P Balakistaiah v. consequential . rejection of review petition filed by the

99yl."t for the Respondents: Ms. UDAYA SREE SADASIVUNI, REp FOR SRI MUJIB KUMAR SADASIVUNI The Court made the following: ORDER j HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 184 13 oF 2019 OR DER: Petitroner seeks to declare the proceedings issued by thc 2'd respondent dated 27-Og-2O18' order of rejcction passcd bl' the l't respondent (Appellate Authority) uide leLLer dated0703-20lS,andtheconsequentialrejectionofrevieu, peLition communicated through proceedings dated 09-07-2019' as illcgal, arbitrary, and therefore liable to be set aside' Petitioner was appointed as Officer-JMGS-l on 2. 09 i I 1985 ancl was subsequently' promoted as Ofhcer MMGS- Ill on 18 l2'2O13' ln his career' he rendered scrvicc at various and consistentlY maintained an unblemished servicc He served as Manager of Uppal Branch' Hyderabatl from 04-11-20O1 to 01-i0-2OO4 and thereafter' at Laxminagar Branch, Hyderabad from 25-O4-2O14 to 29-1O-2O15 record places While the matter stood thus, the Disciplinary Authority/Chairman issued charge memo dated 30-04 20 16 alleging that petitioner was negligent in discharge ol duties which is likely to cause loss to the respondent bank A list of u,itnesses and documents to be relied upon by the disciplinary authority was appended to the charge sheet Petitioner is stated to have submitted a detailed explanation denying the charges and sought that no further action be taken I ,t 2 against him. However, disciplinary authority appointed Sri A. Shankar Goud, Ofhcer SMGS-IV/Chief Manager, TGB, Sitharampally Branch as Enquiry Olficer who submitted report on 13 06-2017, holding the charges proved. petitioner alleges that Enquiry Officer did not take into consideration his defence and failed to provide an opportunity to cross_examine the witnesses examined by the Presenting Officer; Enquiry Report is biased, perverse, and enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the Service Regulations of the Bank. It is sta ted, pursuant to the Enquiry Ofhcer,s report, the 2"d respondent issued show cause notice dated 25-07 -2017 proposing punishment of reduc[ion o[ basic pay by three stages from Rs.54,41O/ to Rs.5O,O30/-, for a period of three years as per the Bank's pay structure. The no[ice stated that petitioner would not earn any increments or be etigible for promotion during the said period and that rcduction would have the effect of postponement of future increments, u,hich would be earned after the said three-year period at the rate of one increment per year. Petitioner contends that the show cause notice is illegal and arbitrary, as it disclosed prcde[ermined mind of the disciplinary authority by proposing the punishment upfront, contrary to settled legal principles. Therefore, he sought extension of time and thereafter, submitted explanation dated 28-08-2017 requesting the 2nd respondent to drop the / ---/ I, t I .,) proceedings as he always acted in Bank's interest and that he received sevcral commendations for performance He emphasized that he had only left with 3O months of service and proposed punishment was not feasible' He urged that punishme nt bc clropped, and his explanation dated 2B-O8-2O17 betreatedaspartoftheenquiry'However'withoutproperly considering his explanation, the 2"d respondent' by proceedings dated 29-O9 20 17, imposed the punishment as proposed' Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed Appeal which was rejcctcd by order ciated 3O O1-2018' According to petitioncr, thc appellate authority did not consider the Appeal in a proper and fair manner, nor were the merits of the Appeal taken intrl crlnsideration. Therefore, he preferred revie\^, petition belorc the l " respondent, but it was also dismissed by order dated O9-07-2O 19' Petitioner contends that based on the same sct of allegations m:rde in the disciplinary proceedings' a criminal case was regislerccl :rgainst him in C-C No 427 of 2018' arraying him as Accusecl No.3; charge sheet was aiso hled but trial has not commenced. lt is pointed out that Enquiry Ofhcer concluded the enquiry proccedings without awaiting the outcome of the criminal case I I t I I It 4

3. The General Manager_l (Admin) of the respondent bank stated that charge memorandum was issued to petitioner on 30.04.2016 and he was extended sufhcient opportunity to respond to the said memorandum and provide cxplanation. petitioner did submit explanation on 10.06.2016 but the same was considered unsatisfactory. Subsequently, Disciplinary Authority proceeded with the inquiry in accordance with the applicable procedqres. It was emphasized that a full-fledged departmen[al inquiry was. conducted by the respondent bank. and at every procedural stage, he was granted adequate opportunity to offer his defence The Disciplinary Aur horiry, after taking into consideration all explanations submitted by petltloner and after applying his mind to the entire record, arrived at a conclusive decision and passed the impugnecl disciplinary order. The arlegation that petitioner was cieniecr an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses is untenablc. This respondent specifically denied the allegation that Disciplinary Authority had predetermined the punishment and issued the show cause notice with such an intent. [t u,as clarified that language of the show cause notice, which sought explanation from the derinquent within a specified time and arso mentioned consequences in case of non_response, was standard and in accordance with established disciplinary procedure. The contention that Disciplinary Authority had a preconce ivcd 5 /1 notion against petitioner was denied as a misrepresentation aimed at manulacturing a cause of action. This respondent acknowledged that u,hile petitioner claimed to have rendered 31 years of unblcmishccl service in the bank, such past conduct could nol validate any present acts of irregularity or misconduc[. The Disciplinary Authority's decision to impose punishment rn'as based on specific irregularities committed by petitioner at Uppal and Laxminagar Branches and also after considering his remair-ring service period of 30 months. It is stated, the documentary evidence on record clearly cstablished petitioner's misconduct. It was asserted that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted objectively and petitioner u,as provided full opportunity to respond to all allegations, including issuance ol a show cause notice and consideration of his explanation before the final decision was made. The Disciplinary Authority adhered to the principles of natural justicc ancl provided petitioner sufhcient opportunity to defend himsell. His ou,n afhdavit, it was argued, reflected that he was heard during the proceedings and a full-fledged inquiry had indeed taken place. According to this respondent, Appellate Authority considered pe titioner's Appeal on merits after examrning the entire record of disciplinary proceedings, including the hndings of the Inquiry Authority and the Disciplinary Authority. The q 'l { t, I' h 6 Appcllate Authority concluded that principles of natural justice had been followed and a fair opportunity was extended to petitioner. Additionaily, it was noted that petitioner had failed to bring lorth any extenuating circumstances in his Appeal that u,ould warrant reconsideration of the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The respondent also stated that a criminal case had been registered against petitioner numbered as C.C. No. 42T of 2018, which is . currently pending. The allegation that disciplinary inquiry was conducted iilegally and arbitrarily without awailing the outcome of the said criminal case is denied as such a contention was misconceived and unsustainable. It was clarified that departmental inquiries are independent o[ criminal proceedings and merely because the factual matrix in both proceedings is identical, one cannot be made dependent on the outcome of thc other. It was thus argued that Disciplinary Authority was well within his jurisdiction and legal authority t_o proceed with the departmental inquiry without awaiting [he result of the criminal trial. It was further stated that initially, Sri G. Subramanyam, Officer MMGS-III was appointed as prcsenting Officer, however, as petitioner raised objecti on uide letter dated 23.09.2016, respondent bank, by way of DA Letter dated 31.10.20 16 replaced him with Sri D.V.S. Rama Rao. Officer ..... l MMGS-II and this change was made solely to address his that it clearly clcmonstrated that there was concerns and neither prejudice nor any prcconceived bias against petitioner' Il was highlighted that the respondent bank duly considered the objections raised by petitioncr at every stage and took approPriate action accordinglY' disciplinary Proceedings It is stated, petitioner was fully aware of Regulation a5(3) of the relevant Servicc Regulations' which provides that even upon an ofltcer attaining the age of superannuation' if are pending, theY shal1 contlnue as still in service until final orders are though the officer were passed- It was statecl that it is not the case of the petitioner that his gratuity w:rs forfeited Therefore' the argument advanced by petitioner that Regutati on 72 of the Service Regulations was in light of the disciPlinary violated was reluted as untenable penallY imPosed uPon him This resPondent stated that both the DisciPlinary Authority and the Appellate Authority haci thoroughly examined the evidence on record and only uPon being satisfied that petitioner was indced guilty ol the charges of misconduct' imposed the punishment' There \^'as no illegality or procedural inhrmity in thc imposition of penalty by the respondent bank as the charges proved against petitioner clearly established gross negligence in discharge of his official duties' which led to I 8 reputational loss to bank. Hence , the punishment impugned was stated to be in accordance with the relevant Service Regulations, lau,ful, and proportionate to the misconduct proved in the inquiry proceedings.

4. In the reply, petitioner reiterates that the plea taken by respondent bank is contrary to Regulation No. 45(3) of Deccan Grameena Bank (now Telangana Grameena Bank) (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 which is applicable to an employee / officer who is under suspension on a charge of misconduct and who attains the age of superannuation; he was neither suspended nor any disciplinary proceedings pendir-rg as on the date of superannuation i.e. 3O.O4.2O2O; he neither elevated nor was promoted during the penalty period of thrce years when his basic pay was reduced by three stages. In the hnal order, the 2"d respondent clearly stated that thcse rcduced increments would be earned by petitioner on expiry of three years period from the date of order at the rate of one per year. According to petitioner, the said penalty was imposed on 29 .O9 .2O 1Z which would be completed by

29.O9.2O2O; nou, penalty is not in force and his increments have to be restored and monetary benefit has to be paid to petitioner. Furlher, it is st:rted that deducted increments are that they are stagnated increments earned over a period of nine years such ( 9 eachoneincrementforcompletedperiodoithreeyearsandnow those i.ncremenls have to be released w'ith retrospective effect' Sri M. Srinivasa Rao' learned counsel for petitioner' 5. reiterating the contentions madc in the writ affidavit' submits enquiry was the that Presenting Offlcer in the de partmcntal same ofhcer who had eariier conducted investigation in the matter, which is contrary to the Government instructions- It is submitted that both the clisciplinary authority and the appellate authority lailed to consider petitioner's reply and appeal in a proper perspectivc ancl that the punishment was imposed and confirmed without application of mind' the preliminary In support o[ his case' Iearnecl counsel relied on the judgments 7) K. Raiendra Kumar v' Deccdn Grameena Bo,nk (W.P.No. 24337 of 2OO8); 2) J' Viiaga Bhoskor u' APGW Bank (W.P.No. Sogo of 2017); 3) Kuldeep Singh u' Comtnissioner o! Police, 4) Chokko- Ro,o u' DG Bank (W'P'No' 28314 of 2OO7) and 5) Ilnion of Indir: u' Gunasekaran' On the other hand' Ms' Udayasree Sadasivunr' 6. counsel representing Sri Mujib Kumar Sadasivuni' learned Standing Counsel for respondent bank submits that enquiry u,as conducted in accordance rr,ith law, bcnce, no in[erference is u,arranted in the decision of respondents' In sr-rpport of her case, shl reliecl on the judgment of Lhe Hon'b1e Supreme Court 7i t I { i I t, t0 in Chairtnan_cum_Managing Director, Mahanadi CoalJields Limited u. Rabindranath Choubegt. \

7. Upon hearing the learned counsel on either side and on perusal of the entire maLerial on record, the primary question arises before this Court is thether the disciplinary proceedings culminated in the impugned punishment were conducted in accordance with the settled principles of natural justice, whether the fincJrngs of guilt are supported by evidence, and whether the penalty imposed is proportionate and legally_ sustainable,.

8. The corncrstone of fairness in domestrc enquiries is adherence to ctudi alteram partem_ the right to be heard. This right is not a merc formality but an enforceable constitutional guarantee. In the instant case, petitioner was not afforded opportunity to cross examine any of the key witnesses relied upon by the presenting Officer and the proceedings do not offered by the Enquiry OIIicer for denying cross-exam ina t ion . The law is well-settled that denial of cross-examination rvhere witnesses are examined to establish mrsconduct is fatal to the enquiry itsell A finding based on violates basic principles of fair play and disclose any justification untested evidence renders the conclusions legally infirm ' 1zo4.ly rs scc;r ( II Another glaring infirmity is appointment of same g. officer as Presenting Ofhcer who had earlier conducted prclimrnary investigation. This is antithetical to the principle of institutional impartiality tt is a fundamtrnlal rule of administrative lairness that a person u'ho has acted as investigator should not don the robe of prosecutor' Though in the counter, the respondents submit that Enquiry Officer was changed at the request of petitioner, the same $'as not justified' The show cause notice dated 25 07 20 l7 proposing

10. the punishment is couched in language that conveys a definitive conclusion rather than a tentative vier"' Thc use of expressions such as "it has been decided to impose" " rathcr than "it is proposed to impose..." strips the notice ol its provisional character and suggests pre-judgment, rcndcring lhc exercise an empty formality. A show cause notice must indicate that the authorily is open to persuasion Respondents tried to convince that the language used in show cause notice is slandard' this Court is not ready to accept the same' As regards the submission that penalty imposed is

11. wholly disproportionate to the nature of the alleged misconduct' it is to be seen here that records disclose that petitioner had not received promotions even after the period during which the misconduct allqggdlV occurred. It is not the respondents' case tilat petitioner derived any personal benefit from the alleged t I i I h It t2 irreguiarities, or that there was any loss caused to the bank as a result of his actions. The principle of proportionalit5r demands that punishment musL fit not merery the act but also the context, [he intention, and the consequences. Here, the authority has failed to consider that petitioner acted based on documents placed before him in good faith and has had an otherwise impeccable record. \ t2. Though the Hon'blc Supreme Court in P. Gunaseko:ran, s case held [hat under ArLicle 2261 227 of the Constitution, the High Court shall not re_appreciate the evidence, intcrfere with thc conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accorclance with law, go into the adequacy and reliabiliry o[ evidence, correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be, go into the proportionalitv of punishment unless it shocks its conscience, rn view of the discussion held supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that the decision of the responclenL bank requires interference. Further, the appellate and revier.r. orders are perfunctory and bereft of reasoning. The orders merely affirmed disciplinary authority's decision without engaging with the petitioner,s contentions or assessing the proportionality of punishment. Such mechanical affirmation violates the requirement of independenl a ppra isa l. ,a ( Notably, criminal proceedings arising oul of the 13. same allegations are pending trial' While it is lrue that both proceedings can proceed independently' the facts of the case do not suggest any urgency that u'ould j ustify a hurried deparlmental action in disregard of procedural salegttards' In light of the above' this Court is compellecl to hold 14- that disciplinary proceedings against petitioner arc vitiated in law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowecl The impugned dated, 27 .O9 .2O 18, the appellate order ordcr of Punishment daled 07.03.2O18, and the review order dated O9 07 20 19 are petitioner sha11 be en titlcd to all and monetary benehts, including seniority. The said benefits shall be restoration of PaY and extencled to the petitioner within eight weeks from Lhe datc of receipt of a copy of this order' No costs' conse quential service hereby quashed. The 1 5. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications' i[ zrny shall stand closed ' ftrat Rute Nisi has made Absolute as above witness The Hon'ble sRl APARESH KUMAR SINGH, The chief Justice on this Friday' the Twenty Fifth Day of July, Two Thousand and Twenty Five' SD/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY ANT REGISTRAR AS SECTION OFFICER langana Grameena Bank, //TRUE COPYII To, '1 . The Board of Directci's and Appellate A.uthority' Head office, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. The Disciplinary Authority / Chairman, Telangana Grameena Bank' Head office. Nallakunta, HYderabad One CC to SRt SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI N/UJIB KUIVAR SADASIVUNI, Advocate [OPUC] 2 J 4 5 BSR Two CD Copies *dv t- u HIGH COURT DATED:2510712025 ORDER WP.No.1 8413 of 2019 t,i 15 AUB zffi ' 11\ (' a oF spatc HELr ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS tI ed