagari Bommanahalli branch. Therefore, the charge of not obtaining CPV report is not tenable. The enquiry officer has observed that it is the responsibility of the processing officer to ensure that CPV report is obtained and kept along with the proposal and therefore, the argument of the charged officer that no CPV service is available at Flagari Bommanahalli branch is not tenable. It is noticed that the CPV service is for compliance of KYC norms by the borrowers, i.e., identity, address, contact details and income proofs etc. As seen from the charges in the charge sheet, except for mentioning that CPV repoft is not available, there is no allegation that the KYC norms are not cornplied with or that any of the loans have been sanctioned in the name of fake persons or not genuine persons. Therefore, this allegation that CPV report is not available and therefore there is any prejudice caused to the respondent bank due to the absence of CPV report is not established. Therefore, the t6 W.P.No.l8l7 of 2021 \ holding ofthe charges as 'proved' by the enquiry officer' though they do not have anY impact on the loan accounts, cannot be taken as a misconduct by the petitioner particularly since it is the responsibility of the bank to provide CPV service provider and not the petitioner herein' It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner was only an Assistant Manager and there was a Branch Manager of the respondent bank branch at the relevant point of time and therefore, the petitioner cannot be solely saddled with the responsibility of obtaining CPV service provider and thus, the charge is not maintainable against the petitioner.

11. As regards the other charges, this court finds that the petitioner was only an Assistant Manager and is not the loan sanctioning authority. The respondents have not filed the duties chart or any proof about the responsibilities of the Assistant Branch Manager to demonstrate that it is the duty of the petitioner to secure the relevant documents to process the loans and also sanction the same and monitor the end utilisation of the loan amount.

12. The leamed counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not challenging the procedure adopted by the respondents for conducting the enquiry. but since his duty is limited, i.e., issuance of **- ,/ t7 W.P.No. I 8l 7 o1202 I DDs, cheques and disbursement of amounts and is not the authority to sanction the loans and none of the loans are found to be lake or illegal and the only altegation is that there is no proper verification regarding sanctioning of loans, the petitioner is not responsibte for all these duties. It is submitted that there is a valuation officer who is required to verifu the property documents and also effect physical verification of the property and submit a valuation report on the basis of which, the loans are sanctioned. lt is the responsibility of the Branch Manager to sanction the loans and not the Petitioner.

13. This Court finds that there is merit in the contentions of the petitioner. The petitioner, being only the Assistant manager and newly appointed to the Branch after declaration of his probation, could not have been given the responsibility of sanctioning loans and also monitoring the end use of the loans. Further, as held by the enquiry officer, most ofthe loans have not been sanctioned by the petitioner and some of the loans have altegedly been disbursed on the days when the petitioner was not working or was on leave. The fact that the loans have exceeded the assessed value of the properties would only go to show that the valuation has not been done properly and it is the responsibility I I8 W.P.No.l8l7 of 2021 ( of the valuation officer and not only of the person who was processing the loans. l'he bank authorities have not brought on record any document to show that it is the duty of the petitioner only as the Assistant Manager of the branch to be verifuing the valuation of the properties as well. However, with regard to the allegation that the petitioner has not verified the end use of the funds and has not obtained the necessarv certificates from the Engineers, this Court finds that in certain cases, it rvas observed that though loans have been sanctioned and disbursed in stages, there were no houses constructed and therefore, there seems to be some dereliction of the responsibility by the petitioner and the petitioner has not discharged his duties. If the Branch Manager was responsible tbr sanctioning of the loans, it is the responsibility of the petitioner also to veriS the end use ofthe loans before release of the same after veriling the stages of construction and obtaining necessary certificates from the Engineers. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the charges of negligence in verifuing the end use of the funds are proved against the petitioner in all the charges No.l to 21.

14. Charge No.22 is with regard to sanctioning of four dairy loans and the irregulariry alleged is that the petitioner has failed to ensure end t i t9 W.P.No.l8l 7 of 2021 use of funds and that the units do not exist and bills evidencing purchase of animals are not available. This charge has been held as not proved against the petitioner by the enquiry officer.

15. As regards Charge No.23(a), it is a serious charge of resorting to unauthorised transactions, i.e., debiting various amounts of custorners/staff and crediting to unrelated accounts and vice versa without the mandate or consent of the account holders. The enquiry otficer has held the charges in respect of certain transactions as maintainable and in respect of certain transactions as not maintainable. The petitioner has not given any reasonable cause for the said translers and some of the transfers were done into the accounts standing in the names of his father and his brother. Therefore, this Court is satisfied that the charge has been held to be proved against the petitioner.

16. As regards Charge Nos.24, 25 and26 also, the charges have been held as proved and this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the same.

17. The petitioner had put in a total of six years of service before his dismissal from service. As regards the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was not solely responsible for sanction and disbursal of 20 W.P.No.l8l7 of202l i loans referred to in the charge sheet, this Court finds from the enquiry report that the petitioner and the Branch Manager K. Gopala Krishna Rao have been found to be responsible for the same. The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was placed under suspension on

07.04.2018 but no allegations were detailed in the charge memo appears to be correct. T'he appropriate action would have been to detail the allegations in the charge memo, ca[[ for an explanation of the charged officer, consider the same and in respect of allegations for which satisfactory explanation is not offered, to issue the charge sheet and appoint an enquiry offtcer to enquire into the charges. In this cdse, entire procedure is given a go-bye and the charge sheet as well as the appointment of the enquiry officer has been done simultaneously. However, at this later stage, this Court is not inclined to set aside the entire enquiry report on account ol the above irregularity. Further, in respect of the contention of the petitioner that the Credit Monitoring and Review Department had required submission of views of the petitioner only on seven loans, this Court finds that they are also part of the charges levelled against the petitioner and some of these charges have been held to have been proved and the leamed counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any imegularity or illegality in the enquiry 2t W.P.No.lEl7 ol'2021 report or the order ofthe disciplinary proceedings except stating that the punishment order of dismissal from sewice is disproportionate to the alleged rnisconduct in the charge sheet. This Court finds that the petitioner was only the Assistant Manager of the branch of the bank and therefore, he alone cannot be held soleiy responsible for all the irregularities alleged ln Charges No.l to 2l and the hnancial irregularities. [n respect of the above Charges No.l to 21, they are in respect of both the petitioner as well as the Branch Manager K. Gopala Krishna Rao. Therefore, the respondents ought to have brought out the role ol each of the officers before awarding different punishments to each of thern.

18. The leamed counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Singh; Arunchalam P Vs. Director General Central lndustrial Security Force and othersr for the proposition that there has to be parity in awarding punishment where the offences are same or similar. The relevant paras are as under: L 2024 l-awsuit(Del) 5 180 : 2024 DI-IC 9487 22 W.P.No.l8l7 of 2021 t "[28] We may note that the Apex Court, in the case of Rajendra Yadav (supra) held as under:- "12. The doctrine of equulity applies to all who are equally placed: even amon!< persons who are found p;uilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treolmenl, d'they can establislt discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident- Pari5, oasnt co-delinquents has also to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be disproportionate v'hile comparing lhe involvement of codelinquents who are parlies to the same transaction or incident. The rlisciplinary aulhorily cannot impose punishment which is disproportionate i.e. lesser punishmenl for serious olfences arul stringent punishment.fbr lesser offences. " [29J From a reading oJ the aforesaid decision, what emerges is that when several individuals ure involvetl in the same incident, parity regarding punishmenl is to he mointained, which should not be disproportionate u'hile comparing the role o.f ectch individual, who are parties to the same tronsaction or incident. The Disciplirury Authorities connot impose a punishnrcnt. which is disproportionale in as much as lesser puni.shmenl is inposed for serious offences and stringent punishment.fbr lesser offences. This Court in the case o.f Narentler Singh (supra). y,hile making reference to the aforementioned decision o.[ the Apex Court in Rajendra Yadav (supra) and decision of this Court in lhe case of Virender Singh Chankot vs. Union of India & Ors.,20l9 SCCOnLineDel 11498 held lhut " discriminotory treatment could not be meted out at the time of owarding penalqt? 23 W.P.No. I 817 of 202l [30] Ilaving considered the above' we are of lhe view that the punishmen! oJ "removal ftom service with immediate effect " awrtrded to the petitioners is liable lo be set aside- t(e, therefore, set aside the Ortlers oJ the Disciplinary Authorities dated l5-10.2018, along with the Appellate Orrlers dated I1.02.2019 ets also the Revisional Orders dated 23.07.2019 and 23/24.08.2t)19. The leamed counsel Jbr the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were removed from service in the year 20t9 and have been without a job for the past f:e yeors and they would be satisfied'trith their reinstatement in the Service " In view of the above judgment, this Court is of the view that the respondents should reconsider the issue of awarding punishment similar to the punishment awarded in the case of K. Gopala Krishna Rao for the similar charges. As regards charges No.22 to 26 also, this court directs the respondents to consider the proportionality of punishment for the alleged acts of misconduct and pass appropriate orders awarding punishment lesser than the punishment of dismissal from service. The punishment order and the appellate order are'accordingly set aside and the respondent authorities are directed to pass orders afresh within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order' The treatment to be given to the period of out of employment shall be decided thereafter by the respondents. / / i I I I I 24 W.P.No.l817 ol202l

19. As regards the preliminary objection about the maintainability of the Writ Petition in this Court, this Court is of the opinion that since the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the Head Office at Hyderabad and the enquiry was also conducted at Hyderabad and the final orders of dismissal are passed by the disciplinary authority at Hyderabad, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this Writ Petition and accordingly, the preliminary objection raised by the respondents is rejected.

20. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

21. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall also stand disrnissed //TRUE COPY// SD/-K. SREE RAMA MURTHY NT REGISTRAR ASSI CTION OFFICER

1. The Chief General Manager, Union Bank of lndia, Head office, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman point, MUMBAI-400 001, Maharashtra State.

2. The Andhra Bank Ltd., now merged with union Bank of lndia, Regional Office, 5-9-1 1, Dr. Pattabhi Bhavan, Secretariat Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad-S00 004(T.s.).

3. The Assistant General Manager/Disciplinary Authority, Human Resources Department (lR), Head office now Regional Office, Andhra Bank Ltd., now merged with Union Bank of lndia, 5-9-1 1, Dr. Pattabhi Bhavan, Secretariat Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad-SO0 004(T.S.)

4. The Deputy General ft4anager-HR and Appellate Authority, Human Resources Department (lR), Head office now Regional Office, Andhra Bank Ltd., now merged with Union Bank of lndia, 5-9- 1 1 , Dr. Pattabhi Bhavan, Secretariat Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad-S00 004(T.S.). 5. Sri L. V. Ramana Rao, Senior Manager and Enquiry Officer, H. R. Department, Head Office, Andhra Bank Ltd, now merged with Union Bank of lndia, 5-9-1 1, Dr. Pattabhi Bhavan, Secretariat Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad- 500 004(T.s.).

6. One CC to SRI K. RAJANNA, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI K. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA, Standing Counsel [OPUC] B. Two CD Copies \ To, MP BS R I HIGH COURT DATED:2310112025 irrc 5{Aat 5 C o 2I jli: ?M5 i .I D€s,, rf,'t'\ ORDER WP.No.18'17 of 2021 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS c'f"fl4 W