The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order passed in Rev. W.P.lt/P.No.112022 in W P.No.8090 of 2017, daled 30-12-2024, of the learned the single judge, pending the disposal of the main Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI B.S. PRAAD, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING SRI MUJIB KUMAR SADASIVUNI Counsel for the Respondent: SRI JOGRAM TEJAVAT The Court Delivered the following: JUDGMENT Ei THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY WRIT APPEAL NO.746 OF 2025 JUDGMENT: eer the IIotL'ble the Chte.f .Iullrce si Aparesh Kunar SingLL) Heard Mr. B.S.Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. Mujib Kumar Sadasivuni, lealed counsel lor appellants on record and Mr. Jogram Tejavat, learned counsel for respondent.

2. The writ petitioner was the Scale-l Officer in the appellant-Bank when he was proceeded against tot 25 charges, which also related to several charges of misappropriation committed during his service period. After detaiied discipiinary enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held that Charge Nos.1, 3, 4,5,7, 13, 16,23,24 and 25 as proved; Charge Nos.2, 6, 9, 10, 1 l, 12, 15, 17, lB, 19 and 22 as partially proved; Charge Nos.8, 14, 20 and 21 as not proved. The writ petitioner has submitted written / statement of defence on enquiry report and thereafter, the following penalty was imposed by the disciplinary authority uide order dated 30. lO.2013 (Annexure-P2). 2 ,:1 "DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS ANDHRA PRADESH GRAMEENA VIKAS BANI( (OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES) SERVICE REGULATIONS, 2010 CHARGE SHEET NO.APGVB/V&DP I taa la82 / tL -12, DATED 19.O 1.2012. 0I. I have gonc throllgh the enquiry. proceedings, thc cvidcnce that werc let in during the course of lhc enquiry, thc findings of the trnquiry Officer, 1,611; submissions dated 15.05.2013 on the Enquirl, Ofhcer's hndings and all the relevant material on recorcl. I am satisfied that therc are no violations of principles of natur.:l lustice during the entire procccdings. A tabular statement containing the chargc, Evidences in support of each Charge, Findings of the trnquiry Ofhcer, your submissicln ald our comments thcrcon rs enclosed.

02. Our of the 25 Chargcs Levelled against ,\'ou, the trnquiry Officer held tcn Charges as proved. eleven Charges as partrally proved and four Chargcs as not proved. I am in agreement with the hndings of the Enquiry Officer. 'l'he pro\ren acts of misconduct are seriou s in nature ald urarrart extreme penalt].. Horver.er, considering your age ar-rd to give )'ou an opparlunity to pro\.e a bettcr account of yourself, I am inclincd to take a lenient vicu, in the matter and decidcd to impose on you the penalty of "Monetary Recovery of Rs.1,65,OOO/- (Rs. one lac and sixty five thousand only| i.e., pecuniary loss caused to the Bank on account of your acts and reduction to a lower stage in tirnc scale of pay by (O5l five stage with cumulative effect and with a further direction that you will not earn increments during the period of such reduction" as provided for in tcrms of Regulatior.r 39(1)(a)(iv) and (b)(i) respectively of Andhra Pradestr Gramcena Vil<as Bank (Officers ald Employees) Service Regulations 2O 10. Accordingl),, the penalty inllicted on you will tal<e effect from thc date of this order.

03. It has been decided to treat the period spent bv you under suspension as "not on duty". Accordingly, you will not be e[gible for aly back wages and other attendant benefrts other than what has afrcadr. been paid to 1ou by way of subsistence allowancc." I sw. ., ::..:. .. '. /' - )

3. This was challenged in the writ petition by the aggrieved employee. The learned Writ Court 1 did not interfere in the findings of the trnquiry Officer, but modified the penalty inter qlia holding as under: "8. In view thereof, this Courl is not inclined to go into the merits of the charges which are held to be proved or not proved against the petitioner. However, iL is also ar-r admitted fact that where the punishmcnt imposed is shockingly excessive or exorbitant, this Court can interferc with the said punishment by setting aside of the report of the Er-rquiry Ofhcer or by modiflnng the punishmcnt itself in order to shorten the litigation by giving cogent reasons submitted Lhereof. As pointed out by the learned counsel for thc petitioner, the 1"t punishment is monetary recovery of Rs.1,65,OOO/-. It is claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cntire amount has been recovered by the bank from thc borrowers, if that be so the arnount rccovered from the petitioner would have to be refunded to the petitioner as it is not punishment, it was only reco\rery of pccuniary loss caused to the bank. The respondent balk is therefore directed to verlfy and refund the amount which has been already recovcrcd from the borrowers to the petitioner. As regards the 2"a punishment is concerned i.e., reduction to a lower stage in Lime scale of pay by hve (5) stages with cumulative effect is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioncr has subrnitted that Rule 39(l)(b)(i) does not provide for reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by hve (5) stages. He drew the attention of this I I \--\. "'!FEEB'. *effi :i{.a:_,,..:1t!li&* \. li.; - ' "i: , r'i .\r...r_,. 'tt._ _ \. \ Court to Rule 39(l)(a)(r,) which provides reduction to a lou,er stagc in timc scale of pay for a period not exceeding two years wrthout cumulative effect and Rule 39(11(b)(i) refcr to Major Penalties zmd clause (r) pror.icles that the sarne as provided in item (v) of clause (a) of Sub-rcgulation (1) of regulation 39, reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay for a specified period. F urther, the sermc clause provides that the reduction to a lower stagc in Lrme scale pay lbr a per:iod shzrll not exceeclir-rg two ycar-s, even if it is with cumulative effect. Thcrefore, this Court is of the opinior thert the punisl-rment for recluction to a lower stagc in Lime scale of pay by hve (5) stages is not permlsslblc. Therefore, thls Court deems rt fiL amcl propcr to modify the punishment to reduction to a loq.er stagc in time scale of pay by two (2) stagcs witll cumulaLive effect wrth further direction that the petrtioncr w-il1 not earn any increments during tl're sard period. As regards by the petitioner's suspension pcriod not bcing treated as on duty and further that the petitioner u,il1 not entitled for aly back wages, this Court holds rhat this Court does not dcem it necessarv to interfere rvith the saici punishment.

9. In vieu, of the abor.e, the punishment given to the petitioncr is modihed and thc respondents are directed to give consequential effect to the monetary benehts of the petrtioner ald pay the same to the petitioner wrthin a period of l2O days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. Accordingly. this writ petition is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 4W'..''.-;:...1',...:-'.1,/ '''-}'', ,/ .// .,r./ -r/ ) 1 1. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shaii stand closed." 4 . The appellant-Bank being aggrieved has preferred this Appeal. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant- Bank, inter alia, submits that the charges have been proved, which are serious in nature and amount to grave misconduct. The learned Writ Court did not interfere u'ith the lindings of the Enquiry Officer, and rightly so, as the procedure prescribed for conducting such proceedings was cluly follorved. Hor,vever, the learned Writ Court modified the punishment by treating the monetary recovery of Rs. 1,65,000/- as not a punishment, particularly in view of the fa.ct that the entire amount had subsequently been recovered by the Bank from the borrowers. So far as the 2na punishment is concerned, learned Writ Court was of the view that a major penalty of reduction to a lorver stage in time scale of pay by five (5) stages with cumulative effect is not providecl under Rule 39(1)(b)(i) of Andhra Pradesh i! Grameena Vikas Bank (Officers and Employees) Serv-ice Regulations, 2O10 (for short, Regulations, 2010) Learned Writ Court therefore reduced a major penalty imposed by 6 \' =rGr.+iH ' ::,]15!. \. -.',-..' \.t{. '' .i -r the discipiinary authorit]. to a reduction to a lor,r,er stage in time scale of pay by two stages with cumulative effect. The appellant Bank rvas directed to give consequelttial effect to the monerary benefits ro the writ petitioner and pay the same to him r,vithin a stipulated period. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-Bank has drar.r,n the attention of this Court to the relcvant Disciplinary Rules, r,vhich are at page Nos.S1 and 52.

5. It is submitted that the learned Writ Court perhaps mixed the provisions under Rule 39(1)(b)(i) read with Rule 39(t)(a)(r,) of the Regulations, 2010, rhe latter of which fa11s under the category of 'minor penalties'. In fact, the Writ Court, rvhile reducing/ modiflring thg major penalt_v, applied it with cumulative effect, though such a course is not permissible under Regulatior-r 39(1)(a)(v). It is submitted that in such circumstances, even if the learned Writ Court. in exercise of judicial revien', is of the opinion that the pena,lty imposed is shockingll. disproportionate to the established misconduct, the appropriate course would be to remand the matter to the disciplinary authority to pass a I /:/ l.: 7 fresh order on penalty. Moreover, the disciplinary authority, having taken into account the age of the writ petitioner and also the fact that he was at the fag end of his service, did not impose a major pgnalty, such as removal or dismissal from service. Rather, a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by five stages with cumulative effect was imposed with further direction that writ petitioner will not earn any increments during the said period.

6. He further submitted that learned Writ'Court ought not to have interfered with the quantum of penalty, particularly, when serious charges of misappropriation \\.ere proved after conducting a full-fledged disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside.

7. Leaned Senior Counsei for the respondent/ u'rit petitioner has submitted on merits of findings of Enquiry Officer. He submitted that the Enquiry Officer has failed to take into account that the charges levelled against the writ petitioner did not pertain to deliberate misconduct, but on * I , 8 'i..?.!"i rt' account of tralsitional issues in the Bank's operations from mar-rual processing to computerization. He further submitted that the Writ Court has therefore proceeded to interfere u.ith the quanl-um of penaltv and reduced the sarne. It rs further submitted [hat advar-rces made to the concerned borrowers u/ere rccovered in the meantime. Therefore, learned Writ Court found it inappropriate to a1lou, recovery of the said amount from the u,'rit petitioner. The appellaret-Bank u,as th erefore directed to refuncl the amount recdvered from the concerned borrowers ald pay the same to the writ petitioncr. It is stated that writ petitioner has retired nor,r,. If the impugned order is interfered rvith, it may lead to severe fir-ranciai hardships to the writ petitioner. Therefore, this Court may relrain from interfering with the matter in the instant Appeal. B. We have considered the submissions of lear-ned counsel for the parties and taken note of material placed on record. Let it be indicted herein that findings of the Enquiry Officer on the charges established against the writ petitioner have not been touched upon by the learned Writ I 9 Court. The learned Writ Court however proceeded to modify the penalty in the manner indicated above. In this regard it ls pertinent to refer to the relevant Disciplinary Rules, which are extracted hereunder: "R.39. Penalties:- Without prejudice to the foregoing rcgulations of this Chapter, an officer or employee who commits a breach of these regulations or who displays negligence, inefficiency or indolence or who commits acts detrimental to thc interests of the Bank or in conflict with its instructions, or who commits a breach of discipiine or is guilty of any other acLs o[ misconduct, shall be liablc for any onc or more penalties as fo11orvs, namcly,

1. Officers: (al Minor Perralties (i) Censure; (ii) withholding or stoppage of increments of pay r.vithout cumulative effect: (iii) withholding of prornotion; (ir,) recovery from emoluments or such other irrrounts as may bc due to him, of the whole or part or any pecuniary loss caused to the Balk by negligence or brcach of orders; (r,) reduction to a Lower stage in time scale o{ pay for a period not exceeding two years wrthout cumulative cflect; (b) Major Penalties: (i) same as provided in item (v) of clause (a) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 39, reduclion to a lowcr stage in time scale of pay for a specified t 1 10 pcriod \r.ith further directions as to u,l're(her or not the officer shall earn increments of pay cluring the pcriod of such reduction and whcther on c_rpiry of such period thc rcduction shall or sha[ not hanc the eflcct of poslponing Lhe future incremcnts of his pay; (ri) recluction to a Iorver grade or posL; (iii) compulson rctiremcnt; (ir,) removal from scn ice u,l-rrch shall not be a disqualification [or future employment; (v) dismissal whicl-r shall ordinaril,v bc :r disqualihcation for futur.e crnploymcnt_,, L Perusal of the pcnaltJ/ provided under the Regulations, 20lO would shorv that the disciplinary authority may save as provided in item (v) of clause (a) ol Regulatton 39, impose a major penalt]. of reduclion to a lower stage in time scale of pay for a specilied period $rith further directions as to qrhether or not the officer shall ezrrn increments of pay during the period of such reductioll arld u,hether on expiry of such period the reductions ha-i1 or shall not have the effect to postponing the future increments of his pay.

10. We have been rnformed that in the Banking servlce, the officers may go up to the time scale of pay upto stage 17. Therefore, it appears that the penalty rules do not stipulate as to the period for whrch reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay can be ordered depending on the gravity of the charges. The Disciplinary. Authority has chosen to impose a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by five stages u,ith cumulative effect in case of the delinquent employee taking into account not on11, the gravit5z of the ch arges established, but also considering the age ol the employee 1 1 . The learned Writ. Court appears to have misinterpreted the provisions under Reg'r.riation 39(1)(b)(i), r.vhich provides for 'major per-ralty', with the 'minor pena,lty' prescribed under Rule 39(1)(a)(i,), which provides for reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay for a period not exceeding two years rvithout cumulative effect. The imposition of a reduction in time scale of pay with cumulative effect is not contemplated under the minor penalty provisions. In any case, if the writ Court in exercise of judicial revien, is of the opinion that penalty imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the established misconduct, .@ \Yii*.*r \. -r.'4E1,"q ,\, ' '*..\ \ \ I2 the Writ Court may remand the matter to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh ordcr on the quantum of per-ralty. In this case, the charges levellecl against the rrrrit petitioner were serious in nature and also rclate to misappropriation. The charges have been established. The findings of the Bnquiry Olficer have not been in terfered b1,, thc learned Writ Court. Writ petitioner was not imposed ri ith a mzrjor penalty of removaf or dismissal from the servrce, ."r,hich could have been treated as sl-rockingly disproportionate to the established misconduct.

12. In such circumstances, it appears that Lhe learned Writ Court erred in modifying the penalty imposed b_r, the disciplinary authority and substituting it u,ith a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay for a period not exceeding two years with cumulative effect. We are therefore inclined to interfere u,ith the impugned order so far as it has been interfered with the quantum oi penaltv imposed by the disciplinary authority.

13. For al1 the above reasons, the present Appeai allowed. The order of the leaned Writ Court so lar reiates to 1S , ': :/, 13 modification in quantum of penalty and payment of consequential benefits to the writ petitioner stands set aside- Hou,ever, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shal1 stand closed SD/-N, SRIHARI EPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFiCER

1. One CC to Sri [Iujib Kumar Sadasivuni, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri Jogram Teiavat, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies W \ I To, TJ BS HIGH COURT DATED:2310712025 JUDGMENT WA.No.746 of 2025 oil. l rlt S r4 16 f, !) 19 tuB x6 e'^ (f' \\ .1 SP41sylf-D ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS i , t i t t I ' t i t I L{