M. Prakash Babu v. its Chairman and Managing Diredbr, having

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circum$tances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature qf writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings in Lr.No. 666/20/NV/F-7191993, dt.20.07.2009 and declare the action of the respondents in initiation of disciplinary enquiry vide Charge Sheet Lr.No.q96/20lNvlF-71911746, dt.31.12.2008 and conduct of enquiry on 22,94.a00g a1d 6.5 2009 and the consequential punishment vide proceedings dt.20 07 .2009 as arbitrary, erroneousi illegal, Ne. ynq.9nq.$ilUtional and violative of Article, 21 of Constitution and principles Of -66g/20lNV/F-7191993, t natural justice and settled principles of law and consequently set-aside the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner herein with all monetary andnon-monetarybenefitsalongwithbackwages,continuityofservice, promotions, incremerrts etc. to which he is entitled from the date of imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement through out the available service. A NO: OF 21 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High colrrt may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to file the additional documents as material papers in writ Petition No.t 260 1 of Zo12 in the interest of justice' Counsgl for tfre Petitioner: SRI K.S.SUNEEL Cpunsel for the Respondents: SRI K'LAKSHMI NARASIMHA' SC FOR UBI The Court made thq following: ORDER t THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUI'HA WRIT PE ON No .l26OL of 2Ol2 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings No'666 /20/NV/F- 7lg/gg3, d'ated, 2O.O7.2009 and declare the same as arbitrar5r' erroneous and unconstitutional ald consequenfly to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with atl monetary and non-monetary benefrts along with back wages, continuitSr. of service, promotions, increments etc', from the date of imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement' I Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner 2. joined in the respondents Bank as Probationary Offrcer on ll.O7.1g7g. On 01.09.2005, he submitted an application for issuaace of a Credit Card and thus the Bank issued a Gold Credit Card in his favour arrd he also gave an undertaking authorizing the respondent No. 1 to recover the credit card dues' However, respondent No.3 framed a Charge Sheet alainst the petitioner on 31.12.2008 stating that petitioner had exceeded the credit limit and not cleared the dues of the credit card ald thus he committed an act of unbecoming of an officer as per the Bank regulations. A domestic enquiry was ordered against the t&r; ,,,-lii5,ei*. ..1.1.-..i. F 2 petitioner ofl O4.O4.2OO9. He requested the authorities to take lenient view on 06.05.2009, considering his 20 years of service, but the Bank authorities imposed a major penerlty of compulsory retirement from service uide ietter No. 666120l Nv I F -7 19 / 993, dated 20.O7 .2OO9, against which he preferred an appeal on 28.08.2009, but later it rvas withdrawn on 25.11 .2OO9 and the said withdrawal was, accepted on O1.12.2OO9 a:rd his pensionary benefits were relieved. Later, he filed the present writ petition after two and half years of pena-lty.

3. The marn contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that non-payment of the credit card amount will nd amount to misconduct ancl using of the credit card in excess of the ceiling amount does not come within the course of discharge of official duties. Petit.oner plays a role of customer to the respondent/Bzrnk while discharging the credit card dues and he is not an employee in that aspect. He relied upon the decision of the Honble Apex Court in the case of A.L.Ralra Vs. P & E,t in which it was held that "To constitute misconduct, the act must aise from the duties of the petitioner as an emploAee and his obligation to th.e emploger i.e., respondent/ Bantt. He also relied upon the decision of the Honble Apex court in the case of ' ua+ 1:; scc: ro J Ramr:sh Raghunatln Vs. Bank of India,z iil which it was held trrat 'The petitioner bg applging for the credit card plags the role the respondent Bank and not that of an of a anstomer to eTnplogee."

4.j'earrl,edCounselforthepetitionerfurthercontendedthat to constitute misconduct' the act must arise from the duties of the petitioner as an employee and his obligation to the also contended that imposing of "compulsory employer. He is disproportionate, arbitrar5r and without retirement" application of mind' Non-payment of credit card dues within time amounts to "lack of frnancial discipline"' whidr is not a ground for imposing a Major penalty of "compulsory'Retirement" under 4(h) of ABOtr (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations' 1981' The action of the respondents Bank in imposing a major penalty as an "eye opener' violates the principles laid down by the Hon,bleApexCourtinthecaseofuAllahabo'dBo'nkolJicers Associction Vs. Allahabad Banlgm ' He further stated that oner is entitled for back wages as his act will not bonstitute duct. He also stated that Bank has already recovered t card dues and erroneously imposed the penalty of Bom t64 4 J compulsory retirement and thus requested the Court to set aside the Order dated 2O.O7.2OO9.

5. The learned Counsel for the respondents/ Bank hzrs filed the representettion given by the petitioner for the VRS, in which petitioner stated that he intended to go on VRS immediately and hence requested them to settle the tota-l account. Even in the explanation g:.ven by the petitioner on 28.08.2009, he clearly stated that he applied for VRS on O6.O6.2O09, as he could not continue to u,ork at far off places due to his problems' and commitments, but due to penalty of compulsory retirement he sustained monitory loss in his pension and o6mmutation amounts also be reduced substantially due to non additron of 5 years weightage

6. In the counter filed by the Assistant General Manager of H.R.Department, Union Bank of India, Hyderabad, he stated that petitioner joined in the Bank as a probationary Officer in Junior Management Grade Sca_le - I on 1 l.O7.lg79 and he was promoted to Ofhcer Middle Management Grade Scale - II on 27.08.1988. He also stated that petitioner gave an application for issuance of'the credit card with an undertal<ing letter for recovery of dues. Accordingly, petitioner was issued with Gold 5 Card with arl overall limit of Rs.1,00,000/- as he is an employee, but he exceeded the overall limit and the outstanding liability was Rs.1,68,737 l- .vu.tth Minimum Pa5rment Due of Rs.73,74O / -. Thouqh the Credit Card Division sent several remainders for repayment of the amount, he did not pay the amount, as such charge sheet was served on the petitioner on 3L.72.2OO8, stating that petitioner has not paid the said amount since 22 months in spite of repeated reminders. The Enquiry Officer conducted Domestic enquiry ald gave findings on 07.05.2009 and the petitioner had submitted his reply uide letter dated 04.06.2009. He also stated that petitioner sustained minor penalties in his service and they were reff,rred to in paragraph No.10 of the counter in detail and considering his previous conduct in the discharge of the duties, they imposed major penalt5r of compulsory retirement from 2O.O7 .2OO9 . Against the said orders, petitioner preferred an appea-I, but later he withdrawn the same. Respondents/Bank have sent a Demand Draft bearing No.403883 dated 19.O8.2OO9 for an amount of Rs.3,5O,OO0/- towards settlement of ' terminal benefits and it was encashed by the petitioner. Later, he filed the present petition after lapse of 2 Yz years. 6 i..

7. In the counter, it was further stated that misconduct is an act which viol.ates a definite rule ald includes farlure to confirm to what is expected of an employee. The misconduct contmitted by the petitioner ha.s the following impact on the .Bank: "a) It affects the reputation of the Bank. b) It makes unsafe' for the bank to retain him in its sefulce. c) The grauitA of the misconduct committed bg the petitioner is sufficient for ang reasonabie pntdent person to sag that he could not be trusted." Therefore, the penalt5r imposed upon the petitioner is proportionate to the offence committed by him.

8. Admitterlly, petitioner was removed from services in the year 2012, but his due retirement on attaining age of superannuation was in the year 2OlZ and thus he lost five years of service. Now, it is for this Court to see whether the d major penalty imposed upon the petitioner is proportionate to the offence committed by him or not?

9. The matn contention of the petitioner herein is that exceeding the ceiling limit of the credit card is not with:n the discharge of dtrties as al employee and it will not constitute the misconduct on his part, but the respondents, Counsel contended that gold credit card is given exclusively only 1_o the t 7 employees of the Bank. Moreover, the writ petitioner is the probationar5r officer joined on ll.O7 .1979, as he is in the supenuisor capacity, he knows the consequences of excess use of credit card. Knowing pretty well, he utilized the credit card in excess of its ceiling limit and even after 22 months, in spite of I,i repeated reminders, he could not pay the same, as such the penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon him. Petitioner stated that he intended to opt for VRS, but that was not considered. Therefore, considering the arguments of both sides and also the entire record, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner from the date of compulsory retirement ndfionally and his continuit5r of service shall not be counted for any other purposes except for pensionary benefits.

10. In the result, the present Writ Petition is allowed in part directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner notionally from the date of compulsory retirement and his continuity of service shall not be counted for any other purposes'except for pensiona5r benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. I 8 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if an5', sha-ll stand closed. That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness The Hon'ble SRI SUJOY PAUL, The Acting Chief Justice on this Thursday, the Sixth Day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPYII Is\ra;;; 1. The Chairman and Managing Director, Union Bank Of lndia' having 5-9-11, Dr. Pattabhi Bhavan, Secretariat Road, Saifabad' Hyderab 004 FICER office at ad- 500

2. The General Manager, Union Bank of lndia, HRD- Department, Head Office - at 5-9-'1 1, Dr. F'}atta-bhi Bhavan, Secretariat Road, Saifabad, Hvderabad- 500 o04

3. The Deputy General Manager, Disciplinary Authority. Union Bank of lndia, HRD Dbodrtment, Head Office at 5-9-1 1, Dr- Pattabhi Bhavan, Secretariat road, Saiiabad. Hyderabad- 500 004. 4 One CC to SRI K S.SUNEEL, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRIK LAKSHMINARASIMHA, SC FOR UBIIOPUCI 6. Two CD Copies, ,f @)r," I tI HIGH COURT DATED: 0610212025 ORDER WP.No.12601 of 2012 ::4====a 1HE SI4i € o O 1tl IIIAR zfifi ( z a5 + * l)l'spqt cH{ :'- -- :=; t PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS