AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J—Since the issues involved in these petitions are identical and the petitions having been filed by the same petitioner, they are heard and disposed of together by this common order.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner was said to be the senior most direct recruitee of the Respondent - Bank, having been associated with the respondent - Bank since the year 1977 and having held pivotal positions in the Bank during his service in the said Bank, till he was dismissed from service unceremoniously, when he had discharged his services without any blemish over the years, except for the alleged misconduct in the three charge-sheets dated 21.12.2004, 1.1.2005 and 13.07.2005, respectively.
The background of the cases is as follows:
Respondent No. 1 - Bank was established under the provisions of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 and is sponsored by the Syndicate Bank and is also a state owned scheduled Bank.
It was alleged that a charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner on 21.12.2004 to the effect that while working as the Manager of Haveri Main Branch, though he was commuting daily from Dharwad to Haven and even without shifting his residence to Haven, he had claimed an amount of Rs. 4,389/- being the expenses said to have been incurred for transportation of his personal belongings from Dharwad to Haven, by providing a false address.
Yet another charge sheet dated 1.1.2005 was issued to the petitioner to the effect that while he was working as the Manager at Haveri Main Branch, he had passed derogatory remarks against his superiors and cast aspersions on the functioning of the corporate office and had acted in a manner which is subversive of discipline.
By a third charge sheet dated 13.07.2005, it was alleged that while working as the Manager at Haveri Main Branch, he had disclosed the financial position and the banking transactions of one Smt. Pramodlaxmi Vishwanath Dharwadkar who was maintaining a Savings Bank Account at the branch. Further, he had got issued a legal notice through Shri V. Lakshmmarayan, Advocate, Bangalore, addressed to the Vigilance Officer, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore, to The Chairman, Central Vigilance Commissioner, New Delhi and Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, making certain allegations against the Management of the Bank and calling upon these authorities to intervene in the matter and to initiate appropriate and immediate action.
An inquiry having been conducted on the basis of these allegations, punishment was awarded insofar as the first charge-sheet was concerned, by a final order dated 19.07.2005, imposing punishment of reduction to a lower grade of Office from MMGS-III to MMGS-II.
In respect of the second charge, by a final order dated 10.09.2005, the punishment of lowering his pay scale from Rs. 13,560/- to Rs. 11,520/- was imposed.
In respect of the third charge, by a final order dated 31.12.2005, he was dismissed from the services of the Bank.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, in support of the grounds raised in the petition and given the circumstances in which the three inquiries were conducted against the petitioner and the punishment imposed, it is to be seen whether the action of the respondents was in accordance with law and the punishment imposed was commensurate and proportionate to the alleged acts of misconduct.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents in support of the Statement of objections, would vehemently oppose the petitions and would contend that the petitions are misconceived and the self-serving claims of the petitioner made in the writ petitions are denied. The several contentions as regards the inquiry being unfair and the findings of the respective Inquiry Officers being non-speaking orders and reasons not having been assigned insofar as the findings arrived at in respect of the charges are concerned, are uniformly denied in these three petitions which are preferred against the respective orders of punishment passed on the inquiries conducted in respect of the three charge-sheets referred to hereinabove, which has duly been confirmed by the Appellate Authority, which again consisted of the Board of Directors of the Bank.
The learned counsel would submit that on the basis of findings of fact arrived at the inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority in its discretion, has imposed the punishment and the same being the subject matter of challenge in appeal, the findings have been confirmed. In such a situation, for this Court acting in its writ jurisdiction to interfere with those findings and to reverse the same, as if sitting in appeal over the same, would result in a miscarriage of justice and therefore, would submit that the several acts of misconduct of the petitioner impinge on integrity, in the petitioner having falsely indicated that he was entitled to a Travelling Allowance and having received such benefit on a false representation. This is unbecoming of an Officer of a Bank who is expected to maintain a high degree of integrity. Though the Bank had taken a lenient view and imposed a nominal punishment, the continued vilification campaign that was carried on by the petitioner in passing derogatory remarks and causing aspersions day in and day out among colleagues and spreading false rumours about his superiors, since he was a senior Officer, false information that was being spread was being readily accepted by other junior colleagues and thus directly affecting the reputation and fair name of the senior officers, including the Chairman and this having been carried on repeatedly and continuously over a long period of time, the Management was left with no alternative but to impose the extreme punishment of dismissal, after following the due procedure by issuing show cause notice and holding an inquiry. The same cannot be termed as being disproportionate or unlawful. The petitioner having been given full opportunity, has not been able to explain his conduct. On the other hand, the several false allegations that he has made against the Bank are on record.
Incidentally, the petitioner having made such complaints to the several authorities aforesaid and since no further action was taken, he had even chosen to file a Writ Petition before this Court seeking a direction for compliance with his complaint and it is only after that writ petition was dismissed as not being maintainable that the Management had chosen to initiate the inquiry in accordance with law and the same being established not only on a preponderance of probabilities but beyond reasonable doubt, the punishment of dismissal having been imposed, cannot be faulted and seeks summary dismissal of the writ petitions.
The petitioner as a matter of course was required to declare the fidelity and to maintain secrecy during the course of his service with the Bank and the petitioner having claimed an amount of Rs. 4,389/- being the expenses said to have been incurred for transportation of his personal belongings from Dharwad to Haven, by providing a false address and further disclosing the financial position and the banking transaction of one Smt. Pramodlaxmi Vishwanath Dharwadkar who was maintaining a Savings Bank Account at the branch, were instances which led to the loss of confidence in the integrity of the petitioner and therefore, required the extreme step of dismissal from service.
The learned counsel therefore would submit that the charges if viewed in isolation, may seem inconsequential not inviting the extreme punishment of dismissal, but the several acts of misconducts of the petitioner would certainly justify the extreme punishment of dismissal against him and therefore, to characterize the same as being disproportionate, is certainly not viewing the misconduct of the petitioner in the right perspective and hence would submit that there is no fault to be found in the impugned orders and that the writ petitions should be dismissed.
By way of reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the respondents seek to claim that there was lack of integrity in the petitioner, the charges as regards the claim of Travelling Allowance even if was held to have been proved on account of the petitioner having furnished an address at Haveri, which according to the respondents was found to be false, the act of misconduct could not be termed as a betrayal of integrity warranting his dismissal from service.
The allegations that he had passed derogatory remarks against his superiors and cast aspersions on the functioning of corporate office, is all but hearsay evidence and on statements made by the other employees of the Bank and could not be held against the petitioner in again visiting him with the punishment of lowering his pay-scale from Rs. 13,560/- to Rs. 11,520/-.
The further claim that there was loss of integrity by virtue of the petitioner having disclosed Banking transactions to a Savings Bank Account holder, by itself would indicate that a Savings Bank Account Holder would not have had huge banking transactions and such secret dealings which would benefit such Bank Account holder.
The respondents have sought to make a mountain out of a molehill. Therefore, the allegation that there was loss of integrity and violation of fidelity and failure to maintain secrecy that the petitioner had undertaken, is again an exaggeration of a misbehaviour and misconduct of the petitioner. Even if the same is held to be proved, it could not be said that the interest of the Bank was affected to such an extent that it warranted dismissal.
Further, the petitioner having got issued a legal notice through Shri V. Lakshminarayan, Advocate, Bangalore, addressed to the Vigilance Officer, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore, to The Chairman, Central Vigilance Commissioner, New Delhi and Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, making certain allegations against the Management of the Bank and calling upon these authorities to intervene in the matter and to initiate appropriate and immediate action, is a matter of fact and it is only because the petitioner had authentic information of the allegations that he had issued the said notice. However, the same having come to naught, by itself would not raise a presumption that the allegations were false and concocted. If an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to demonstrate the truth or otherwise of those allegations, the petitioner would have been in a position to do so. He was thwarted from doing so. That by itself would not give a right to the respondents to claim that it warranted the extreme punishment of dismissal and hence, the learned counsel would submit that assuming the punishment of lowering his pay scale is allowed to stand for the infractions that are held proved, the dismissal from service of the Bank was a punishment which was disproportionate to the alleged acts of misconduct and thus seeks appropriate relief Since the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, the learned counsel prays for an order to pay his backwages and other benefits, including pensionary benefits.
On a dispassionate view of the several charges brought against the petitioner and the defence set up by the petitioner and the action taken by the respondents, though the punishment of reduction to a lower grade of Officer from MMGS-III to MMGS-II and the lowering of his pay scale from Rs. 13,560/- to Rs. 11,520/-, could even be justified. But however, the dismissal from the service of the Bank on account of he having disclosed the financial position and banking transaction of a savings bank Account holder which could not be said to be a serious illegality as to have caused any huge damage to the Bank to warrant dismissal from service, even if proved true.
Secondly, the legal notice which was issued by the petitioner having come to naught, did not raise a presumption that the allegations were not proved. Hence, if the petitioner not having been afforded an opportunity of establishing the charges before an appropriate forum and that having remained in limbo, it cannot be said that it could be taken as false and scurrilous and that it warranted the extreme punishment of dismissal. Therefore, the petitions deserve to be allowed and are accordingly, allowed.
However, since the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, he is not entitled to reinstatement nor would he be entitled to backwages when he has not discharged any duties with the respondent - Bank during the pendency of these proceedings. However, he shall be given the benefit of continuity of service in the Lower Grade to which he was reduced, namely MMGS-II with a pay-scale of Rs. 11,520/-, as applicable on the date he attained the age of superannuation, and to give him the benefit of pension on that basis and to pay such pension accordingly.
The petitions are disposed of in terms as above. The impugned orders stand modified to the extent as stated above.