High Court · 2025

Order

Heard Mr. C. Damodar Reddr', Icarned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. C. Ruthwik Redd,l , learnecl counscl for peLitioner and Mr. B.S. Prasad, learncd Senior Counscl appearing [or M/s Pearl Law Associates lor Rcspondents.

2. The case of petitioner is that hc cutcred the sen'icc o[ respondent bank in 2009 as Assistant and subscc;ucntl], on 2a-O4-2O\3, he u,as transferred and postcd as Jutrior Assistant at Stsl, Ganesh Nagar Branch, Mahabubttagar, u'hcre hc rendered dedicated service to respondent barrk and as a token of his hard work, he was promotcd as Sertior Assistant and posted at SBl, Main Branch, Clock Tower, Mahabtrbnagar ernd clircc[ed him to report on O1-06-2018, aftcr undcrgoirig training, as such, he u.as relieved lrom Ganesh Nagar Br:rnch on 20-05-20lB itself. The further case of petitioner is tha[ ol1 15-12-2018, the Regional Manager, SBI, Mahabr-tbn:tgar gavc written reporl dated 05-11 2018 to SHO, I Torvn Police Station, Mahabubnagar against him and four (4) Gold Loan Customers of respondent bank alleging that eleven ( 1 1) golcl bzrgs are ) ) ,i f' Ir missing .lnd the\r have pla1,'ed fraud on the bar k by opening Fiftccn ( I 5) hctitious accounts during the period iom .January, 2Ol6 to \4ay, 20I8 through quick Gold Loan mode and misappropriatc (l the amount lo a tune of Rs.35.51 lal<hs and basing on which Crime No.173 of 2Ol8 under Ser lion 408 IPC. was regis crcrl against him and others. On l3-O2 2019, Regional Manager, SBI, Mahabubnagar called for,rxplanation of pctitioncr in rL'spcct oI seven (7) lapscs indicatcl tht'rcin, on reccipt of thl same, petitioner submittecl reph, dated 23-O3-2O1() dcnying the allcgations and explairrir g thr: allegcd lapses.

2.1 Tht-rr, Respondent No.3 issued Show Cause Notir:c dated 2l O9-2O19 u,'ith 12 Articles of Charges z nd the samc r.r,as servcrl on Petitioner on 27-O9-2O i9, alteiling that hc committetl irregulariLics / Lapses during the $e:riod frorn 28-06-20l:\ to I 5 06-2018 and asking him to sr, bmit Writtcn Stzr[cment cf dt'lcnce :rnd hc u,as also permitted o pcruse thc rccords al Gunesh Nagar Branch. Petilior-re - made an Application datcd 03- 10-2O\9 seeking time to submit defencc statement. On 07-10-2019, when petitioner soughI for permission to peruse the documents to submit his Written t 'l J Sta[cmcnt of dcfcnce, respondcnts have not considcrc<] the same on thc ground that records r,r'ere with Police. I lor.r'cver, before pctrtioner submits his Written Statcment of dclcnce, Respondent No-3 issued a letter dated 07-1l-2019 appointing

Sri N. Srinivas Rao, AGM, LHO, Hyderabad as trnquirl Ofllcer and Sri K. Srinivasulu, Manager (Vigilance) as Prescnting Olficcr to conduct Domestic Enquiry into the truth of thc said erllegations levelled against him. Thercaf[cr, RespondcrlL No.3 issued Amcnded Show Cause Notice in lettcr F.No:F2O1920/804 datcd 16-11,-2O19 deleting tables of S[- Nos. 5 ancl 6 ol' allegations 5 and 6 and also amending allegation No. 6 merde in the Show. Cause Noticc dated 2l-O9-2O19. '2.2 The trnquiry Officer and Prcsenting Officer conduclcd preliminary hearing on 18-11-2019 at SBI, LHO, Hyderabad. The Enquiry was commenced on 29 11!2019 and conclucled on O9-Ol 2O2O. During Domestic Enqurr v-, prosecution examincd two customers of allcged ficritious golcl Ioans Sri J. V. Subba Rao as PW1 and Sri P. Raju Nerik:rs PW2, though they were nol listed witnesses and in spite of ollcction II made by thc Defence Rcpresentative on behalf of petitioner. The Enquiry Officer having permitted petitioncr to Cross exatnit'tt' ) l 4 PWs.l and 12 on thc next datc of hearing, delibera cll' failed to call them fo:- cross-cxamination. Prosecution also t xilmined Sri K. Ratna Sttdhakar, Branch Manager as PW3 ancl Sri Harilal, Branch Manager as I)W4 in support of its case. TI'r' Presenling Officer subnritted his brief on 13 Ol 2O2O and tht reupon, the Defence Rel)re s(-'n ta tivc of pctitioner submitted lris bricf on 2O-O1 2O2O. Thc Iinquiry Officer submitted its t t'port dated 07 02 2O2O to Rcspondent No. 3 hotding that chr rges I to 6 and 8 to l2 as provt:<l zrnd charge No.7 as partly pr( )vcd. Basing on the linquin l?eport, Rcspondent No-3 Disciplinary Authorit.y issued orrlerr datcd 21 03 2O2O imposing punishment of dismissal from scrvice (be dismissed without noti::e) provided under clau:;c No. 6(a) of Annexure to Memc randum of Settlement on Disciplinarn Action Procedure for Wol \men dated |O-O4-2OO2 ancl iorfciture of entire Gratuity amoun t payable ttr petitioner aS per thc provisions of Section 4, sub ser tion 6(a) for payment o[ Gratuilv Act, 1972 Lovvards recovcr\ of loss of Rs.31-65 Iakhs.

2.3 r\ggncved bv the Order daled 2 l-O3-2O2 ), Petitioner preferred an Appeirl before Respondent No. 2 on O9-O4-2O2O u'ho passed ordcr r:lated 8-06-2020 along u'ith etter dated ) 'i 20 06-2020 rcjccting the Appcal, confirming the ordcr of Respondent No.3. Aggrieved by thc said orders, pctitioner filecl the prest'nt Writ Pe t it ion.

3. Respondents flled Counter Affidavit stating that the Branch Managcr, Ganesh Nagar branch, Mahabubnargar informcd the Regional Manager, Mahabubnagar, that his cash officer Sri. T. Raghavendra, u,hile taking chargc found that eleven gold bags u,cre missing and immediately preliminary- enquiry' \\-as ordered. Sri. K.V. Sharma, Chicf Manager, 'l Badcpall5.' h:rd conducted dctailed enquiry and confirmecl thc factual cletails on 18.09.2018- Mcanwhile, the branch has arlscr receivccl complaints from the customers stating that they havc not received gold ornaments cven after closure o[ their gold loan accounts, In Lhe preliminary enquiry, it has transpired that fraud amount involved u,as to the lune ol Rs. 62.09 ldkhs in 23 accounts. The rcafter, pctitioner was suspended on 24.O9.2018 and the branch has also lodged complaint bcfore Lhe policc stzrtion concerncd on 15. 12.2018 and thc same is stil1 pend ing ,l It is statcd that during the course o[ preliminary enquiry, it rras noticed that petitioner during his stay at Ganesh Nagar Branch had taken advantage of casualness of the other successive joinl t \ I 6 custodians. sprcad over several years, perpetr tt(rd the fraud by surrc pt itiollslv removing the gold ornaments lrrlm the existing gold lozrn bags rvhere ornaments pledged by tf e llorroi'l/ers were kept arrd opcncd several fictilious gold loan a:)coullts by using the renrove<l gold ornamcnts as security for th c neu' gold loans, which has becn e stablishcd by due match ing o[ ornament details ancl u'cight of the ornaments pledgcr I Ery the cxisting borrolv,:rs and pctitioner also opened 6 ficrit orls lozlns in the namr: of thc customcrs and siphoncd off the anlollnts.

3.1 Respondents Iurther stated that or the basis of the prcliminarl rcport, on 13.O2.2O19, Conlrollirrg Authority had called br cxplanation from petitioner who st bmitted reply on

22.O3.t1,O19 dr:n.f ing all the lapses. Unsatisfier] , the Disciplinary AuLhorrty issuccl Show' causc Notice dated {l .O9.2O 19. The Charges frarnecl as againsL peLitioner after du: airrendmenl are as follows l. You har.r' openecl l0 fictitious gold loan acc)LtlLts b\ using the ornarnenls r\'hic]r rverc surreptltiousl-Y removerl br yott from the 7 e(istir, s gol(l loans, thLrs ( ommittc(l <1r:fraud. ll. 1'ou hart opencci 5 fictitious gold loan accounts in the names of M/s D. lihaslrirllr:rr Redd,v, Srr Agiru Narender, Srr. llaju Nayak and S. Srinivas r e(l(ll , \1,ithoul Eiold ornaments as s( (lLll-ltv and u'ithout kno\vledge of thc borro\\'crs and thereafter misal)pr o Priatc(l thc amount I hrough l lrt'ir accoLlrtts. I 't 7 iii. You have surreptitiouslv removed gold ornaments from the follorvrng tuo existing gold loans of B- Radhika and B. Subhash Redd-r- an(l utilized the ornaments as sccurity to tu,o gold Ioan accounts of J.V. Subba Rao and K. Ramesh from rvhich ornaments have been removed. 'lhus indulgcd in cheating and brcach of trust. iv. You have not updated gold ornaments "in/out Register" as and rvhen gold loans opcned/closed in Branch, due to which they are not reflected in thc "in/out Rcgister" b,v u a-y of deposit/ \vithdra\r.al of ornaments, thrrs, \ou have failc(l to [ollo$,the s_vstems and procedures in the Branch ancl fidclled s'ith the register lvith ulterior motrves. v. You have authcnticated thc photographs afll-xed to the under noted golrl loan docurncnts ,,r,hich are materially different with that of photocraph rn S.ll accounts o[ borrorvers, thus, you have resorted to irnpr:rsonation of ltorro*ers and opened fake gold loans. vi. Th< Signaturr:s affixed on thc [ollowing gold loan documents are not talll,ing r.vith tlrat ot the original signatures of th,e borrowers, thus, you have resorted to forgeq of customers signatures for opening fake gold Ioans rn the names of Raju Na-yak (4 gold loan accounts), D. Shashidhar Recldy (2 gold loan accounts), J.V. SubbaRao (1 gold loan account). t vii. Yolr l.r;,rvc not ('ntored item rvise rveight details of the gotd ornamcnts in the gold loan (locuments rvhile processing the gold loans and in respect of close(i accounts, ornaments are not delivered through securitl. delrvt'rv rcgistcr, tltus deviated from the laid down instructions of thc Bank viii. While appraising/ processin€! the gold loans,,vou have deliberatell not mcntroned thc existing gold loans availed and outstanding in thc namt' ol the proposed borrorr,,cr and thus kcpt the sanctioning authoritv undcr dark. Examples of gold loan sanctioned to Raju Naik, D. Shashidhar Recldv and S. Srinivas Reddy. t I 8 Lx. You havc a pr:nccl a fictitioLrs SB account No. 203:17(>i18115 in the name o[ Sri RajLr Naik on 04 03.2016 and trtihzed thc,,(](1)un1 lo route through the proceeds of llctitious six gold loan accotlrrrs opene(i in the name of Sri llaj tr Naik on various dales and then m isi l)l)ropriatcd l he amounts bl' r\.ar o[ GCC ancl cash withdraq'als h-om t h( Stl account, as shorvn alrove. x. You have drsbrrrsed the gold loans proceeds rvithot proper mandat.-:rrr<l rritirdrartals rrere allortcd in SB at in thc lamcs ol Sri D Shashiclhar Rcddl , Agirt Shashrdl,ar Reddl , J.V. Subba Rao and D. Kamalakar accompa'rylng the pass books and \\ithout rcferring thc referred anc] \\rittcn registcr, lhus, -\ou lt:rve not a(lll down s].stems and procedures oI the branclt rcsulling ir t \'ouchers and 'o u nts standing Narencier, D. SLrresh rvithor"rt sarne in cheque 'rerl to thc laid lx'rpcrrat ion of fraud.

3.2 Respondents further stated in the ( loLlntcr that, the other c,fficials u'ho r4,e re responsible were also issr-red with the chargo sheets and \\'ere also a\\'arded l)Llnishments depending upon the ouLcornc of the departm( ntitl enquiry initiated as against them as per the grzrvitv of mi:t:onduct and the negligence and in thc l)resenl case, thc rni in culprit is petitioner who lracl committcd grave .rnd seriolls irregularities and taking into consideration the facts, relativc vidence and the findings, thc Disciplin.rrv Authoritv have 'orne to the conclusion that allcgations 1 to 3 rn'ert: proved an( accordingly, a\,\,'arded punishmcnt and it is r.r'holly superfluott; thal higher olficials have r:olllrdcd and cscaped ar-rd macl(' p(-'titiottcr a t, t, I' I scapegoat. tt is further stated, basrng on Lhe findings recorded during thc course of the departmental proceedings initiated against thc othcr officials and upon the gravity of the misconducls attcged to have bcen committed by them, the follou,ing olflcials u,cre an'arded u'ith penalties: Sri. K.S.S. Ramkrishna. Olficcr MMGS-lll rvas auarded u'ith pcnalty of "Rcductior.r to a lo$er slage in time scale of pay by two stages lbr o period of t,,vo tears, rvith fttrther directions that the officer rrill not eatn irtcrerncttts to [)a] dr-rring the period of such rcduction anri on cxpin of such period, the reduction will havc the ellect of postponing thc [ulure incrcments of his pa1'". II Sri. K. Ratr.ra Sudhakar. Ofticer MMGS Ill u'as ar',arded with penalt-v of 'Reduction to a lo\\'er stage in time scale of pay by two stages [or a pcrio<l ol one -t'ear, wlthout cLlmulative effect and not adverselr alfccting the officer s pension". iii. Sri. Vishat Prasad, Ofhcer MMGS [[ r.r'as arvarded with penalty of "Reduction to a lower stage in time scalc of pay by two stages for a period of one vear, $ithout cumulative effect and not adversely af{ecting the officer's pensiorr". I iv. Sri. K. Phani Kumar, Ofticer MMGS - [l was awarded with pcnalty of '' Rcduction to a lolver stagc in time scale oI pay by two stages for a per-iod of one \car, rrithout cutnulative cflect and not adverselv alleclinA lhc ofli,r'r's pcttsiotr .

3.3 Respondents also stated that, mere narration of internal processes and procedures obtaining on the rule book of the bank would not obliteratc the proven misconducts committed b1' petitioncr. Allegation No.4 was held as proved and I , .\' 'l ,l 'i ( l0 other officirrls who u'ere ncgligenI u'erc also irflictcd u'ith penalties and allcgzLtion No.5 is also proved and cr sh in charge is responsible for all pre-sanction formalitics ' appraisal' assessment of golcl loans u'hich includc receipt ol applications, satisfying with the l(YC of the customer along wirlr olhcr details of the customers, receiving gold ornaments, r e rifying al-rd getting satrsfied with the quantity and quatitl' r'rI the gold ornamen ts. Respondents furlher staLed that, allt gtrtions 6, 8 3.4 and 9 \\rere held as proved against petition r' horvcver, allegalion No. 7 '"r'ets held as partly provccl Respt llclenl s slate that responsibility about quality and quzlntity ol go tl ortruments rcsts with the casl-t in-charge and responsibility tbr u eight of ornaments rest with both custodians, as such, i nol ot'rlY ,is petitioner but others also were responsible for r'"'h it:h' tl'rc other officers were also inllicted with punishment for Lhcir r-rcgligcnce , alter their negligence u'as proved on conclt.sion ol the disciplinary prot:eedings conducted as against I hlm. It is also stated that, as lar as allegations 8 and 9, u'hilt' irppr:risir-rg / processing the gold loans, petitioner hzrd dclibcr rtely did nol mention the existing gold loans availccl and duc: therein and I' thus with sinisler design, hc had u'antonly kept thc sanctioning authority undcr dark in respect ol gold loan accounts and further he opcned hctitious accounls and utilized the account to route through the proceeds lor fictitious gold loan accounts, as such, all the allegations exccpt those which were held as partly proved arc proved. It is lurther statcd lhat afler careful examination of the documents and thc oral evidence produced by the bank as wcll as pctitioner as clclinqucnt employee and having dispassionately considered the cntire evidence in totality, Inquiring authority as r,"'clI as Disciplinzrry Authority have concluded that Petitioner had resorted to forgery of customers' signatures for opening fake and fictitious gold loan accounts.

3.5 It is also stated, it is provcd that petitioner had committed scrious misconducts and lapses which,were amplY proven during the course o[ enquiry and substantiated by the Iegaliy admissible evidencc on record, as such, punishment inflicted by taking into considcration the gravity of lapses / misconduc[s on the part of petitioner does not call for any interference / indulgence. Even acting beyond one's authority is a gross misconduct and charges in such cases cannot be brushed aside as being casual in nature, instead, they are very \ \ 'l ) serious and hirve a deleterious effect on thc inst itu tion in lhe long run, hent r', Writ Petition is liable to be disrrisscrl on this counL also

4. LciLrned Senior Counsel appearing hrr' pctitioner contended that the allegations pertain to alleged lclitious Gold Loans, rvh:rein the allegation is that Petitioner : urrcptiLiouslv rcmoved p.olrl bags of existing Gold Loans an 1 opcncd l5 lictitious gold loan accounts bet\r'een January, 2t) l(; :rncl May,

2018. Houcvcr, as per the cstablished procedurt ol'thc bank, the appointed (iold Appraiser will check the puritv trnd u,eight o[ the gold ornar)cnts, fix the eligibility of loan amcLrnt :Lnd aftcr verification bv lhc Branch Manager, seal the go1, I lrags in thc prcscnce o[ []ranch Manager and the Cershier arrl l'urther the Golcl Appreiiscr himself will fill the Loan Applicatrr,rq ancl obtain signatures of borrower and Branch Manager sanct ons gold loan by checking Lhe' same by written enclorsement a rcl thr:n cash u,ill be cre <litcd into the accoun[ of the custorner i I fl (]r itpproval of thc Branch Manager. The above procedure cleartv csrzrblishcs lhat petitioner alone cannot open any account rnd sanction golcl loan t,) an\ customer. Admilteclly, thc Branc l Manager is the Heacl of thc branch and Manager/ Accou n ta rt zrtrd Cash t, t, Officers are the Joint Custodians o[ the gold bags and the documents which will be kept in safe custody in the Strong Room of the Branch and it is a joint operation. Opening of any account and sanctioning authoriry is the Branch Manager and Cash Officer is subordrnate to him, rvho act according to his instructions. The Branch Managcr has to do thc KYC verification and photo attcstation ol customer for opening any accounl. Thus, the said allegations made against petitioner alone arc false, baseless and absurd. [n fact, respondents have no clarity in the issue as it mentioned in the Suspension Ordcr Lhat there is fraud of Rs.62.09 lakhs, but it has reported to Police that 11 gold bags are missing and therc is misappropriation of amount to a tunc of Rs.35-61 lakhs and in the Show Cause Notice and in the impugned orders, it was mentioned that there is misappropriatior-r o[ amount to a tune of Rs 3 1-65 lakhs The Domestic Enquiry r'r'as conducted on lhe allegations of 15 fictitious gold lozrn accounts. The Learned Senior Counsel appeared lor petitioner furLher argued thal Regional Manager, SBI, Mahabubnagar havrng well aware of the Bank's procedure for sanction of gold loans aud opening of the accounts, deliberately and prejudicially gave a report to Police I rA t.l onl)' zigainst Pe titioller ar.t( comPlaint agzrinst llranc h I four customers' without makinilanv rvho uele thc Managers/ Accountants zrns havit-tg jrlint responsibility during thc mz terial joint custocli b iased, period. 'fhis itsc[] clt:irrly shows his discriminattve ' action against Petitioner and v ind ic ttvc s'l-rictr is nothing but' violation of Articie preludicierl fron L ver\ 14 ol tht:

4.1 be gi Lrni ng, Constitution of Inlia' LearrLed Senior Counsel argued thzrt the re Ucrc llo compl.rints lrom any gold loarr borrower regarding- mir sirtg of gold bags as allc.,-ec1 ltnd no evidence produced in rcspet t of the same- Irurther' 'l V- strbba Rao (PW1) and P Raju Nal( (PW2) werc oot shou'n in the list of witnesses for' enquiry' I ut \\'(:re produced' cxanrinecl ar-rd rccorded their Chief Exat ritrati'rn' Howevcr, thc Dnqttir-v officer having permitted fc r cross- examination ort thc ncxt date of hearing' deliberatel' dicl trot produce them ,br Ct<rss-examinatt""':::,:"r,:;. relied on their evidcncc' whir:h is utter violattt o[ natural Ju';tic]e. It was lurther argtied that Sri K Ratna Sudhakar' th( Brarr(rh Manager' Ganesh Nagar (PW3l adnritr"ed in his evidence th:rt lhere is no shortfall of gold bags rnd all the saicl gold loaas ucrc propcrly sanctioneci by the thcn Branch ;". ::: /r1 I .; Manzrgcrs, KYC's were verified and photos were attested and Gold Loan Arrangement lctters u,ere signcd by the Bra nch Manzrger and in spite of thc above said evidence, the Enquiry Officcr stated in the Report thal there are tu,o possibilities of opcnir-rg alleged fictitious gold loans 1) connivance of the joint custodians 2) the Accountant/ Branch Managcr during mate rial period may have parted with their safe kcys or safe rvas kept opcn during the day enabling the CSE to undcrtakc operations of thc safe himself. No u,itness q'as examitlecl and there is rlo evidencc in respect of thc samc. Thesc are or-rly hypothetical or assumptions without any oral or documcntary evidcnce Admittcdty, Branch Manager / Accountant have rdenrified the customcrs before they sanction the loan by signing il.

4.2 It is argued that, during the tenurc of Pe titioncr in Ganesh Nagar Branch, four audits'r.'"'ere conducled arid none o[ thc audit reports of the Branch showed any shorllall of gold bzrgs and gold loan accounts, hou'ever, the Enquirl Officer failcd to consider the same in the report. Admittedly, PW3 had obtained complaints from the borrowers and as indicated in the Police report, they were withdrawn and borrou'ers stated that I \ 'l ,l l6 thel'obtirirrr:d gold loans, but the Disciplinary Autlroriry- failed t<r consider tLLc samc flor thc rcasons best known to h m.

4.3 I-ciirnecl Senior Counsel lurther argttcd that StatLrtorv l\r-rclit Reports conducted on 74-O4-2Ollt, 10 O4-2O17 and 12 o:1 20 18 Circle Audit held on 27-07-2017 and the Risk Focuscd lrrt('rn.rl Audit Rcport prepared on 05-0! 2017 clearl,r' shot thirt golcl bags arc tallied r.n ith gold loan balance file :rncl thcsc ALrd t R('ports evon approved by the Bra ich Manatgcr, Regionul Mernaqer:rnd other higher officers o[ Hea I ()ffice. Thus the saicl irllcgzrtions arc false and baseless, t ut strerngcll', Disciplinzrrv Ar-rthoritv statcs Lhat RFIA report is v rong anc.l if it is acceptc,l, thc cntire cnquiry conducted by lhe Bank is vitiatcd. [,r'arned Senior Counsel contended that respondcnLs have delrlrcrar<:l.v lailecl Lo produce evidence by txEmining thc relevant ,,r,iLnt:sses in support of their case in resp(:ct of the saicl chargt s irrrd ahsotutrh, tht're is no evidence t ral peliliotl( r' commit(t rl irrcgularitics and misapproprierted the :rllcgcd amounts tc .r tLrnc of Rs.35-61 lakhs.

4.4 Lr::rrncd Senior Counsel further arguerI t]rat, insofzrr as Chargc No.7. rvhen thcre is no security delive'v Registcr il'r thc branch, allcgation ol'maintaining the sarle coes trot arisr' I' I, I' and Appcllate Authority finding that it is proved against petitioncr is absurd, when Enquiry Officcr and Disciplinary Authority held that this allegation is partially provcd. Further, Charge No.9 relates to GCC-Green Channel, through which amount uas misappropriated by petitioner. Admlttedly, P. Raju N:rik (PW2) had withdrawn the amounts lrom the accounls tl'rrough ATM card, allegation of misappropriation of amounts bl' Pctitioncr docs not arisc. Mere obtaining fake lettcr from him b-l' Br:rnch Mernager (PW3) that he has not taken gold loans, cannot establish anything against petitioner in thc abscncc ol documentary evidence- Admittedly, u,hen Gold Loan Arrangcmcnt letters were given by the Branch Managcrs aftcr obl:rining the borrowers' signatures, which is tl-re final stage of gold loar-r, hos, the petitioner is held responsible for the said lalse allcgation. In fact, Gold Appraiser was not examined in this casc, rvho is most relevant witness in sanctioning gold loans. Even [hc prosecution did not take steps to examinc eln]'other llranch Mzrnagers/ Accountants who r,"'orkcd during matcrial pcriod, exccpt PW3 who faced the charges and received penalt-v on the same allegations. I \ 'l t l8 L,cztrtrr:d St:nior Counsel furthcr a' gued that 4.5 Respondents httve cotrducted Domestic Enquiry in a biascd and prejudicial Ir,2lllncr:ttlcl tssued amended Show Cau;c notice on 16- I 1 2019 making itm<'trdments to Notice dated 2 1 -09-2019 whichisagainsttht:rr,cilsettledenquirypro(]edurCand Respondents zrppotnted Enquiry Ottice r and Preser rting Officer much bcfort: the dclt'rrsc slatement submitted b' petrtioner' which rn.ill vititlte tl-rt: t:nquiry. Hc relied on the Ju lgrncrrt of a DivisionBcrLchtlitllisCtlurt\n,Ch.AppalaReddl|u.Edstern PouerDistributioncomPal,/.gofA.P..Further,Re:lp<rndcntsin a hurried rrncl pre-ir:<lrcial manne r got conduct( d Domestic any vu lid evidence Enquiry, obtained tllc rcport and "i'ithout imposcd mztjor punishm(lnt o[ dismissal from sel vi<:e ?Igainsl petitioner, bzrsitlq otl thc documcntary evidence pro'ltrccd by the prosecution, thciugh Cr-inrinal Casc is pending in C Cl Nr> 133 of 2022 on tl-.c frle ol t he Judicial Sccond Class l'lagistrate at Mahabubnagar. It is ltrgltcd that merc production o[ clo<'uments is not enough alld contents ol documentary evidetLce has to be proved by t:xtrminitrg thc s'itnesses and FIR in it: clf is not an evidence rvitho'-tt actual prool of facts stated th ]rein zlnd so called conft ssion itscll. \\'as not sufficient to hold tL crn gr-rilt-'-' b1' -/- I' I l9 plac:ing reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Roop Singh Negi a. Punjab National Bankl and furthcr contr:nclecl that thc Hon'blc Apex Court clearly hcld that enquiry rellort, if based on conjectures and surmises cannot be sustaincd and the suspicion howsoever high, cannot bc a suhst ilutt' f,,r legal prool. I .6 I t is also argued that during the Matcrial Period fronr 20 Lb to 2018. biometric svstem was in existence in all thc Brzrnchcs and each and every transaction was done by the Branc:lr Manzrgers / Accountanls through Biometric Operation. I'},c n though therc is no evidence, Enquiry Officer has erroncously, prejudicially and in a discriminative manner had givcn linclings that allegations arc proved against Pe [itioncr. During thc said period, Sri K.S.S. Rama Krishna, K. Phani Kumarr, Ms. I)evi Havisha, Sml. Sarala, Sri Vishal Prasad and K. Rzrtnu Sudhakar u'orked as Branch Managers /Joint Clrstodi.rns o[ the Gold bags and Gold loan accounts. Out ol 6 Ollir:crs, aclmittcdly, Respondents initiated disciplinary procceclings against Sri K.S.S. Rama Krishna, Sri K. Ratna Sudl'rakar. Sri Vishal Prasad and Sri K. Phani Kumar for thc (l(X)q) I s('( i70 I \ 'i l0 very szrme allegations n'hich are leve lled against pt titioncr and awarded perLalty o[ Reduction to zl Lou'er Stage in time scale ol' pay by two stagcs for onc r. ctlr, lr'ithout cumr'tlatir c effect and ngt advcrsely cf[t:cting thc ()lfice r's pcnsion. Hou'ever, respondents imposcd major purlishment of clis nissal from service against pctilroncr, but zlvzrrded lighter per alty against said higher officc'rs w'ho are l'rolding more respons'brlity in the Bank. The zrbove siticl :lcLion ol rcspondcnts in a lzrrding two different putrishments in respcct oi thc joint cust.orlians having joint responsibiliry ol thc alleged charges is nothinli but unlair, prejudicial, biast:d, discriminartion and dispzrritl' arnong thc co delinqltcrrts. It is q'cll-seltled that any discrin ination and disparity among co dclinquerlts rn imposing purishments is violatir>n of Articlc l4 of thc Constitution. Wit I, regard tcr discriminati,rn and disparitf irl the matter of punishment among co-dr:linclrtcnts, leerrnec] Senior Counsel reli--c1 upon the Judgments .n Raiendra Yadau u. State of Madhga Pradesh, United Bank oJ India u. Biswanth Bhattarjee and Pawan Kumar Agaruala u. Generdl Manager-Il, SBI, rvherein tht: Hon'ble Apr:x Clourt held tl'rat punishment shr uld not bc I disproportionate r'i hile comparing involvement of Co-delinquents uho are purtics lo lhc silmc transactions.

4.7 Lcarnecl Senior Counsel vehcmently contended that along u,ith petitioncr, lour othcr higher officials have also bcen issucd Chirrgc Memos and cnquiry was conducted and lighter punishmcrrts $ erc imp<lsed on them with penalty of reduction to a lower stagc itr timc scale of pay by two stages for one year and major punishment imposed on petitioner is quitc disproportionelte as comparcd lo the punishments imposed on othcr highcr oificiats. The Hon'ble Courts time and again held that pr-rnishmenl h.rs to bc commensurate with the severity of the offencc and has to be uniform in respect o[ ai1 the employees of thc bank. s'ho are involvcd in the same or similar misconclurr:1. He lurther conlcnded that respondents grroncouslv imposcd puuishment of dismissal flom service inctuding forfeitrrrc ol'entire gratuity amount payable to petitioner as pcr Section '1. sub section 6(a) tor payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for recovery ol' loss of Rs.31 65 lakhs against petitioner alone, which is corltrar,v to thc provision of the said Act Thus there is no justilication [or lorfciture of entire gratuity petltrone r I I amount o[ .-...'--..- { 'i -) -) 5 Learned Senior Counsel appearing lor respondents reiterated the contents of counter allidavit and u'rittcn submissions. FIc submits that grave chrtrgcs ln Lmed against petitioner rvho had proven 1o hzrvc bctravcd tl'rc trust of thc Bank and s;eriolts misconducts of petitioncl u'crc rroved in thc disciplinary encluirv as petitione r, being a bankcr c-rtrusted with the gold ornaments for a particular purposc, ha,. fraudulcntly creatcd fakrr goJd loans in thc n;rmc oI prt:r'ior-ts bor rou'crs/ notr borrowers, who havc closed the loan accounl,s u'ith rut rcturning the gold ornaments and thus, misuscd sr-tclr go d ornaments crcq[ing fictitiours gold lozrns eind clra"r,ing mottier, lrrr ]rimself, which admittedly is a very grzrvc and scrious mir conduct and that,zr bank officer ',r,h o is otheru'ise reqtrircd to rraintain high form and drcree of integrity zrncl honesty irr lact u',1 pnme and the main ir:Lstrumentality in perpctrating thc liauc egregious in nature and against u'hom a criminal prost:r'ution is:rlso pcnding for thc ofl'ence of 4O9 IPC and olher offenc, s attracting punishmenL for lile cannot bc allou,ed to szry th rt thcrc is a disparity or' lhat there is procedural aberr:rtion a-rcl pral'ed to dismiss the u-rit petitior-r. I,

5. 1 Learned St:nior relied on the judgmcnts in Puniab National Bank a. M-L. Kalra (D) THR, f,RS (Civil Appeal No 9917 ol 2Olll, Deputq General Manager u' Aiag Kumar Sdroatso:ua ((2o2ll 2 SCC 612), Sto:te Bank of India u' S'N' ORDER WP.No.13927 of 2020 \ ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS , \ ,:; 1 \