The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A.KRISHNAM RAJU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K.LAKSHMINARAYANA w A.NO: 709 OF 2022 writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against the order d Dated 19t0712022 in W.P.No 20347 of 2014 and pass on the fil,e of the High court. Between:

1. Chairman and Managing Director, Canara Bank, Head C)ffice. Manipgl 2. Qeneral Manager (F) -and Appellate Authority-, Canilra. Bank, Personnel 3. Asit. General Manager (P) and Disciplinary Authority,, Canara Bank, - Pgrsonnel Departmentl lndListiiat Relations Division Head Office. Manipal. Deoartment, lniiustrial Relations Division Head Office. Manipal ...APPELLAI\ITS/RESPONDENTS AND V. Sambasiva Rao, S/o. V. Suryanarayana, Aged.57 yeiers, Occ. Ex- Bank Officer, R/o. Flat No. 108, R ani1 R Re'sidency, PIot No.997' Chanda Naik Thanda Road, Khanamet Ayyappa Society, Gurukul Tru:;t, Madhapur, Hyderabad' 500 0Bl .RES'.NDENT/'ET.,.NER lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the cir:umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour may be pleased to condone the delay of 31 days in preferring appeal against o-der dt.19-07-2022 in I ,I W.P. No. 20347 of 2014 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court, lA NO: 2 OF 2022 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 operation of Order dated 19-07-2022 in W.P. No.20347 of 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of thjs Honourable Court during pendency of pbove appeal. Goun Cqun sel for the Appellqnts: SRI A.KRISHNAM RAJU sel fol the Respondent: SRI K.LAXMINARAYANA The Cqurt made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT I * HON'BT,E SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI .IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA A]LISHETTY WRIT .\PPEAL Nos.54l 689 and 709 of2tl22 C.OMMON J UDGMENT: @er tton'ble Sri Jusrica l.axmi Nar t,una Alishcrty) Writ Appeal No.54 I of 2022 is fited by the employee seeking the following substantive re liefs:- O To modify the impugned common order dated 19.07.)022. passed by' leat ned single Judge of this Court in respect oJ IY.P.No 203,/7 oJ' 2014, by altering the penalty .from "stoppoge ol one itrcrement wilh cumulative effect" to "stoppagc of oue increment without cumulative effect" qnd /br relcuse o/ all the increments due from the da,e oJ' sttspension till the date of superannuation, witll rt,calculotion o1 all terminal beneJits. (i, 7'o direct the entplot,er-Bank to pay him eligible pen:lon, includittg comnluted pension, from rhe date of disnissal ryith interest tLl l0%, along with all consequential benefits u.s pernti.ssible Jbr superannuated ofrcers. (ii, To dirett Ihe emplq,er-Bank to pay interest (@ l0%o ot th.e gt'otuil) omounl , as u,as delermined by the Contrc lling Aurhorirv and fitther coryfirmed by the Appellate Authority ttntler !hc Po.tntettt o/'Gratuin, Act, 1972, alter adjusting the pret iottslt ptrid interest. 2 AKS, J & LNA,J ll/A.Nos.54). 689 & 709 o12022 (iv) To direct the employer-Bank to pay interest on lhe invested gratuity amount @l0ol against the current interest rate of 3%.

2. Writ Appeal'No.689 of 2022 is fited by the employer-Bank seeking to set aside the aforesaid impugned common order, whereunder W.P.No.23403 of 2016 is dismissed, upholding the order of the Controlling Authorify under the Payment of Gratuity Act, as was conltrmed by the Appellate Authority, with respect to payment of the gratuity amount to the respondent-employee.

3. Writ Appeal No.709 of 2022 is also filed by thepmployer-Bank seeking to set aside the aforesaid impugned common order passed in W.P.No.20347 of 2014, whereby the order of punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the respondent is modified to that of stoppage of once increment with cumulative efflect.

4. Since all the aforesaid Writ Appeals arise out of the common order passed by learned singte Judge and common issues are involved, atl the Writ Appeats are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3 AKS. J & LN/I,J ll/A.Nos.54 l, 689 & 709 oI2A22

5. In Writ Appeal No.709 of 2022, the appellants are rhe employer-Bank and the respondent is the employee

6. Iror convenicnce, hereinafter the parties will be :eferred to as they are anayed in Writ Appeal No.709 of 2022 and W.A.No.709 of 2022 is taken up as the Iead case insofar as the facts o. the case are concemed. 7 tleard Sri A.Krishnam Raju, leamed counsel for the appellants- Bank and Sri K.l-akshmi Narayana, learned cour sel for the respon d c nt - em p I o.u- ce. ,{

8. In nutshell, the lacts of the case, shom off urutecessary details, are that tlte responclenl has been an employee in the apltellants- bank since [98 I and was promoted to Junior Management Grrde (JMG-l) in the year 2006; that since then, he has been posterl in various branches; and that in the year 2007,he was transferred tr Borabanda Branch. While so. hc was accused of misconduct/imp:opriety and accordingly, a charge sheet was issued, along with a suspr:nsion order, alleging that he corrnritted irregularities in various accounts and that he had debited amou.rts frour the accounts of the custonrer.s without 4 AKS, J & I,NA,J tl/A.Nos 511, 689 & 709 of2022 .:-,.. their permission and credited the said amounts to the accounts of his friends and relatives. Accordingly, an inquiry officer was appointed, who, on completion of enquiry, submitted his report d,ated,O2.06.2012 holding that all the charges framed against the respondenr are proved.

8.1. The Disciplinary authority, after affording reasonable opportunity to the respondent and considering the repty submitted by him, passed the order of dismissal from service, vide proceedings dated 16.08.2012. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondenr preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, however, the same was dismissed, vide proceedings dated 01.10.20 13. Chaltenging the t same, the respondent filed WP.No.20347 of 2014 before this Court.

8.2. Meanwhile, the respondent filed an application belore the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Cratuity Act, 1972, Hyderabad, for necessary directions to the appellants-Bank to pay the gratuity amount to him along with interest for the delay. The Controlling Authority directed the appellants-Bank to pay the gratuity and interest to the respondent, vide order dated 20.lZ.2Ol4. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants-Bank preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Paymenl of Gratuity Acq 1972 and rhe / /..' 5 AKS, J & LNA.J I'l/4.Nos.541 , 689 & 709 ol2022 said appeal was dismissed, vide order dated 01.03.2016. Aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate Authority, the appellant;Bank filed WP.No.23403 ol20l6 before this Courr.

8.3. The leamed single Judge passed a common order dated

19.07.2022 in WP.Nos.20347 of 2014 atd,23403 of 20t6, wherein and whereby WP.No.20347 of 2014 was partly allowed. modifl,ing the punishment of the dismissal from service imposed on the respondent-employee to that of stoppage of one incr,:ment with cumulative effect, and further directed the appellants-Bank to treat the respondent to be notionally in service from the date of disnrfsal to the date of superannuation only for the purpose of retirement/consequentiaI benefits, but, however, ordered that the respondent was not etigible for any back wages, a.rd further, WP.No.23403 of 2016 filed by the appellants-Bank was dismissed. Hence, the present Writ Appeals.

9. Leamed counsel for the appellants-Bank submittr:d that the impugned common order dated 19.07.2022 is ex facie illegal as the learned single Judge ought to have taken note of the fact that the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority and later confirmed 6 AKS, J & LNA,J W,4.Nos.51 l, 689 & 709 of2022 by the appellate authority, can be interfered with by this Court, if and only if the principles of natural justice are not complied with or il the inquiry is not held by the competent authority or if there is any violation of statutory Rules or the findings are based on no evidence. He further submitted that the scope of judicial review is limited and this Court, while exercising the power ofjudicial review, cannot act as an appellate court and re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at its own conclusion. Learned counsel further submitted that the tirder of dismissal was issued after considering the explanation submitted by the respondent-employee and after hearing the defdnce putforth by him and therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on him is not shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct of fraudulently debiting the amounts from the accounts of the customers and crediting the said amounts to the accounts of his friends and relatives. Hence, leamed counsel prayed to allow WA.No.109 of 2022 by setting aside the impugned order, dated 19.07.2022, passed by the leamed single Judge in WP.No.20347 of 2014.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants-Bank further submitted that the learned single Judge failed to discuss the merits and demerits of l AKS, J & LNA,J WA Nos.54l. 689 & 709 oJ2022 the order passed b), the Appellate Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act and dismissed wp.No.23403 of 2016 on tle sole ground that no pecuniary loss was caused to the appellants_Bank by the acts of the respondent. IIe further submitted that the leameC single Judge failed to consider the evicience which clearry estabrishes the financiar loss caused to the bank due to the acts of the respcndent. Hence, learned counsel prayed this Court ro allow WA.No.6{i9 of 2022 by selting aside the impugned order, dated 19.07.20i,.2, passed in WP.No.23403 of 20 16, whereby rhe order of the Appe late Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act was upheld. f ll. Per contra. learrled counsel appearing lor the respondent- employee submitted that the learned single Judgr: has rightly appreciated the lacts ol the case; and that taking into co rsideration the fact that the respondert has rendered 32 years or unbrernished service in the appellants-Bank, learned single Judge held that rhe respondent was unfairly treated by intposing the punishment of clismissal from service and by rreating him diflerently than other sirnilarly placed officers, who were punished with minor penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative efrect; and that the learned single Judge 8 AKS. J & LN,4,J ll/A Nos 511,689 & 709 of2022 having held so, shown discrimination in the case of respondent by imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and hence, prayed to grant the reliefs sought for by the employee in W.A.No.54l of 2022. He further submitted that there are no merits in the appeals filed by the appellants and the same are liabte to be dismissed. Consideration:-

12. From the aforesaid factual matrix of the case and the material placed on record, it is evident that the respondent has leen give explanation to the charges tevelted against him and that his allowed to counsel was present during the inquiry proceedings and further, in the impugned common order, the learned single Judge has observed that the enquiry officer has followed the procedure as laid down under the Regulations of the bank, therefore, the question of violating the principtes of natural justice does not arise.

13. The main contention of the respondent is that other officers, who were charge sheeted for the same transactions as that of him, were let off by imposing minor penalty of stoppage of one increment 9 AKS, J& LNA,J Ll/A Nos.54l. 689 & 709 of2022 without cumulative elfect on them. In contrast, major punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the respondent without considering his 32 r,ears of unblemished service in the appellants_ bank. It is also the case of' the respondent that no conrplaints were given by the customers alteging that he debited amounts from their accounts and credited the same into the accounts of hir; friends and relatives. The respondent further claims that while disnrissing him from the service, the disciplinary authority did not consicler the le$Ers given by the customers lrom whose accounts the arnounts were alleged to have bccn debited nor did the authorir-v give reapns lor not considering the sarne.

14. As per the rcport of the inquiry officer, the letters given by the customers were dated prior to the explanation gi.ren by the respondent, but werc submitted to the inquiry offic:r after the evidence was recorded. As correctly observed by the incruiry officer, the respondent had prior know,ledge of the letters g ven by the customers, however.. hc did not choose to file the same alcng with his explanation, and instead fi led the same after the e'idence was recordtad and hence.. no weightage can be attached to the said letters. l0 AKS, J & LNA,J WA.Nos.541, 689 & 709 of2022 In the impugned order, the leamed single Judge also did not find fault I with the said finding of the inquiry officer.

15. To strengthen the submissions advanced by him, learned counsel for the appellants-Bank has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. Tarun Kumar Banerjee,t The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: "A customer of the Bank need not be involved in a domestic inquiry conducted as such a course would not be conducpe lo a proper banker-customer relationship and, thyefore, would not be in the inlerest of the Bank. Further, when money was secured a prudent banker would deposit the same in lhe account of lhe customer complaining of loss of money and, tlterefctre, non-production of money also would not be of much materiality. llthen in the course of the domestic enquiry no reliance was placed on the so-called confessional statement made by the first respondent, then non-production of the same is also of no significance. Thus, in our opinion, these circumstances are irrelevant and the Tribunal could nor have placed reliance on the same to reach the conclusion it did and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in interfering with the same. " 1 (2000) 8 {.C 72 AKS, J & I,NA,J ll4.Nos 51 l. 689 & 709 of2022

16. In the above judgment, it is well setlled that t customer of Bank need not be involved in a domestic inquiry.

17. By apptying the above ratio to the present case, it is to be held that the contention of the respondent that the custorters were not examined as witnesses in the departmental inquiry is unrenable.

18. As regards the aspect of not receiving any cornplaint from customers against the respondent, the Appellate Author.ity has rightty observed that the customers were not aware that the respondent had collected excess amount from them, contrary to the guidelines of the t bank and therefore. naturally there would be no complaints from the customers.

19. It is a u,cll settled principle ol law thar rhis Court while exercising the porver ol judicial review under Arti<:le 226 of the Constitution o1'India, can only review the decision-mak ing process for ensuring fair treatment rather than the correctness of the conclusion, and it cannot act .s an appellate cour1. In the cases of rnisconduct and its inquiry, th( Court/Tribunal should only assess whether a competent t authority conducted rhe inquiry by duly foilowing tre principles of t2 AKS, J & I,NA.J lfA.Nos.54l, 689 & 709 of2022 natural justice and the decision was based on evidence. The strict rules of the Evidence Act do not bind the disciplinary proceedings. The Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot re-appreciate the evidence, but can intervene only if the disciplinary proceedings are in violation the principles of natural justice or statutory rules or if the findings are perverse or not supported by any evidence.

20. Leamed counsel for the appellants-Bank has relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the above principle of law was reiterated:- (D B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of [ndia,2 (ii) Union of India v. G. Ganayutham,l (iiD State of NCT of Delhi v. Sanjeev,l (iv) Om Kumar v. Union of Intlia.s (v) State Bank of India v. Samarendra Kishore Endow,6 (vi) Anil Kumar Upadhyay v. SSB,7