K. Chandraiah v. 1. Telangana Grameena Bank

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstancps stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High CgUrt may be' pleased to i$sue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or: Orders, Direction or Directions to quash the proceedings of the 1"t feqpoDdenl in N9.GrX!l/2019-2ol7g1g, dated 23.01 2020, which was confirmed by the 2n4 respon(ent vide order dated 24.06.2020 in Lr.No.Gr.Xlll2020-2111853, dismissing the petitioner fr:om service of the Bank, by deClaring the Same as qrli{rary, illegql, viqlative of service regulations and violative of principleg of natural jLlsticg and to ponsequently direct the 1't respondent to pay all the monetary benefits to the petitioner along with retirement benefits. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 guspend the proceedings of the 1't respondent in No.Gr.Xll/2019-20/7919, dated 23.01 .2020, which was confirmed by the 2nd respondent vide order dated 24.06.2020 in Lr No.Gr.Xll/2020-2111853, pending disposal of the Writ Petation. .1 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt VEDULA SRINIVAS, SENIOR COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondents: SRI S. MUJIB KUMAR, S.C. FOR TELANGANA GRAMEENA BANK WRIT PETITION NO: 13991 OF 2020 Between G. Srinivas Rao S/o late Rama Rao, Aqed about 60 years, R/o Flat No.401, Plot Nos 26 & 27, Sai Hamlet, 4th Cross, Shilpi Park, Konda-pur, Serilingampally Mandal, Hyderabad. ...PETlrTONEB ANP

1. Telangana Grameena Bank. Head Office H No.2-1-520, 2"d Floor, Vijayasri Sai_Celestia, Street No.9, Shankarmatt Road, Hyderabad - 500044, Rep. by its Chairman.

2. Board of Directors.cum-Appellgte Authority. Telangana Grameena Bank, Hgad Office: H.No2-1-520, 2no Floor. Vijayasri Sai Celestia, Street No.9, Shankarmatt Road Hyderabad - 500044. ..,RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia prayipg that in the. circumslances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the High Qgurt may be pleased to issue a Wrjt of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Order$, Direction qr Directions to quash lhe prqcgedings of the 1't responden! i0 No.Gr.Xll/2019-2016509, daled 30t11t2019, which was confirmed by fhe 2"! lespondgnt vide order daled 2510612020 in Lr.No.Gr.Xlll2o20-2111852, dismissing the petitioner from service of the Bank, by declaring the same qs arhitrary, illegal, violative of servicq regulations and violative of principles of natural justice and to gonsequently direct the 1't respondent to pay all the monetary benefitq to the petitioner along with retirement benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS, SENIOR COUNSEL Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI S. MUJIB KUMAR, S.C. FOR TELANGANA GRAMEENA BANK -) WRIT PETITION NO: 17098 OF 2020 Between: V.V:J.- Rama Rao, S/o. V.V.S. Devai Raju, Ag Road No. 2, South End Park, Mansoorabad, Hyd ed 63 years, R/o. H.No.3-7-62l39, erabad - 500 068, Telangana State. AND Telangana Grameena Bank, Head Office, H.No. 2-1-520, 2"d Floor, lij 9elgstiq, Strget No. I, Sh.rnkermuth Road, Nallakunta, Hyderabad . 50 by its Chairman. aya Sri Sai 0 044 Rep. ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Conslitution of India praying that in the ei!'cumFtanqes stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in !!e naturq of Wri! of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declare the Lettet No.GR.Xll/2020-2112861 , dated 28 08.2020 refusing to release the provisional pension to the Petrtioner is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the TelangQnq Q{afneena Eant lqarlorees) Pension Regulationq, 2018 and cgnsjquently Fel eside the sqplq anQ dirqct the Respondents to release the ppovisional pp4siop to Whigh tne Petitioner !s entitled to aF per Telangana Grameena Ban! (Employeea) Pension Regulqtiong, 2018 pending disciplinary proceedings O:1 OF 2020 Petitigt:l gnder Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirqums{ances slated tn the affidavit filgd in suppol[ of the petition, the High Court may be plgased to direol the Respondents to release the provisional pension as per the Telangana Grameena Bank (Employees) Pensron Regulations, 2018, by suspending the letter No.GR.Xl l/202 O-21 12861, dated: 28.08.2020. Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt. K. UDAYA SRI Cgunsel for the Respondents: SRI S. MUJIB KUMAR, S.C. FOR TELANGANA GRAMEENA BANK (j WRIT PETITION NO: 21759 OF 2020 Between: B. Ravikanth. S/o, Late B Babaiah, Aged about 55 years, Rlo. 10-4-12617, Vijaypuri Colony, Near Qlobal Hospital, Saroornagar, Hyderabad-500035. ,..PETITIONER AND

1. Telangana Grameena Bank, Head Office: Sai Celestia, Street No.9, Shankarmatt Roa Chairman. oard of Directors-cum:Appellate Authority, Tela ead Office. H No 2-1-520. 2no Floor, Vijayasri S hankarmatt fioad, Hyderabad -500044. ?? HN d,H H S o.2.1 -52Q, 2nd Floor, Vijayasri yderabad -500044, Rqp by itq ngana Grameena Ban(, ai Celestia, Strebt No.9, ...RESPONDENTS Petitiqn under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying thqt in the cifcumqtanQes stated in the affidavit filed therewrth, the High Qourt may be pleased 1o issuera Writ of 9ertiprari Qr any other appropriate Writ, Qrder or Order.s, Directioq or Directions to quash the proceedings of the '1't respondent dated 29.062020 whereby the pgtitioner was dismiqsed from service and the order ef. the 2"d qespbndent dated OBJO 2O2O whereby the Appeal wds rejgcted and lo direct the respqndents to reinstate the Petitioner into service with all censEguenti?l Isn9fits. !4.Nq+g3Eq Petitiqn 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 proceedings of the 1"t respondent, dated 29 06.2020 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service and the order of {he 2nd respondent, dated 08 10.2020 whereby the appeal was rejected, pending disposal of the Wril Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS, SENIOR COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondents: SRI S. MUJIB KUMAR, S.C. FOR TELANGANA GRAMEENA BANK I 7 WRIT PETITION NO: 22212 OF 2020 Between: P Guru Prasad, S/o Kittappa, aged 33 years, r/o c/o J.Priyadarshini, H.No. 8-8-159/2 Plot No C-1 99, Road No. 17 Green Park Colony. Karmanghat Saroornagar, Hyderabad. Ranga Reddy District ...PETITIONER AND 1 I Telangana Grameqna Bank, (Sponsored by State Bank of lndia) Head Office, H.No. 2-1-520, 2"o Floor Vilaya Sri Sar Celestra, Street No.9 Shankarmutt Road Nallakunta, Hyderabari 500 044 Rep by its Disciplinary Authority-cum- Chairman The Board & Appellate Authority. Telangana Grameenq Bank (SponEored by State Bank of lndia) Head Office. H No 2-'l -520, 2"" Floor Vijaya Sri S3i Celestia, Street No.9 Shankarmutt Road Nallakunta, Hyderabad 500 044 Rep by its Chairman/Didciplinary Authority ...BEqPoNDENrS ,. Petitiqn.under Article ?26 ot \ne Constitutrqn qf India prayllrg that in the circumstanoes stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Cgurt may be pleased to igsqe an ordgr diregtion or writ particularly one in the nature Cf writ Qf , mandamus er appropriate writ (i) Declaring the impugned the proceedings Lr.No. Gr.xiil?O19-2Ol9Q1 dqleQ 08/05i2020 issued by Chqirmarl, Telangana Grgneena Bap[, Respgndent -Bank i1 imposing the punishment of dismisgal from the bank-s service is illegal, arlitrary and violation of principles of natqrel juqtiqe; (ii) ( iii) Declare that the order of the Appellate Authority is illegal and arbitrary; DeQlare that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is illegal an! contfary to the Regulgtion 42 of RRB (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2010 and contrary to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Cou rt; (iv) Cgnsequently set aside the same and direct the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner with all consequential benefits. lA NO: 1 OF 2O2O 8 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 proceedings Lr.No.Gr.xiil2019-201901 dated 08 05.2020 issued by Chairman, Telangana Grameena Bank, Respondent Bank. Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt. K. UDAYA SRI Counsel for the Respondents: sE! S. !yl{E KqUA-R, S.C. FOR TELANGANA GRAMEENA BANK The Court m4de the followingl CQMMON 9RDER TIIE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRI'I'I'ETITION NO.49II OF 2O2O; WRIT PETITION NO.4913 OF 2O2O; WRIT PETII'|ON NO.r3749 0F 2020 WRIT PETITION NO.I399I OF 2O2O; WRIT I'ETITION NO,I7098 OF 2O2O; WRIT PETITION NO.21759 OF 2O2O AND WRIT I'ETIT'ION NO.222I2 OF 2O2O COMMON ORDER In this batch of 7 Writ Petitions, the petitioners in 6 Writ Petitions, i.e., W.P.Nos.4gll, 4913, 13749, 13991,21759 and 22212 of 2020 are challenging the respective orders of the 1'1 respondent bank dismissing the petitioners from service and also the orders of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the appeals filed by the respective petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to direct the l't respondent bank to pay the terminal benefits like gratuity, leave encashment and pension to the petitioners along with interest; while the petitioner in I 2 W.P.No.49l I of 2020 & Batch (Total 07 cases) W.P.No. 17089 of 2020 is challenging the order of the respondent bank in refusing to release provisional pension to the petitioner therein as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same and to direct the respondent bank to release the provisional .pension and to pass such other order or orders

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petitions are that the l" respondent is a Regional Rural Bank established under the Regional Rural Banks Act,, 1976 and is sponsored by State Bank of India and the 2nd respondent is the appellate authority constituted under the Service Regulations of the Bank. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.49l1, 4913, 17098 and 21759 of 2020 were working as Officers, Scale-II, while the petitioners in W.P.Nos.l3749 and 13991 of 2020 were working as Officers, Scale-III and the petitioner in W.P.No.222l2 of 2020 was working as Officer, Scale-I. All of them worked in Aziz Nagar Branch.

3. Atl the peritioners were issued notices dt.17.05.2018 pointing out that certain irregularities were committed by them in Aziz Nagar Branch of the Bank and that the petitioners did not exercise supervisory functions in a diligent manner enabling the Clerk-cum-Cashier of the 3 W.P.No.49l I ot2020 & Batch (Total 07-cases) Bank, one Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy, in causing large scale misappropriation of funds and loss to the Bank. The petitioners submitted their cxplanations on various dates stating that for the pcriod in which they have worked in Aziz Nagar Branch, the accounts of the branch were audited regularly by the internal audit as well as by the statutory audit party and no irregularities were found/pointed out for the said period. It was further stated that Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy was kept in the same branch lor more than 12 years and hence misappropriation of amounts by hin.r cannot be held against the petitioners and held that they failed to work in a diligent manner. However, not being satisfied with the explanation of the petitioners, the Bank has initiated departmental enquiry against all the officers vide letter dt.06. 11.2018 and the enquiry proceedings commenced and during the course of the enquiry, the Presenting Officer of the Bank has placed their documents on record and the enquiry officer has marked them as Exs. ME I to ME 370. MWl, the officer of the Bank was examined to produce the complainants as the witnesses. MW2 who is also the officer of the Bank was asked to confirm the contents of the documents and MW3 to MW5 were also examined. It is submitted that no evidence was adduced from the side of the Management to explain the contents of the exhibits and to correlate -- I I 4 W.P.No.49l l of 2020 & Batch (Total 07 cases) them with reference to the misconduct alleged against the pctitioners. l'hereafter, the Defence Representative was permitted to cross-examine the Management Witnesses (MWs) and that it was also confined only to the contents of the documents and the enquiry was accordingly closed and the petitioners were asked to submit their brief within a period of 4 days and accordingly, the petitioners submitted their written briefs to the enquiry officer and the enquiry ofhcer submitted his report on

30.04.2019 to the disciplinary authority holding all the petitioners as guilty o1' the alleged acts of misconduct. The enquiry repolt was fumished to thc petitioners asking them to submit their objections against the findings of the enquiry officer and the petitioners submitted their objections in a detailed manner. The petitioners have raised the specific contention that the exhibits were only photocopies and the originals of the same were not produced and hence the photocopies could not have been marked.'fhe objections submitted by the petitioners were rejected by the disciplinary authority. ln the mean time, when some of the petitioners reached the age of superannuation, their services were extended nuionally for completion of the disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, the order imposing punishment of recovery of Rs.25,00,000/- frorn the petitioner in W.P.No.4913 of 2020 was passed, 5 W.P.No.49l I ol'2020 & Batch (Total 07 cascs) while the petitioners in W.P.Nos.49ll and,21759 of 2020 have been imposed with the punishrnent ol dismissal from service. The orders imposing punishment of dismissal from service were also passed against the petitioners in W.P.Nos.13749, 13991 and 22212 of 2020 while the order rejecting the claim of provisional pension was passed against the petitioner in W.P.No. 17098 of 2020.

4. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.491l, 4913, 13749, 13991,21759 and 22212 of 2020 filed appeals before the appellate authority, i.e., the 2nd respondent, 6ut they were all rejected and therefore, the present Writ Petitions have been filed.

5. 'Ihe common objections taken by the petitioners in all the above Writ Petitions are as follows: (a) Whether the photocopies of the Bank records can be marked as exhibits and whether they constitute admissible evidence in the enquiry? (b) Whether, mere marking of the documents, without proving the contents of the documents would satisff the requirement of proof of misconduct in the domestic enquiry? \ 6 W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch (Total 07 cases) (c) Whether the charges against the petitioners stood proved in the domestic enquiry keeping in view the nature of the documents filed in the enquiry and also the nature oforal evidence adduced? (d) Whether the scope of judicial review under Anicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia will be confined merely to see whether the procedure of domestic enquiry was followed by the Bank, more particularly when the charges themselves are not proved? (e) In case thc contentions of the petitioners are found valid, what is the reliel'the pctitioners are entitled to?

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the photocopies of documents do not constitute admissible evidence and failure of the Bank to get the certified copies frorn thc CBI is not explained with any valid reason. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Clourr of Allahabad in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. Assistant General Manager, Syndicate Bank Industrial Relations Cell and othersr, wherein it was held that adducing Photostat copies as evidence is not as per Section 63 of the Evidence Act. He also relied upon the judgnrent of the Kamataka High Court in the case of 'MANU/uP/0669/2007 7 W.P.No.49l I of 2020 & Batch (Total 07 cases) S.G.Nayak and others Vs. Canara Bank and others2, wherein similar observation was made by the Kamataka High Court. He submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sait Tara.iee Khimchand and others Vs. Yelamarti Satyam and others3, has held that mere marking of an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of documents.

7. The leamed counsel for the petitioners thus submitted that in this case, the Management Witnesses, except for stating the nature of such documents, did not mention anything about the contents of the docurnents and as to how they were proof of misappropriation of funds and therefore, the said rnarking of documents cannot be treated as proof of docurnents. Thus, according to him, none of the charges leveled against the petitioners have been proved by the Management Witnesses and the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority have only drawn inferences tiom the exhibits marked in the course of enquiry and it will not amount to proof of misconduct against the petitioners. It is furthcr submitted that since misconduct is not proved in accordance witlr the procedure and law, power ofjudicial review of this Court will not be \an uxazoszsrzoo+ ' AIF| lqT r sc l86s W P No.49l I of 2020&Batch (Totat 07 cases) o having any restrictions and the order of punishment is liable to be declared as illegal and unsustainable. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meenglas Tea Estate Vs. Its Workersa in support of his contention that a person who is charged with an accusation must not only know about the accusation but also should be made aware of the testimony by which the accusation is supported. Therefore, he submitted that the petitioners should be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of cross examination as he desires. Thus, according to the leamed Senior Counsel, since the respondents did not follow the procedure for conduct of the enquiry in accordance with law, the punishments based on such a faulty enquiry repoft cannot be sustained. He therefore prayed for setting aside of the punishment orders.

8. The leamed Senior Counsel for the petitioners also filed a copy of the charge sheet filed before the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Gaganvihar, Hyderabad in Charge Sheet No.2l of 2018 dt.03.04.2019 in support of his contention that the petitioners, though were initially i4;Juded as accused in the FIR, since there were no allegations against ' etR tgr: sc tu tq 9 W.P.No.49l I of 2020 & Batch (Total 07 cases) the petitioners in the charge sheet, the charges against the petitioners were also held as not proved in the criminal case. He further submitted that the respondent appellate authority has not addressed the grounds raised by the petitioners herein and has summarily re,jected their appeals and therefore, the appellate orders are liable to be set aside. He further submitted that though there is an allegation that Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy is the king pin and he has committed misappropriation of funds, he was not examined by the disciplinary authority during the course of enquiry and therelbre-, according to him, lor this reason also, the orders of dismissal have to be set aside

9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent bank, however, relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and subrnitted that the petitioners have been charged with gross negligence in exercising their supervisory powers in the Bank and accordingly, show-cause notices were issued to them and they were given fair opportunity to make their submissions and also to participate in the enquiry. It is submitted that Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy, Office Assistant was working in the said Branch and the petitioners have allowed him to issue pass books with entries recorded manually in the passbooks with his handwriting though the branch was provided with passbook printers and I I I I l0 W.P.No.49l I of 2020 & Batch (Total 07 cases) ) thus facilitated commission of fi'aud by him and thc petitioners authenticated such entries with their initials which is contrary to the circular guidelines and that they did not verifu the same with the entries available in the branch books since they differed. He submitted that such entries were not accounted for and led to misappropriation of funds by Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy. As regards the allegations that the bank continued the Clerk-cum-Cashier at the Branch without transferring him for long period ol' 12 years, it is submitted that the Head Office transferred the said person to Chevalla branch on completion of 5 years term vide letter No.DGB/RO/92712012-13 dt.13.09.2012. but since the said order was not implemented by the incharge Branch Manager, Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy continued to overstay in Aziz Nagar Branch and further the said Branch Manager also did not inform about non-compliance of the transf'er orders and therefore, the said Branch Manager was also subjected to disciplinary enquiry and vide proceedings d1.04.02.2020, Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy was dismissed f'rom service. As regards the arguurent of the petitioners that only Xerox copies o1'the documents were produced and marked and therefore there is no proof of the charges leveled against them, it is submitted that there was a gigantic fraud tuning to the amount of Rs.8.45 crores committed in the Branch and therefore, the original I W.P.No.49l I of 2020 & Batch (Total 07 cases) records of the Branch were seized and held by the CBI as part of the ongoing investigation and for this purpose, all attested extracts along with SB passbooks and term deposit receipts were duly verified with the originals held in the custody of the CBI and the same were submitted during the departmental enquiry and other proceedings. He submitted that the Xerox copies are duly certified by the Branch officials affixing the branch seal and therefore, there was no violation ofany law and the petitioners cannot dispute their authenticity. It is further submitted that only the Bank officers are authorized to certify the photocopies of the bank records prior to handing them over to the CBI officers and therefore, the objections of the petitioners are not sustainable. It is stated that sufficient opportunity of going through the evidence produced by the Management was given to the petitioners and therefore,, there was no violation of principles of natural justice or procedure and hence there was no cause fbr interference with the punishment orders. [t is submitted that the negligence of the petitioners in performing their duties and allowing Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy to make entries in the passbooks in spite of there being passbook printers available in the Bank has been proved and therefore, there was no cause for interference. The learned Standing Qounsel has also pointed out to various acts of negligence which have- \, I l2 W.P.No.491 I o12020 & Batch ( Iotal 07 cases) caused misconduct by Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy and huge loss to the l't respondent bank. Those acts are: (i) Not checking the passbooks by the petitioners and allowing the Office Assistant Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy to make manual entries in the passbooks, (ii) Not checking as to how the term deposit receipts which are in the custody of the petitioners in the strong room were being issued and for what amounts the TDRs were issued, (iii) Not verifzing that the Office Assistant has fraudulently issued TDRs without opening savings account with zero balance in the name of the customer and without remitting the actual amount deposited by the customer in the bank and the fraudulent encashment of TDRs, (iv) Failing to cross check the vouchers, FDRs and other transactions with reference to the VVRs (Voucher Verification Reports) and not submitting the Manager Monthly Certificate about the position of the Branch every month and even in issuing such ceftificates not pointing out the fraud. l3 W.P.N0-491I of 2020 & Batch (Total 07 cascs) He has drawn the attention of the entries passed by Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy even before and after office hours of the Bank and the complacency of the petitioners in not preventing him from such activity. It is submitted that the petitioners have obviously disclosed their passwords to him, due to which the said Offlce Assistant utilized the same and has committed fraud and therefore, the petitioners as well as the Officc Assistant are all responsible for the fraudulent acts of Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy.

10. He also placed reliance upon the fbllorving judgments in support of his contentions. ( l)State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Bhupendra Singhs (2)Union of India and others Vs. Subrata Nath6 (3)Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others Vs. Ajai Kumar SrivastavaT (4)M.L.Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank and otherss (5) Canara Bank Vs. V.K.Awasthye 5 ZO24 l-awsuitlsCl 678 6 Civil Appeats No.7939 7940 of2022 ofsupreme Court dr.23.11.2022 ' lzoztlz scc atz : AIRoNLINE 202 t SC 38 t lzots; tt scc zt : AIR 20l8 sc 4668 \ '(zoos) o scc :zr l.l W.P.No.49ll of 2020 & Batch ('[otal 07 cases) (6) Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and othcrs Vs. P.C.Kakkarro I l. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the foremost question to be decided is whether the photocopies o1- tlre Bank records can be marked as exhibits and whether they constitute admissible evidence in the enquiry

12. The Allalrabad tligh Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. Assistant (ieneral Manager, Syndicate Bank lndustrial Relations Cell and others (1 supra) has observed that the photostat copies of the documents relied upon by the enquiry ofhcer would be admissible in evidence and could be taken into consideration by the encluiry olficer and the disciplinary authority provided that the copies arc made from original by mcchanical process which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies, copies made from or compared with the original and counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them and oral accounts ol the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it. The High bErt has observed that Section 63 of the Evidence Act makes it clear ro (2003) 4 scc 364 l5 W.P.N0.49l I of 2020 & Batch (Total 07 cases) that mere filing of photostat copy of the document unless it is proved by other evidence showing that the same is copied or prepared from original documents, the same cannot be treated as secondary evidence and accordingly is not admissible as such in evider,,rce. Similar view was expressed by the Kamataka High Court in the case of S.G.Nayak and others Vs. Canara Bank and others (2 supra) and by the Madras High Clourt in the case of M. Shahul Ilameed Vs. The Nlanaging Director and The Chairman, Board of Directors, Thc Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd.rr. The Madras High Court has observed that tl.re legal principles are settled that when serious charges are framed and it is required to be proved to the guilt, as it brings civil and criminal consequences on the employer concerned, he would be liable to be prosecuted and therefore, it cannot be proved on mere probabilities without taking evidence. Therefore, it is clear that the photocopies of the Bank records unless specified to bc so by the authority under whose possession the original documents are there, cannot be considered as admissible evidence. In this case, admittedly, the original documcnts arc in the custody of CBI. \ \ " ueN Uml/z t 3 z/2o t t l6 W.P.No.49l I of 2020 & Batch (Total 07 cases) n

13. As regards the second question, i.e., whether, mere marking of the documents would satisfo the requirement of proof of misconduct in the domestic enquiry, this Court finds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sait Tarajee Khimchand and others Vs. Yelamarti Satyam and others (3 supra) observed that mere marking ofan exhibit does not dispense with the proof of documents. Further, in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and another Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisenr2, it was observed that mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law.

14. From the enquiry report filed along with the Writ Pctitions, it is noticed that the Managenrent witness has only referred to thc contents of the docurnents which are marked, but has failed to state as to horv the said documents prove the misconduct of the concerned employee or as to how the said documents prove the misappropriation of lunds by the Clerk-cum-Cashier Mr. M. Jaipal Reddy and the role of the petitioners herein in the said misappropriation of funds. Therefore, this question is also answ.ered in favour ofthe petitioners. '2 l2otoy a scc asl t7 W-P.No.49ll of 2020 & Batch (Total 07 cases)

15. In view of the reply to these questions (a) and (b), the answer to question No.(c) is also in the negative and this view is also supported by the following decisions. (i) In the case o1'State of Bihar and others Vs. ILajendra Ramr-t, the High Court of Patna has observed in paras 33 and 34 as under: "33. The reason behind this principle is that not only the Delinquent Officer should know about the charges made against him but should also kttow lhe evidence against him so thot he is able to submit his reply. In absence of any wilness being examined and/or on1, record being exhibited, the proceeding cannot be said to be a proper ()nc

34. Il is important to note lhal the slatemenl of all the wilnesses should be rearded in the presence of the Delinquent Officer unless there are reasons to (rct otherwise- If it is examined in the absence of the Delinquent Offcer and malerials rut supplied to him again the procedure b illegal. " (ii) Similar proposition has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinhara and in the case of Chamoli District Cooperative Bank '' MANU/BH/0890/2022 'n\zcr.g) 2 scc 772 l8 W.P.No,49l1 of 2020 & Batch (Total 07 cases) r )'.- Limited through its Secretary/Mahaprabandhak and another Vs, Raghunath Singh and othersrs. (iii) In the casc of Meenglas Tea Estate Vs. Its Workers (4 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 4 as under: "4. The Tribttnal held that lhe enguiry was vitidted hccause it vos not held in accordance with the principles of natural justice, It is conlenderl that lhis conclusion wa\ erroneous. But we have no doubt aboul ils Lorreclness. The enquiry consisted of putting questions lo each v,orknnn in turn. No witness was examined in support of the chorge beJbre the workman was questioned. It is an elementary principle lhot d person who is required lo answer a charge musl know not only thc accusation but also the testimony by which lhe accusation is -.'upporled. IIe must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in supporl of the charge and to pul such relevant questions hy way of cross-examinotion os he desires. Then he must be given a chdnce to rebut the et,idence led against him. This is the barest requirement of an enquir.t oJ' this character and this requirement must be substantiall.v fulflled before the result oJ'the enquiry can be accepted. A departurt from this requirentenl in effect throws the burden upon the person charged to repel lhe charge wilho rtr making it out againsl him. In the present case neilher was any witness examined nor was any slulement-s made by any witness tendered in evidence. The enquiry ntch ds it was, made by Mr. Marshal or Mr. Nichols who v)ere not only in the position of judges but also of prosecutors and witnesses. 'l'here u,a.s no opportunily to the persons charged to cross- *1"* upon their own knowledge of the eramine th<,nt and ittdeed th '5 (2016) 12 scc 204 t9 W.P.No.49l I of 2020 & Batch (Total 07 cases) incident and inslead cross-examined the persons charged. This v,a.s su|h a lravesty of the principles of natural justice that the l'ribunal was justified in rejecting the findings and asking the Company to prove the allegation against each workn en de novo before it. "

16. As regards Question No.(d), whether this Co.urt can interfere in the domestic enquiry under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank and others Vs. Krishna Narayan Tewarir6 held that where the disciplinary authority records a finding that is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever or a finding which no reasonable person could have anived at, the writ court would be justified if not duty-bound to examine the matter and grant relief in appropriate cases. It was observed that the writ court will certainly interfere with disciplinary enquiry or the resultant orders passed by the competent authority on that basis if the enquiry itself was vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice, as alleged in the said case. Non-application of mind by the enquiry ofl-rcer or disciplinary authority, non-recording of reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by them are also grounds on which the writ courts are justified in interfering with the orders of punishment. [n the case of '6 (20t 7) 2 scc 308 20 W.P.No.49ll of 2020 & Batch (Total 07 cases) Commissioner of Police, Delhi and others Vs. Jai BhagwanrT, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that non-examination of complainant during departmental proceedings and denial of opportunity of cross-examination to delinquent amounts to vioiation of service rules and also principles of natural justice.

17. ln this case, admittedly, the co-delinquent Mr. M. Jaipal Reddy was never exalnined by the authorities and the petitioners were also not given any opportunity to cross-examine him. Whether some of the employees have been saddled with harsher punishment while some were let off with a lenient view, it has been held time and again that where there is parity among co-delinquents, punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing involvement in co-delinquents who are parties to the transaction or incident. On this ground also, the punishments ol dismissal fiom service have to be set aside.

18. The decisions relied upon by the leamed counsel for the respondent bank are on the principle of jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution ol India. l'here is no quarrel with the principle that this '' (2ol t) 6 scc 376 21 W.P.No.49l I of 2020 & Batch (Total 07 cases) Court should not interfere with the disciplinary proceedings while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India except in ceftain circumstances which have already been culled out in the judgments relied upon by the leamed counsel for the petitioners. The said principles have been taken into consideration while holding that there has been violation of principles of natural justice and the procedure has not been properly followed. Therefore, there is no quarrel about the judgments relicd upon by the respondents. In the cases on hand, this Court is not acting as an appellate authority by directing reinstatement of the petitioners but has directed the respondents to re- conduct the enquiry, if necessary from the stage of recording ol evidence. Since all the petitioners have attained the age of superannuation and sufficient time has lapsed and therefore to I reconsider imposing lesser punishment than the punishrnent ol disrnissal fi'om service,, this Court is of the opinion that the other judgments relicd upon by the learned counsel lor the respondent bank are not applicable / t ipso facto to the facts of these cases. 22 W.P.No.49l I of 2020 & Batch (Total 07 cases) n Question No.(e):

19. In view of the above, the impugned orders of dismissal from service are set aside and the respondent authorities are directed to reconsider imposing lesser punishment than dismissal from service or for re-initiating action against the employees by following the due process of law. 1-he respondent authorities are therefore directed to release provisional pension to all the petitioners till a decision is taken as to whether the enquiry is to be re-conducted in accordance rvith law or il lesser punishment than disrnissal from service is to be imposed.

20. With the above directions, all these Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.

21. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed ,TRUE COPY// SD/-MOHD. lSruetl ASSISTANT REGISTRAR i,\\*} SECTION OFFICER The Chairman, Telangana Grameena Bank' .Head Office: H'No 2-1-520' 2"d F[ilV:H6;.ri b"i'ctr"'tii' 3iii"i' rl"^s''Snanlirmatt Road' Hvderabad - 500044. The Board of Directors-cum-Appellate Authority' Telanoana Grameena Bank' Head office: u.r.ro z-r-szo,T#"til;;,'V'j;v;"'ri Sii "celestia' Street No 9' ijr,r.rirliiiti Roio Hvoerauad - 500044 The Disciplinary Authority-cum-Chairman' ^ Telangana Grameena Bank' rg,?["',:1'f"bsil5"?'Jg'?.5"%{-",T"fi lJiN,";,3;J;?3'i,fr "':L"fi $??*fl \ To, 1 2 3 4 The Chairman/Disciplinary Authority, Board & Appellate Authoritv' Telangana G;;,":$; il;"k is6on.oi"ilv-sili" ainr or thiiia) Head office. H.No. 2'1- ii6l"!;l'"r"|o"|. vii;v, s,i"sJi"c?i"stia Street Noe Shankarmutt RoSd [rirrar<tntr, Hyderabdd 5Qo 044 t \

5. 9ne CC to SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS, Senior Counqel [OPUC] 6. qne CC to SRI S. MUJIB KUMAR' S C for Telangana Grameena Bank loPUCl

7. One CQ to Smt K. UDAYA SRl, Advocate [OPUC] B. Two QD CoPies {v MP BS % 10 HIGH COURT DATED:0310312025 E SIAr€ 1H :\r C), I \i 'lt . 03 Nl] 20[ a -ri I I lEsP^rc ON ORDER WRIT PETITION NO.4911 OF 2O2O; WRIT PETITION NO.4913 OF 2O2O; WRIT PETITION NO.13749 OF 2O2O; wRtT PET|TION NO.13991 0F 2020; WRIT PETITION NO.17098 OF 2Q2A; wRrT PETTTTON NO.21759 0F 2020 AND WRIT PETITION NO.22212 OF 2O2O DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS d