Syndicate Bank vs S.M. Adiga and Others

K.L. Manjunath, J.—These appeals are preferred by the Syndicate Bank aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 20th April 2011 in WP No. 18992/2003 and other connected writ petitions.

Though each individual employees of the bank field different writ petitions and all the writ petitions were clubbed together and the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition No. 18992/2003, 40509/2003, 30035/2004 and 10563/2005 and dismissed the writ petition No. 17662/2005 filed by the LRs. of one Sri Manku Mera. These writ appeals are filed against allowing of the writ petitions filed by the employees of the appellant-bank. Since a common order has been passed, these appeals are head together and disposed of as hereunder.

On the allegations that grave misconduct were committed by the respondents in each of the appeals, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the appellant-bank which was resulted in imposing different penalty against each of the employees. Aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the appeals were filed before the Appellate Authority which were also ended in vain. Aggrieved by the same, separate writ petitions were filed.

Learned Single Judge clubbed all the writ petitions and passed a common order and set-aside the order of imposing penalty on the ground that the charges leveled against the respondents herein does not constitute the grave misconduct as per the regulations of the appellant-bank. Accordingly, writ petitions came to be allowed. Challenging the same, present appeals are filed.

The main grievance of the bank is that learned Single Judge having taken so much of pain to refer to several judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts has committed a serious error in not considering the charges leveled against each of the writ petitioners in order to find out as to; whether the charges leveled against each of the writ petitioners comes within the definition of ''grave misconduct''. Even without discussing the charges leveled against each of the employees and the evidence let in before the Enquiry Officer, the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority has erroneously allowed the writ petitions. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that without even discussing the charges leveled against the respondents has held that the charges leveled against them does not amounts to grave misconduct and the order of the learned Single Judge requires to be set-aside.

He further submits that when the charges leveled against each of the employees are different, in all fairness, the learned Single Judge was required to dispose of each of the writ petitions separately on merit and in accordance with law confining to the respective writ petitions. He further submits that clubbing of all the writ petitions is an error committed by learned Single Judge, since he has failed to consider the charges leveled against each of the employees separately in order to hold whether the charges against them constitute a grave misconduct. In the circumstances, he requests the Court to allow the appeals and set-aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned Single Judge is justified in granting relief to the respondents, since the case of the respondents falls within the ratio decided by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and different High Courts and he submits that no error is committed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition.

Having heard the counsel for the parties, we have to consider the following points.

i) Whether learned Single Judge has committed an error in allowing the writ petitions without considering the facts of each writ petitioners and the charges leveled against each of them by the appellant-bank?

ii) Whether charges leveled against each of the writ petitioners falls within the definition of ''grave misconduct''?

Having heard the counsel for the parties and on perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge, it is not in dispute that learned Single Judge has clubbed all the matters together. He has also taken lot of pain to refer to various judgments rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and High Court. Based on the same, he has come to the conclusion that the appellant has not made out a case against the writ petitioners to impose penalty on the ground of conduct of the respondents does not come within the definition of grave misconduct. But unfortunately, the learned Single Judge has not considered the case of each of the writ petitioners and omission and commission committed in each case and has allowed the writ petitions without considering whether such charge has been proved by the bank in the enquiry proceedings and whether the articles of charges framed against them have been proved and whether such charges comes within the definition of grave misconduct.

We would have appreciated the efforts of the learned Single Judge if the charges leveled against each of the employees and evidence let in by the bank against them is considered and the manner in which the evidence is considered by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority. But unfortunately, such an effort is not made by the learned Single Judge.

We are also of the view that before clubbing all the cases, the learned Single Judge was required to look into whether charges leveled against each of the employees are arising out of same transactions or not. In the normal circumstances, when the charges leveled against each employees are all together different and when the evidence relied upon by the parties is also different in all fairness case of each of the parties have to be dealt by separately.

In the circumstances, we are of the view that an error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petitions without considering the facts of each of the cases separately. Accordingly, we have to set-aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

In the result these appeals are allowed. The order of learned Single Judge is set-aside. Registry is directed to place before the learned Single Judge who is holding the roster with a request to consider each of the writ petitions separately on merits and in accordance with law, after providing opportunity to both the parties.

All contentions are kept open.