1. Telanoana Grameena Bank (TGB) v. 1. Ch. Chandramouli

SRI MUJIB KUMAR SADASIVUNI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V.RAVI KUMAR REDOY The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT '.{ THE IION'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAT'L AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No.144 of2O2S JUDGMENT Per the Hon'bte the Acting Chief Justie Sujog paul): Ms. S. Udayasree, learned counsel represents Sri Mqiib Kumar Sadasivuni, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri V. Ravi Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioners/ respondents.

3. With the consent, frnally heard This Intra-Court appeal takes exception to the order dated

06.12.2024 in W.P.No.314l2 of 2Ol6 passed by the learned Single Judge.

4. The relevant facts, as projected by learned counsel for the parties, are that respondent No. I /delinquent employee (since deceased) was subjected to disciptinary proceedings. The main allegation against the delinquent employee was regarding misappropriation of money. The delinquent employee submitted his reply to the charge sheet. The disciplinary authority was not satisfied with his reply and accordingly appointed an Enquiry Offrcer. The Enquiry Ofhcer found the charges as proved and after obtaining his report and employee's response, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal from service on 2

15.10.2015. 'The said order was unsuccessfully challenged 1n appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Single Judge has given a frnding that punishment of removal imposed on the delinquent employee was harsh and disproportionat-e considering the gravity of the miscon duct. No hnding is recorded as to why Enquiry Oflicer's report, accepted by the disciplinan/ authority, should not be given weightage. In other words, no flaw in the enquiry report was noticed and recorded by learned Single Judge. In absence of recording any hnding that Enquiry Offrcer's report was perverse or decision making process was polluted, there was no scope of interference.

6. So far, statement of two customers mentioned in paragraph No.7 of the impugned order is concerned, it is projected that those two customers never entered the witness box on behalf of anybody and in absence thereot zrny representation made by ttrem to the Enquiry Ofhcer has no evidentiary. value. The impugnr:d order of removal has not been set aside. Without there being an1' prayer for considering th.e dependant on compassionate grounds, learned Single Judge has directed such direction to consider petitioner No.2 on compassionate grounds which is bad in lau,. 7 Faced with this, learned counsel for the writ petitioners/ respondents submits that by communication dated 3 { I

15.O5.2O15, the customers informed the Enquiry Offrcer that there was some mistake relating to account number and they had no grievance against the delinquent employee' Parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated

8. above. g. On a specifrc query from the Bench' learned counsel for ttre parties fairly submitted that those customers, whose representation became one of the operative reasons to pass the impugrred order by learned Single Judge, never entered the witness box' Since they never entered the witness box and deposed their statements' the makers of d.ocument dated 15'05'2015 could not be put to cross-examination and therefore, any such representation has no Lala Satyanarain Prasad v' Gadadhar Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra v' CITz' Ram1, Radhasoami Managing Director, U.P' Warehousing Corpn' v' Vijay Narayan Vajpayees, Director Geaeral, Indian Council of Medical Research v. Dr. Anil Kumar Ghosha and Chandrakumar Madhukar Deshmuch v. Board of Trustees of Port of Bombays)' evidentiary value (see

10. In our opinion, it is trite that scope of interference disciplinary proceedings is very limited' The Writ Court is obliged ' ntn tgzz sc t46 ' (rssz) r scc osg ' {rggo) I scc +sg o (rgge) z scc gz ' rsgr (r) Lu z06 4 to examine the decision making process and can interfere with punishment if it shocks the conscious of the co,rt beine extremely harsh and disproportionate. In the event, the Court comes to the conclusion thzrt the punishment is excessive, the Writ Court may set aside the said punishment and remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorit5r to pass appropriate/ suitable punishment (see Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Choprao, Bank of lndia v, T.Jogramz and State of U.p. v. Man Mohan Nath Sinhas). I 1 . Before reaching to the conclusion that punishment is harsh/disprop.rtionate, it was imperative for the wril court to examine whether temporary embezzlement is a grave misconduct and can lead to inflicting of punishment of removal from service. Without setting aside the said punishment and order and without remitting the matter back to the disciplinary authority, a direction was issued to consider the dependant of delinquent employee for compassionate appointment. We are unable to give our stamp of approval to the said order which n,,,s contrary to the settled regal position.

12. In this vier.r. of the matter, the impugned order ,f learned Single Judge dated O6. 12.2024 in W.p.No.314l2 of 20t6 is set aside. At this stage, learned counsel for the parties fairlv '(rssg) I scc zsg ' 1zoot1 t scc zts ' (zoog) g scc :ro ..-,:.,. 5 submitted that since the decision making process of Enquiry and the findings of Enquiry Oflicer were not examined by the learned Single Judge, the matter may be remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration. In the interest of justice, we are inclined to accept this joint prayer

13. Resultantly, while setting aside the impugned order of learned Single Judge, the matter is remanded to the Writ Court and the Writ Petition is restored to its original number. The Writ Court is requested to decide the Writ Petition expeditiously.

14. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-B.SATYAVATHI UTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To, t3. I t The Chairman / Appellate Authority, Telangana Grameena Bank (TGB')' C1i!#"iiAi,riirratl''{ut'no,ir:v,'Hvbti',iOrq r*i.rerry Deccan Grameena Bank, H.No.21520, Street No. 9, Nallakunta Hyderabao' The Disciolinarv Authority/General - Mana.ger' Administration and lT' H.No.21520, Strdet No. 9, Nallakunta' Hyderaoao' The Reqional Manager, Telangana Grameena. Bank Formerly ' Deccan G ;;#;""";"d; ; k' iiA id;i oiriJ rV s'"til'l o s' r'l a t t a xu nta' H vd e ra b ad' The Branch Manager, Deccan Grameena Bank, Parigi Branch, Ranga Reddy District. The Section Officer' Posting Section' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. The Section Officer, Writ DB Section, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. One CC to SRI MUJIB KUMAR SADASIVUNI' Advocate IOPUC] One CC to SRI V.RAVI KUMAR REDDY' Advocate [OPUCI

7. 8 01v e Two CD CoPies BSR/BSK HIGH COURT DATED: 0410212025 JUDGMENT WA.No.144 of 2025 {( ! t' ltrE S la 7 L'1 ,7 17 l,',i ? 25 o o )/ \.9 \1 O6 *- DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL, WITHOUT COSTS cti"',