Kaveri Kalpatharu Grameena Bank vs S. Srinivasa

Ravi V. Malimath, J.—Aggrieved by the order dated 16.03.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 2930/2003, allowing the writ petition and modifying the punishment by withholding three increments without cumulative effect and to reinstate with 30% of the backwages without interest and continuity of service, the respondent No. 1 therein has filed the present appeal.

The case of the writ petitioner is that he joined the services of the bank in the year 1980, as a Branch Manager and has served them well without any blemish for the next 1 1/2 decades. In the year 1993, when he was working at Nittur branch as its Manager, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for acts committed while he was a Manager in Kyatanahalli branch. That he had acted in disregard to the interest of the bank and in violation of the norms in sanctioning loans. That he has misused and abused his official position, etc. He replied to the same. He was kept under suspension.

Hence he filed W.P. No. 43856/1993, seeking appropriate relief against the bank with regard to granting reasonable opportunity to meet the allegations made against him. The petition was allowed with a direction to the bank to provide all the information therein.

The Enquiring Officer did not do so. Yet another writ petition was filed in W.P. No. 6704/2004 questioning the order of suspension. The petition was disposed off directing the bank to complete the enquiry within a time frame, etc. The Enquiring Officer thereafter held the charges proved. A second show-cause notice was issued. Thereafter, he was dismissed from service. He filed an appeal, which was also rejected. Hence, he filed W.P. No. 14727/1996, questioning the same. The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order was set-aside and the matter was remanded with a liberty to the bank to conduct a fresh enquiry.

When a fresh enquiry was conducted, out of six charges, charge Nos. 1 to 3 were held proved, charge No. 5 partly proved and others as not proved. He was thereafter dismissed from service. The appeal filed by him was also rejected. Aggrieved by the same, he filed the instant writ petition.

The learned Single Judge considered the entire material and evidence on record in an exhaustive manner and came to the conclusion that the so-called loss occurred to the bank is relatively in small amounts, which had remained in default for almost 15 years. That there is no material to show that the bank had pursued recovery of those loans. That all those loans were made in favour of poor and marginal farmers where there is always a risk of loss to the bank. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the punishment imposed was disproportionate. For the reasons recorded therein, the punishment was modified. The learned Single Judge held that the punishment be modified by withholding three increments of the petitioner without cumulative effect instead of an order of dismissal. The bank was directed to reinstate him but only to the extent of granting 30% of the backwages which would not carry any interest and continuity of service was granted.

The learned counsel for the bank contends that the learned Single Judge committed an error in interfering with the order of dismissal. That whether the loans were given to the poor or marginal farmers is of no consequence. The charges against the writ petitioner is misuse of his official position in granting loans. Therefore, the learned Single Judge misdirected himself in holding to the contrary. That the petitioner having misused his authority, requires to be appropriately punished. That it is highly inappropriate to continue such a person in the bank.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order.

On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal. It is an undisputed fact that the loans were given by the petitioner in favour of poor and marginal farmers where there is always a risk of loss to the bank. Therefore, it cannot be said that his official position was misused because of granting these loans nor is there any material to show that the bank pursued recovery of these loans. There is no material to show that the writ petitioner was corrupt nor is there any material to show that he derived pecuniary benefits from the alleged misconduct. The charge-sheet does not contain any specific allegation that the writ petitioner has made any pecuniary gain. The allegations of misconduct of only granting loans are not of such a great extent that warrants dismissal from service.

On considering the charges leveled against him, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the dismissal was far too disproportionate. We have no reason to take a different view. There is no allegation on the grounds of undue pecuniary gains at the expenses of the bank. The loans given were to small and marginal farmers and of small amounts. Even while the loans were being approved, the same was the position. The bank was aware of the fact that there is always a risk to the loans extended to the small and marginal farmers. There is no material to show that the bank made efforts to recover the said loans. The loans were granted almost 15 years earlier. Therefore, weighing the allegations and the punishment imposed, we have no hesitation to hold that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charges leveled against the writ petitioner. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly modified the order of punishment to withholding three increments without cumulative effect, reinstatement with 30% backwages without interest and with continuity of service would be a just and appropriate punishment for the charges leveled against him.

The material and evidence on record has been exhaustively considered by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the punishment imposed is disproportionate and backwages was granted at 30%. Interest was not awarded. Continuity of service was granted. Three increments due to the petitioner was ordered to be withheld.

We are of the considered view that the reasoning of the learned Single Judge is just and appropriate. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the well-considered order of the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.