Managing Director, ECIL, Ilyderabad and others v. B. Kanrnakar arrd othersr

Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order passed ln WP No.'18413/2019, dt.25.07.2025, of the learned single judge, pending disposal of the main Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI MUJIB KUMAR SADASIVUNT Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI M.SURENDER RAO, Sr. COUNSEL' FOR SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN 1VRIT APPEAL No. 1O83 of 2o25 JUDGMENT: Hearcl Mr. Mujib Kumar Sadasiwrni, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. M. St.render Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, [earned counsel for the respondent.

2. The zrppellants - Telangana Grameen:L Bank are aggrieved lry thc impugned judgment dated ).5.O7.2025 passed in W.P.No.184 13 of 2019, whereby the impugned order of punishment dated 27.Ct9t.2018, the appellate order dated 07.O3.2018 a::rd the -<:vierv order dated 09.07.20 19 have been set aside.

3. The learned writ Court has heirl that the respondent/writ petitioner shall be ent.tled to all consequential service and monetar5r benefits; including restoration of pay and seniority, which should be 2 --Y-l \l extended to him within eight weeks. The learned writ Court has, while doing so, taken into consideration that the respondent was denied opportunity of cross- examination and also held that the show cause notice dated 25.07.2017 was a predetcrmined exerclse disclosing the mind of the disciplinary authority as to the punishment sought to be imposed. The learned writ Court a-lso invoked the doctrine of proportionality while setting aside the impugned orders.

4. During the course of submissions though arguments had been addressed on the tenability of the aforesaid grounds for setting aside the impugned orders of punishment, learned Sdnior Counsel for the respondent submits that while the othcr gror-rnds may not be pressed on behalf of the respondent, the infirmity in the show cause notice dated 25.07.2017 cannot be supported by the appellants as the disciplinary authority has, at the stage of show cause - 3 notice and submission of enquiry report, revealed its mind as to the penalty proposed to be impos:d.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants sullnits that if the learned writ Court was satislied that the impugned proceedings sulfer from procedural irregularit5r or the infirmity in the show cause notice, the ma.,e,r ought to have been remanded to the disciplinary zruthority to pass a fresh order in accordance with la'"i'. Instead, the entire proceedings have been set aside though the charges were proved.

6. Having regard to the aforesaid limiterl facts ald circumstances, without getting into the detrils of the nature of the charge or the findings of the enquiry officer, we are of the view that the matter deserves to be remanded to the disciplinary authoritl to pass a fresh order from the stage of issuance of s;frow cause notice with the copy of the enquiry report. The show cause notice dated 25.07.2017 extractecl hereunder .-\-*I 4 explicitly discloses a predetermined set of mind of the disciplinary authority to the punishment sought to be imposed upon the respondent even before his reply or comments on the findings of the enquiry officer were submitted: "Lr. No.Gr.XII / 20 17 - 18 I 3829 Date: 25.07.2017 Sri Balakistaiah, (lD No.423), Olficer, MMGS-lll, FI.No. I0- 1-92l3- I 1-8, Janaki Enclavc, Lingoji Guda, Saroornz.gar, HYDtrRABAD _ 5OO 035. Regd.Post/Ack due CONFIDENTIAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS-S HOW CAUSE NOTICE Please refer to our Letter No.Gr.VII/20i6-77 12289 dated 27 .06.2016, advising the decision to conduct the enquiry into thc charges alleged against you and communicated to you vide charge sheet Lr.No.Gr.VII/2016 17 1629 daLed io.o+.zoto. sr] e. shankar Goud, Oflicer SMGS-lv/chicf Ivlanagcr, T.G.B., Seetharampalli Brarch (Presently o.o.kiig as Chief Manager, Accounts, TGB, HO' ftyclerabadl was appointed as inquiring authority-to hold ,"gular ertqriry proceedings against tl<: ,Cl9-,- "id' rto.l-r ivo.ci.vtt l20\6- 17 12290 dated 27 06.2016' to conduct the enquiry and submit his report' 2. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Inquiring Authority (lA) has submitted his report dated 13 06 2017 and a copy of the same is enclosed l hereby propose to imposc on you the punishment of "Reduction of basic pay by (3) stages i.e., from Rs.54,410/- to Rs'50,030/- in the .lri"'fo. a"period of three years as per the pay structtrre of the Bank. You will llot earn any increments to your pay and not cligible for promotion during the pcriod of such reduction aid on expiry of such period, the reduction wrll have the effect of postponement o[ your future increments' These rcduced increments will be carned by you or-r expin' I I o[ Urfee years period flrom the date of my ord(]r at the rate of one per year". are- hereby, advised to srttnit vour 9:^_- ":" reDresentation, if anv. thereon within lO cl. 11-i.o,rrrii. date of receipt of thisietter. 4. Please note that. in case we do not recei\e any subrlissions before the above stipulated timc, it uill be deemcd that -vou have no submisslons t" ,,r,,ta surtable decision will be taken in the matter. ""a', 5. Please retunt tlte rlunlicate copy of thi; lctter duly acl(nowledged bv yotr with dLte. Yours faithftr Il-v, sd/ DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY/ALIrqIR]WUV-

7. The requirement of issuance of a -. hort. cause notice upon submission of the enquiry report upon the delinquent in a case where the disciplini.ry authority and enquiry officer are two different persor)s has been specifiecl in the case o[ Managing Director, ECIL, Ilyderabad and others vs. B. Kanrnakar arrd othersr.

8. Tht: purpose is to enable the delinque 1, to submit his comrnents on the findings of the enquir/ officer so that the disciplinary authority, who is of separate ' 1tssl1 + sc':. tzt \*--1 -I 6 entity, can take al informed decision on the penalty to be proposed on the basis of the enquiry report and the reply furnished by the delinquent.

9. In the instant case, the show cause notice apart from providing copy of the enquiry report inviting comments of the delinquent officer has fully disclosed his mind about the proposed punishment which cannot be sustained. If the proceedings suffer from this infirmity, the right course is to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority to issue a fresh show cause notice and pass order on the penalty to be imposed upon the respondent on consideration of his repty. [n this regard, reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H.P. State Electricity Board Limited vs. Mahesh Dahiya2 where reliance has also been placed upon the constitutional Bench judgment in Managing Director, ECIL, I I Hyderabad (supra). 'l AIR 20 t6 Supreme Court 5341 7

10. 1'he impugned judgment is therelirre .set aside. The matter is remanded to the disciplinarr. authority to issue fresh show cause notice with il.r.: copy ol the enquiry report, asking the delinquent ollicer to submit his comrnents thereupon and take a decision in accordance with law. t l. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dispor;c.d of. As a sequel, miscellaneotrs petitions. 1;r.,tding if zmy, stand closecl. //TRUE COPY// SD/-\ ,\\ (tr. necaaHusHAMBA To, Head office, Nallakunta Hyderabad -' - 'r' i ' , SECTION OFFICER "'=l-lj="** 1. The Board of Directors and Appellate Authority, \Telan,):rna Grameena Bank. 2. The Disciplinary Authority / Chairman, Telangana Gr;rmeena Bank, Head 3. One CC to SRI MUJTB KUMAR SADAS|VUN|, Advocatt: lOpUCl 4. One CC to SRI SRIN|VASA RAO MAD|RAJU, Advocatr: IOPUCI 5. Two CD Copies office, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. BSR PVL HIGH COURT DATED: 0311112025 JUDGMENT WA.No.1083 of 2025 1H .,(: ,5 iJ ,) "o il0I 2U5 ;.;t . ,, . .,t, n-,-l' ;/ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL, WITHOUT COSTS 1,( o\\r \