The High Court · 2025

Counsel for Appellants : SRI MUJIB KUMAR SADASIVUNI Counsel for Respondents : SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS, SENIOR COUNSEL W.A.NO:595 oF 2025 writ Appeal under clause '15 of the Letters patent preferred Against the order daied 03-03-2025, in WP.No.49'13 of 2020. on the fite of the High Co-urt. Between: 1 Telangana Grameena Bank,. Head Office, H.No.2- 1_520, 2nd floor, Vijaya Sai Celestia, Street No.9, Shankermutt Roao, ttydeiaorJ_dOoo?a. iiejtii'iyr.i! Chairman Board of Directors-cum- Appellate Authority, Telangana Grameena Head Office, H.No.2-1-52O, 2nd ftoor, vi;aya Sii -Cerestia, Si[et Shankermutt Road, Hyderabad-S00044.' ' ' Bank, No.9, 2 AND ....APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P Sri J. Moses, s/o. late sri Jo_seph, aged about 66 years, R/o.prot No..106, Usha Kiran Heights, West End Colony, aandtaglda, X-Road,'tfyOerabaa_SOO OSl. ' -- - ' .....RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN W.P l.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under section 15'r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the order passed in w.p.No.49'13/2020, dt.03.03.2025, of the learned the single judge, pending the disposal of the main writ appeal_ Counsel for Appeltants : SRI MUJTB KUMAR SADASIVUNT Counsel for Respondent : SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS, SENIOR COUNSEL W.A.NO:627 oF 2025 Writ Appeal under ctause 15 of the Letters patent to aflow the appear by setting 'uv t" i"ur""o aside the order.passed in w.p.No.222 12r2o2o dated.03-3-2020, single Judge and pass on the file of the High Court. Between: 1 Telangana. Grameena Bank, Head Office, H.No.2_ 1_520, 2nd floor, Vijayasri Sai ceresria, street No.9. shankermutt noao, Hyoeraoro-soooii,'neiliiiuv its Chairman. !:F )

2. Board of Directors-cum- Appellate Authority' Telanoana Grameena Bank' Head Office, ff.ruo.i.i-'SZb,'-ZiiO-trooi, Vijafasri Sai-Celestia, Street No'9, Shankermutt Road, Hyderabad-500044' .....APPELTANTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P AND Sri P. Guru Prasad, S/o. Sri Kittappa, aged about 3gyears' C/o' Sri J Priyadarshini' il.iri".a:d-issi2, Fl"u.ro.c-i sd,HSat r.tior z, Green park colony, Karmanghat, 5J.o.ugut, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District' .....RESPONDENT/PETTTIONER IN W.P t.A.NO:1 OF 2025 PetitionUnderSection,l5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the order passed in in W P No'222 12t2O2O' dated 03-3-2025' of the learned the single judge, pending the disposal of the main writ appeal' Counsel for Appellants : SRI MUJIB KUMAR SADASIVUNI Counsel for Respondents : Ms' K'UDAYA SRI W.A.NO:64 5 0F 2025 WritAppealunderclause15oftheLettersPatentPreferredAgainstorderDated oziosiSozs in W.P.No.13991 o't 2o2o on the file of the High Court' Between:

1. Telangana Grameena Bank, Head Office, H'No'2-1-520' znd floor' Vijayasri Sai celestia, street ilJd,'b-r,"n-r,"rmrt Road, Hyderabad-500044, Reptd by its Chalrman. 2. Board of Directors-cum- Appellate Authority' Telanoana Grameena Bank' Head office, n.r.ro.z-i-'szb,-2nJnoor, Vijayasri Sai"celestia, street No.9' Sfiintermutt Road, Hyderabad-500044' .....APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN W'P AND Sri G.Srinivas Rao, S/o. Late Sri Rama Rao, lged about 66 vears' Fl/o 401' Plot Nos.26 and 27, Sai Hamlet,"4it]'i;;t#iilp;if"rk' Kondapur' Sherilingampallv Mandal, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN W.P

1. |.A.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 to suspend the order passed in w.p.No.13991t2020, dt.03.03.202s, of the learned the single judge, pending the disposal of the main writ appeal. Counsel for Appettants : SRI MUJIB KUMAR SADASTVUNI counsel for the Respondents : sRr VEDULA sRrNrvAS, sENroR couNSEL W.A.NO: 645 OF 2o2s writ Appeal under crause r 5 of the Letters patent filed against the order Dated 0310312025 inwritpertion No 21759 of 2020. onthefiteof thJHigh court. Between: l Telangana Grameena tank, Head office, H.No.2- 1-s20, 2nd froor, Viiava sai celestia, Street No g, shankermutt noaa, uyoerauao-sotba+. nLitrl'6y'it, Chairman

2. Board of Directors-c^u!-_fpoettate -Authority, Terangana Grameena Bank, Head office, H No.2 1_520, .21d_-floor, vijdva sii cereii",strdii ul.s, Shankermutt Rr>ad, Hyderabad-500044. ' ' AND .....APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P Sri B._,Ravikanth, S/o.late Sri Babaiah, aged about 63 years, R./o.H.No..l0_4_ !26!l,Vlayapuri Cotony, Near Gtobai H6spitat, Sarooinagar, HyOeranad, ianga Reddy District- 500 035. .....RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN W.P l.A.NO:'f 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 preased to suspend the order passed in w.p.No.2'l 759 t2o2o, dl.o3lo3l2o2s, of the learned the single judge, pending the disposal of the main writ appeal. Counsel for Appellants : SRt MUJIB KUMAR SADASIVUNI Counsel for Respondents : SRt VEDULA SRINIVAS, SENTOR COUNSEL t W.A.NO: 665 0 F 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent pre1erred against the order dated oiloiilSzs i" the w.P.No. 13749 of 2020 on the file or the High court' i- t Between: its Chairman

1. Telanqana Grameena Bank, Head Office' H \g ?- 1- 52O'2nd floor' Street ' il;:U:iij;y;$iL;i;.d:'shl''"i'''"'"iinbad' Hvderabad- 500044' Reptd bv 2. Board of Directors- cum- AppelJate Authority' Telanoana Grameena Bank' Head office, n.r'ro.z-rlile"Fl"fl;;;' vX;v'a sai ietestia' Street No 9' Sninf<eimutt' noad, Hyderabad- 500044' .....APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P AND Sri E. Raianna, S/o. late Sri Ramaiah, Joseph' aged about 67 vears' Fl/o H No' 9- 6/4013/303, Eshwarapurt"J;1i;:ffii;ffi'GeJi'a N't"noal' Ranga Reddv District .....RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN W.P I.A.NO:1 OF 2025 PetitionUnderSection'l5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order passed in W' P' No 13749 OF 2O2O' df'03 03' 2025' of the learned the single judge' pending the disposal of the main writ appeal' Counsel for Appellants : SRI MUJIB KUMAR SADASIVUNI Counsel for Respondents : SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS' SENIOR COUNSEL w.A.NO :699 oF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated o'roiil5is i" w.p.No.tzoge of 2o2o' on the file of the High court' Between: E?,,xllfl 3l'.?!11"ft11n,'TI;#3i*,3*fi3;X Chairman -,:,?-J,i#i

333.lil'*Yll?Y'ili iil .....APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P AND V.V.J.Rama Rao, S/o.Sri V.V.S.Devaraju, aged. aboutyears, Fl/o.H.No.3 -7 -62139 i"";; iG.i, s;ihEno p"t rt'rinlooradao' Hvderabad-S0o 068' ' - 6- ....,RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN W.PI |.A.NO:1 OF 2O25 Petition Under Section i 51 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 w.p.No.1709g l2o2o, dt.03.03.2025, of the learned the single judge, pending the disposal of the main writ appeal. Counsel for Appellants : SRt MUJIB KUMAR SADASIVUNT Counsel for Respondent: Ms. K.UDAyA SRI The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT : - THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.IVIOHIT'DDIN WRIT APPEAL Nos.587 595 627 645 649 665 and 699 of 2025 COMMON JUDGMENT: Mr. Mujib Kumar Sadasil'urni, learned counsei lor the appellalts-Bank. Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents in W.A.Nos.587, 595, 645, 649 and 665 of 2025. Ms. K.Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the respondents in W.A.Nos.627 and 699 of 2025.

2. IJy the common impugned order dated 03.03.2')25, the learned .,lrit Court has quashed the impr-rgned orders of dismissal from service imposecl upon the writ petitioners. The iear-ned writ Court has directed the appellants-Bank to reconsider imposing lesser punishment than dismissal from service or for re-initiating action against the employees by following the due process of 1ar,r,. The Bank authorities were directed to release provisional pension to all the writ petitioners till a decision is taken as to whether the enquiry is I I ) =- \ to be re-conducted in accordance with law or if lesser punishment than dismissal from service has to be imposed. The rvrit petitioners were Bank emproyees in different scales working in the same Bank, Aziz Nagar Branch. They were proceeded tn a departmental enquiry for dereliction of duty and alleged la.rge scale misappropriation of funds and loss to the Bank. The enquiry report indicted the employees leading to their dismissal lrom service, which was the subject matter of challenge. TI-re .rvrit petitioners raised the following objections in t heir challenge: "(a) Whr:ther the photocopies of the Bank records carr be rlrarhcd as c.xhibrts and whetJrer they consiitute admissible evider r ce irL the cnquiry? (b) Whethcr, mere marking of the documents, lvithout proving the contents of the documents would satisfv the requlrelner t of proof of misconduct the domestic enquiry? 1n (c) Wher.her the charges against t}]e petitioners stood provcd in tlte domestic enquiry keeping in view the nature of the clocurnet]ts filed in the enquiry arld also the nature of oral evidence adduced? (d) Whether the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the (lonstltution of India will be confined merely to sec whether the procedure of domestic enquiry was I 3 followed by the Bank, more particularly when the charges themselves are not Proved? In case the contentions of the petitioners are found (.) valid, what is the relief the petitioners are entitled to?"

3. The learned writ Court took up the first question to be decided as to whether the photocopies of the Bark records can be ma-rked as exhibits and whether they constitute admissible evidence in the enquiry' The Bank had taken a stand that the photostat copies of the documents relied upon by the enquiry officer were obtained from the custody of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and duly certified to be true by the Bank officia'l before producing it in the enquiry proceedings. The learned writ Court held that photocopies of the Bank records unless specified to be so by the authority under whose possession the original documents are there cannot be considered as admissible evidence ln these cases' admittedly, the original documents were in the custody of CBI. When the documents were in the custody of CBI' upon a proper search and seizure or production to the investigating ' agency by the Bank officials, the copies of those documents 0 I \ 4 could have been obtained by taking permission from the Special CBI Court

4. In the irLstant cases, the Bank, in their counter affidavit before the q'rit Court, has taken a stand at paragraph 9 that the officer of the Bank had approached the investigating officer of the CBI and obtained the photocopies thereof and then certificd it to be true. The course was not proper as such evidence could not be adduced as secondarSr evidence by the Bank officer during enquiry when the copies thereof were not certified to be true by the officer of the investigating agency lrpon permission granted by the learned Special CBI Court.

5. The learned writ Court found the procedure to be illegal. Thc learned rvrit Court also answered the questions No.b and c in the negative. It heid that mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof as required to be <ione in accordance with 1aw. Having arrived at such a finding, the learned writ Court proceeded to set aside the order of clismissal, but taking into account that some ol the u,rit petitioners may have attained the age of t I 5 superannuation and sufficient time had lapsed' a-lso gave Iiberty to the appellants-Bank authorities to choose either of thecoursei.e.,eithertore-initiateactionagainstthe employees by following due process of law or to impose a lesser punishment thal dismissal from service ' The latter course adopted by the learned writ Court does not appeal to us. If the disciplinary enquiry was found to suffer from seriousinfirmitiesinthematterofadducingofmaterial evidence as exhibits relied upon by the enquiry officer' the proper course was to remit the matter to the enquiry ofhcer to conduct the proceedings from the stage of adducing of evidence by the presenting officer and cross-examination etc by the charged of{icers. The allegations are of serious nature involving dereliction of duty resulting in loss to the Bank' In such cases, when the enquiry proceedings were found to be ' vitiated,thelearnedwritCourtoughtnottohavegivenan option to the disciplinary authorit5z to impose a lesser punishment and let go the employees in question' Except I I one of the writ petitioner, others are superarnuated'

6. Regulation 45 of the Deccan Grameena Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 permits conduct of 6 disciplinary proceedings aJter retirement. lt is quoted hereunder: "45. Disciplinary proceedings after retirement._ (i) An olficer or emplovee who is under suspension on a charge r[ misconduct and who attains the age of superannuation, shalt be deemed to be in service even after the age of superannuation for the specific purpose of continuation and conclusion of the disciplinar5. proceedir-.gs and issue of frnal orders thereon. (2) The oificer or emplo.vee rvho rs under suspension shaii not be eligible lor any subsistence allowalce for the period beyond thc date of superannuation. t3) The officer or cmplovce agarnst whom disciplinary proceeding has been inirrated shall ccase to be in servlce on the datc of supcraunuation but the disciplinary proceeding shall contrnue as if he was in service undl the proc.eedings ai-e concluded and final order is passed in respect thereof. (a) The officer or employce against whom disciplinary proceedings has bcen initiated shall not receive arry pay and/or allowanccs after the date of superalnuation and also not be entitled for tl.re payment of retirement benefrts till the prc cceding is compreted and rrnal order is passed thereon except his owr-r contribution to Contributory Provident Fund (CpF) Dxplanation: For the purposes oI this regulation, the normal retiremcnt beneflts such as encashment of privilege leave and (iratuiry may be withheld till the completion of the disciplinary proceeding ald passing of final order by the competent Authority and the release of benefits sharl be as per the final ordcr of the Competent Authority.,, I - 7

7. When the matters were taken up on the previous date,. Iearned counsel for the appellants-Bank was asked to produce the relevalt Rules. Apart from the Rules, the procedure to be followed by the Bank while furnishing documents in matters relating to police complaint or insurance claim in a fraud case have been adverted to The circular uid,e Cir.No.GB/2Olo-ll/22 dated 30 06 2010 issued by the Chairman of the Deccan Grameena Bank to ali Branches / administrative officers provides that the Branch Manager should take at least three Xerox copies of the original documents being submitted to police and keep them in safe or in joint custody dttly attested by the Branch Manager for future enquiry/D.P cases etc., if the police has asked for submission of relevant original documents during course of investigation. The stand taken by the appellants- Bank in their counter affidavit shows that these documents were not prepared before su.bmission of the original documents to the Bank report. They obtained it from the custody of the CBI officer without seeking any permission of the Special CBI Court, which course was not proper or permissible in 1aw. The learnecl writ Court, therefore, rightly I 8 held that the proceedings suffer from such from what has been referred to hereinabove. infirmity apart 8' In such circumstances, we are inclined to interfere with the latter part of the impugned direction whereby the Bank authorities have been given tl-re discretion to impose lesser punishment to the writ petitioners. Accordingly, the said direction is set aside.

9. Let it be indicated that if documents reiied upon during enquiry proceedings have been dury obtained ,,vith permission of the Special C:81 96111 or copies thereof have bcen prepared before suitmission of the relevant documents to the CBi, the necessity of seeking fresh permission lor adducing those documents during course of enquin. r,r.i tl not be required. i0. Except one of the wrtt petitioner, others have retired. Taking into acr:ount that the proceedings have remained pending since last six years, the disciplinary authority shall endeavour to conclude the clisciplinary proceedings within a time bound manner, preferably six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thc ,"vrit petitioner.s/ charged f ', -r- 9 oflicers shall cooperate in the enquiry proceedings. Needless to say if they fail to cooperate, it would be open for the disciplinary authority to take a decision, in accordance with 1aw, within the time specified. 1 1. Writ Appeals are, accordingly, allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shali stand closed. /ffRUE COPYII SD/.K. SHYLESHI INT REGISTRA s ION OFFICER

1. The Chairman, Telangana Grameena Bank, Head floor, Vijayasri Sai Celestia, Street No.9, Shank 500044. , H.No.2-1-520, 2nd Road, Hyderabad- 2. The Board of Directors-cum- Appellate Authority, Telangana Grameena Bank, Head Office, H.No.2-1-520, 2nd floor, Vijayasri Sai Celestia, Street No.9, Shankermutt Road, Hyderabad-500044.

3. One CC to SRI MUJIB KUMAR SADASIVUNI, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Ms. K.UDAYA SRl. Advocate IOPUCI 5. One CC to SRI VEDULA SRlNlvAsfldrlocate (OPUC) 6. Two CD Copies To BS I HIGH COURT DATED:0310912025 c i, I .,,' ::i 2025 1-\ ---lr COMMON JUDGMENT WA.Nos.587, 595, 627, 645,649,665 AND 699 OF 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS. t 6 l i1 I i ! I I I I J