High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or orders, Direction or Directions to quash the order of the 1st respondent dated 17.07 '2017 inNo.APGVB/V&DP/461/19612017-lswherebythepetitionerwasimposedwith thepenaltyofreductiontoLowerGradeofficerScale.lwithbasispayof Rs.23,700/- i.e., 1st stage of Scale - l, in pursuance to the disciplinary proceedings. as confirmed by the order of the 2nd respondent dated 12 06'2018 in Letter No.APG VBtBoardtlol2ol 8-1 I, by declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 16 0f the constitution of lndia and to direct the 1st respondent to restore the petitioner to the post of officer Scale -'ll as held by him before the imposition of punishment with all consequential benefits like back wages and other attendant benefits. lA NO: 'l OF 201 I Petition under section 15 1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the order of the 1st respondent dated 17.O7.2017 in No.APGVB/V&DP1461l1g\l2ol 7-18 whereby the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of reduction to Lower Grade officer Scare - rwith basis pay of Rs.23,7001 i-e., 1st stage of scare - r, in pursuance to the disciprinary proceedings, as confirmed by the order of the 2nd respondent dated 12.06.2018 in Letter No.APGVBlBoardlSol2Ol8-19, pending disposal of the Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VEDULA SRINiVAS, REpRESENTING MS. VEDULA CHITRALEKHA Counsel for the Respondents: M/S. V. UMA DEVI The Court made the following: ORDER C HON,BLE SRI JI'STICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 38393 0F 2018 o RDER: Sri Vedula Srinivas' learned Senior Counsel representing Ms Vedula Chitralekha' learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner joine d the services of ersfwhile Sri Visakha Grameena uank as Clerk-cum Cashier in 1981 and was promoted to Field Supervisor and subsequently' to Officer Scale - II and worked in different Branches of the bank including Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank formed bY His performance amalgamation of four other Grameena Banks by the Bank sPeciallY his Nandigam Branches' He was placed under 27.Oa.2O15 on the grounds of serious suspension on irregularities found in discharge of duties while he was working at Murapaka and Nandigam Branches' Three charge sheets were issued in relation to certain serious allegations in loaning on 1O.O9.2O15, 29'O2'2016 and and conduct of business counsel further submits that he was aPPreciated performance at MuraPaka and 2l .Og.2016- Learned Senior hadfurnishedexplanationdenyingcharges.Departmental enquiry was ordered in charge sheets dated 1O'09 2O15 and 29.02.2016 by appointing Sri A Rasheed' Chief Manager as trnquiry Ofltcer and in the charge sheet dated 2109'2O16' Sri t I tI i I 2 1 I I I submits that T.V.V. Prabhakar, Chief Manager was appointed as trnquiry Officer. trnquiry reports were furnished to him to lr,hich hc hacl submitred his submissions and thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed final order on 7Z.OT.2O17 imposrng penalLy o[ reduction ro lower grade of officer Scale _ I with basic pay o[ Rs. 23,70Ol- i.e. first stage of Officer Scale I. He further the 1"1 respondent failed to apply its mind to submissions/expranation submitted by petitioner and on this ground itself, the order o,f punishment stands vitiated and is Iiable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the findings are erroneous and contrary to evidence on record in respect of charges proved against him. It is also submitted that petitioncr preferred Appeal against final order dated 17.02.2017 to the Board of thc bank and the Board dismissed the same by order dated 12.06.2O1g, as such confirmed the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authorit5r. It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel that the Appeal order was signecl by only Lhree directors.

2. Ms. V. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the bank, on the contrary, submits that the grounds of petitioner affidavit are incorrect and disputed since incen[tves and appreciation certificates are issued to employees to increase morale and the same does not grant immunity to employees r J whose actions are harmful to the interests ol the Bank lt is also submitted that petitioner was issued charge sheet for se rious irregularities while he was working at Murapaka Branch earlier in 201O, the disciplinary authority of respondent bank took a lenient view by imposing the punishment of reduction in time scale by one stage without cumulative effect Learned Standing Counsel submits that petitioner was suspended on 27 'O8 2015 for the irregularities committed by him and was issued three charge sheets. After domestic enquiries into the charges levelled,petitionerwasfurnishedwithcopiesofenquiryreports. Respondent No.1 as discipiinary authority imposed penalty of reduction to lower grade in Officer Scale - I with basic pay at starting scale of pay. It is further submitted that Branch Managers of these branches were also charge-sheeted and were duly awarded suitable punishment after conclusion o[ requisite disciplinary proceedings' Further' in respect oI Board of Directors, it is submitted that the quorum for considering Appeal is three members, thus, petitioner's allegations are misconceived and irrelevant' After considering the arguments of learned counsel' 3. it is to be seen that Petitioner came up with a prayer to quash the order dated 17 'O7 '2017 arrd' order of the Board dated 12.O6.2O7a. Petitioner had been issue<l with three charge sheets t t I ! lI 4 1 I t I on diffcren t dates and enquiries were conducted as envisaged as per rules of the Bank, copies of enquiry reports q.ere furnished to petitioner lor his submissions, if any. After consiclering the findings in enqulry and submissions made by disciplinary authority passed petitioner, Respo nden r No. l- Scale Regulations of the fina.l order rmposlng the punishment of reduction to a lower grade of Ofhcer I rr.ith basic pay at starting stage as provtded under Bank. No doubt, the allegations that are proved are serious in nature. Allegations in brief are that petrtroner sanctioned crop loan to Sri Kameswara Rao without observing scale of finance. He had collected money to the tune of Rs. 1 ,92,00 O / - from depositors of pMJDy Scheme at the rate of Rs 2OO/ cach and temporarily mis-utilised the amounts for personal benefit. Several borrowers complained that without availing loans, they received demand notices from the branch. He had sanctioned loans against fake land records. 4. It is to be noted that the power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment. Having heard the perusing the rival contentions ald after avermen ts made by both the parties, it is disciplinary proceedings were initiated duly principles of natural justice giving reasonable being heard and at no stage, it is found observed that observing the opportunity of that enquiry l v 5 conducted proceedings were biased manner' Bank cmployces being custodian of public money, it needs to be emphasised that in the banking business absolute devotton' cliligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular the bank officer' If Lhis is not observed, conhdence of public/ depositors would be impaired Good conduct and discipiine are inseparable from the lunctioning of every offtcer/employee of the Bank' Considering th1 above facts and circumstances' this 5. Court hnds no ground to interfere with the orders passed by liott is therefore' liable to be dismissed as rcspondents Writ Petltl - t t devoid of merits'

6. COSLS. 7 The Writ Petition 1S accordinglY, dismissed' No ConsequentlY, Miscellaneous Applications, i[ anY shall stand closed- ,a 6"",X5ffiSiSi[ifi ,[RUE COPYI/ secr'ldt't"orrtcee / i 3ffi 33 lS,$t Y,:';H""J:'lt'1fr1"i:ib"3L""ti 5. i*o cD coPtes To, TJ TK Gl- * u "l HIGH COURT DATED:03 t0tt2O2S ORDER WP.No.38393 of 20.18 ./ J i) ir(-) E r 1 2 ul E zffi -l ot:s cT DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS €