IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 312:» DAY OF' NoVEMBE1§..2§fj'1jT. VA
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.
AND _ _ _ V A
THE HON'BLE MR. J
WRIT AppEA.1;;No. 1s'64sg*%2§Q0(s--DAis)
BETWEEN:
Venkatesh
S/0.Late Vasud.e1f~N.Nayak,: »
Major, j " ' '
Assistant M
Syndicate Bank,' * M
Saraswathipuraxn. * "
Mysore. * 2 " % ' APPELLANT
(By Sri.K5S-ubbaT'Rsp;'Se1Ti'0r.:Counsei for M / s. Subba Rao and
.. ..... ..
'DEpVuty«(}.?snV£§Tal Manager,
Syndicate. Bank,
Zonal office,
E Gandh1--Nagar,
Banga1ore--9.
I\)
2. The Inquiring Officer,
Sri.J. Hariharan,
Asst.Personne1 Manager,
Syndicate Bank,
Zonal Office,
Gandhinagar, --.
Bangalore--O9.
(By Sri.Ramdas, Senior Counsel for 0M/is.Sundaragsvfarrisk'"arid.L'
Ramdas Assts for R1 8: 2)
Writ appeal filed U/s_.4 of "Karn_ata1.{a" Htighgéourt Act,
praying to set asid§:_"'*~i.t1;he'_V §orpd'ei'»_p""passed in Writ
Petition.No.17509/92 dated:
This Writ and reserved and
coming on for of order this day,
B.1\/IANOHAR.J§';;'deiifi;rere'd,the roiiouzmgz
"'JUD§MENT
Appeliaiit is rhrepetitaoner in W.P.No.17509/1992 being
byj'the.ord.er dated 1-2-2000, passed by the learned
L» Single this writ appeal.
appellant filed a writ petition initially challenging
Charges dated 14-10-1991 framed against him
/5/
on 14-5-1991, a letter was addressed to him calling upon the
petitioner to answer certain charges levelled against him in
the said letter. The basis of the said letter is that
written by the Vigilance Cell of the year
letter issued has been produced at _AnneXu_re¥'B'.::inlllthewritd
petition. The petitioner made "~repr'es'entation
respondents bringing to their that"-by ~a..1'eport=ii
of the Vigilance Cell, chargesgpynrere “‘already…_fra;Ened and
departrnental enquiry agndhe had already
undergone punishment. letter on the
basis of is contrary to law.
Followed sheet dated 14-10-1991
was issued Being aggrieved by the
e’ha’1*ge theppetitionevr got issued a legal notice through
his’ out the fact that he was already
_:””‘pL1nished..__earlicrfhience he cannot be punished for the second
“”–itin1e”‘for thevsame cause of action. Since the respondents
._’V”‘hav.e’ not viiithdrawn the said charge sheet, the petitioner flied
A«
has only issued legal notice that has been produced at
Annexure–D in the writ petition dated 31-1-1992. In the said
legal notice, the petitioners called upon the responjd~ents”–,,to
desist from proceeding with the enquiry
action will be taken against the resporidentd 2
notice cannot be treated as a reply. there
order of stay of Disciplinary and._ the was’
proceeded With. In fact, appeared: for the
enquiry on 24-4-1992, he thereafter, he
never appeared Enquiry Ofiicer
submitted The Enquiry report was
forwarded to» uthel “to” make his submission on
24-7-1992, ..Theupe.titioner”-through his letter dated 28-8-1992
svoughtfor so’rne’lrnore time to submit his explanation. Hence,
it clear that”-.tl1effpetitioner is fully aware of the proceedings
the lE<nqu_ir'y~ the report submitted by the Enquiry
f_.Fhe"i"petitioner also sought for time to make his
on enquiry report. Suppressing all these facts,
fif
10
the petitioner has contended that he came to know about the
order passed by the Disciplinary Authority only the
u .
witness and after anaiysing the evidence. appre’c1ating”the’
evidence submitted the report. given
elaborate report holding ttiat against the
petitioner are proved. been given
to submit his the petitioner
failed to make Disciplinary Authority
after reapp1’eciatingV concurring with the
views expressed. Officer passed the order on
29-9-1992 _ adopted by the respondents is in
azccordarilcle With’l’ law. finding recorded by the Enquiry
Disciplinary Authority is purely a
“question faet._7i’he same is not liable to be interfered with
‘ * this gHgon’ble”Court in exercise of its power conferred under
A
12
same cause of action on Which, he has already been
punished. Pursuant to the report submitted by the Vigilance
Cell of the Syndicate Bank, the charge sheet has
on 27~11- 1989. Thereafter, holding an enquiry,…th:eVv ..
has been punished with reductionlgof u’increrne»nt__s,
14-5-1991. On the Very same day-.’__ one ‘Jznore 1
issued on the basis of the very v.igilar1c-errepoyirt calling
upon the appeliant to furnisldihis_ it is not open
to the respondents to iss1ie–~–f.r.e:sh voffdharges, which
was already abandoned. on earlier occa.s1oyns. Further there is
inordinate issuing fresh Article
of Charges the basis of the Vigilance
report, the .. already been punished and he
second time on the same cause of
to double jeopardy and action of the
lV’vV..’11’re’spondents ..__is -liable to be quashed. The learned Senior
1 further contended that there is no fairness in the
the respondents. There is no charge regarding
A~
z
dishonesty, corruption. Even though the appellant did not
appear before the Enquiry Officer, the duty cast
Enquiry Officer to conduct proper enquiry
correct conclusion. There is no specific .f_indi:rl1gl 1:5’ ‘
the each charges levelled against the:’pet}tioner’.’-
charge is not proved by examiningany of ‘ the custoifiiers of the
Bank. Since the appellant. has ‘eonteinpt. oflthe court
against the respondent been taken to
terminate his sergvi-ce amount to bias
against the Departmental Enquiry
against the”‘before the Disciplinary
Authority, been transferred to Uttar
Pradesh, is,linorel””llthan 2000 Kms away from
saidiransfer order has been questioned
before The transfer order has been stayed
thelfiijgh In spite of the stay order issued by this
he h’asl*been relieved from the said post in View of that
gl’lilas.,_ifnitiated contempt of court proceedings in CCC
A~
795/2002. In the Contempt proceedings, the respondents
have submitted apology and he was allowed to continue4:l_in_ the
same post. With this malafide intention in ordeifto
the petitioner, an enquiry has been conducte’d’hu_rri’edl’y . 1
termination order has been passed ‘wt!-T16
principles of natural justice. The ‘a._c_tion’of’th.e Inan.age.m’ent is-it
malafide in law. The appeal filedy__t§y_V_appe1iant against the
order of termination was appellate Authority
without consideringpany raised by the
petitioner. Filing is not an empty formality
and the to consider the matter
in proper instant case, the Appellate
Authoritypbyx 13-1-1993 was pleased to
$1i3l?€all/Vllyyithout considering any of the
-‘sought for setting aside the order passed
the learned féilngle Judge as well as the order passed by
l H “.’thAe–.respond.ents by allowing this appeal.
/8”
10. Sri.K.Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel relieéfiupon
the foiiowing judgments:
With r_(;L1’d to delay in initiation of Enqui.1;y_: H 2 ”
1.JT 2005 (‘7) SC 417
( P.V.i\/IAHADEVAN V/s. Mipf xH C5’USs’ING
BOARD) ..
2.AIR 1998 sc 1833 % L .
[STATE OF AN1jHiRA1ii9:éA:i:msHiwgQRADHAKRISHNA)
3.1990 sc 1308″ ” ‘ ” ‘
[THE s”1’2iTE:oE”:ii;ixDHjrA V/s BANI SINGH
AND AnI01’1i:iiER)«.i 1 . 9
4.ILR 1999 3596 V V’
V [NKRISHNA MiiRTHir V/s. THE SYNDICATE BANK AND
.’ V. ‘I V. . . . . . .i
5.19§34{2)”SI;R;:’1€§3. ‘_j..
(A.ié§AUr_3US–TiNE V/s. supm. OF POST OFFICES,
‘ H ALWAYEJ
‘V 4’ to Bias:
/W
1.AIR 2001 SC 24
(KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD., v/s.
SHANKAR PANT AND OTHERS)
2. 2000(8) SCC 395
(BADRINATH V/s GOVERNMENT OF=.TAMIL§’Nz4.1_31’Ij44′ ‘
AND OTHERS) _ M
3.AIR 1973 SC 2701
(SPARTHASARATHI v/s.:0’sTAT:::0’FI i5t2ADEsH)
With regard to holding-{of 1 0′
ILR 1986 sc 839.. 4′ 0 00
(KAMATH ”
With regard ‘Vdispro00rfi0r:’a._’ré’ fienaltv
1.AIR 200.3 1t3’7.?4 =
NAT”H_0UprA\}/s ENQUIRY OFFICER (R.K.RAI),
0 _ BAK AND OTHERS
ISZVQAIR 1983 0
~ .. f V/s STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND
,_O«THERS)
‘V–3.20O1S{6] KLJ 304
W”
N.P.KUDVA V/s. SYNDICATE BANK, HEAD OFFICE,
MANIPAL AND OTHERS
Lack of Evidence:
1.2009 (2) SCC 570
(STATE or PUNJAB AND OTHERS %i_.Ai; A
GOYAL}
Not a speaking, order:
1.AIR1985SC1121 _ V’
Double ieopardv V
1.1972 SLR 6oi
(PRAKASH: NA’I§i1?I’D’E*s:t’\.IDIJA;«NAIB TEHSILDAR v/ s
THE FINANCIAL’ CO?J[r&4ISS1AQNER (REVENUE) PUNJAB,
cmaNot1oARH.ANpg.oTHERs}
1_»1″;~ ..v_On’:othe;»_-otizter hahd’;”‘Sri.Ramdas, learned Senior Counsel
apj5ea1*in_g’ ‘fortheureispondents contended that the enquiry has
CO11£CihuCte.do’ accordance with law after foflowing the
-:.f_p:foce-dure preiscribed under the law. The appellant while
a Manager at Merces~Goa branch, during the
A”
18
period between 12-7-1982 to 5-7-1986 exceeding the..__power
conferred on him sanctioned the loan and also saiicfioned
certain credit facilities to some of the ciistciniiers =
discretionary power of the Manager. dis.creti.onary’poWcr T
has been misused. Acting beyond one’s authorityamountsy tog
misconduct and in such cases,”‘–it”‘–i,s not’–.nece’:3sary”for the
Bank to establish proof of occasioned by the
unauthorised act of the The learned
counsel further conitleiidetil of Charges
relate to sanc’ilion;:.4″” V. to 6 persons and
availing the by the appellant.
Whereas issued on 14-10-1991, the
charges relatesflto..:lgr’antCloflcredit facility to 14 customers —
Twas thewsubject matter of Article of Charges
issued Ascould be seen from Annexures-A and B
by..__’tlie-appellant, the Article of Charges are different
1. Though an opportunity has been given to
‘before the Enquiry Authority, only once he has
Aw
19
appeared and sought for time thereafter, he did not appear
before the Enquiry Committee. The enquiry has’.:Tb.een
proceeded with and thereafter the Enquiry _
forwarded to the appellant to furnish his remai*}~:s;.. 2
has been furnished to the enquiry re:’p4ort._p;~ .. Vabse:n.ce::of
the same, the Disciplinary Authority considered’ltljre./_Hen.t;uiI’y.i*
report submitted by the §:3nquiry___llO:fti_c*er and”«reappreciating
the same came to the conclusion _ t’if1’a.tu thj€*.:lc11arges have been
proved against hiIn*’a_nd ucyylltlgnninating the
service of the appellai:1t..’;’–_VTlieappeal the appellant was
also dismislsfied The Appellate
Authority orderhas questioned in the writ petition.
Hence, th.e..appel’iant not entitled for any relief and sought
‘of
12;». Theryylearnletdi’ i-counsel has relied upon the following
‘ l’i’~A..,.v§»11dgI1ii33’.lts:
/5″
23
and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report and the charges
are proved against the appellant accordingly punishmxent’rhas
been imposed withholding two increments _
effect. During the pendency of the saidgggenqui_ry;»t.h:e :Vitgilarlce”‘~
Cell sent one more report in the year:’»._19E»}0
more irregularities. T his factrfearne to ‘the “of
respondent after issuance of the fir_st’charge the year
1988. On the basis of furnished by the
Vigilance Cell, the _second””st1;$y;rV’causedI came to be
issued and the1’veaftei:_.’;’.A;rtir;le–,_of” Charges was issued on
14-10-199the Article of Charges
issued earlier Article of Charges, the first
Article of Charges relate ftoffthe sanctioning of the loan and
regard to six customers. The
fof:’.Charges relates to grant of credit facility
C’ 14 cuS«tonie1’sV;.:’~” None of which was the subject matter of the
C Charges issued earlier. The irregularity mentioned
of Charges dated 14-10-1991 is totally different
5*
24
and distinct from the irregularities mentioned in the first
Article of Charges. If the respondent found soméjgnore
materials after completion of enquiry, there
initiating one more enquiry against thedelinquent ‘officer; We T
found no irregularity in issuing the
with regard to the omission and..c’ommission;v..Which “came to
light subsequently, which necessitate_:’initi.ation of disciplinary
proceedings against the There is no
impediment for the-flank of Charges
dated l4–I0–20§O’l””:y1rasf” writ petition before
this Hon’blev”Cou_rt;q refused to grant an
interim order,’ ‘The appointed an Enquiry Officer
to enquire intothe”mat.terv_arid the date was fixed to appear
before Instead of filing objections to the Article
of issued legal notice dated 31- 1-1992
advocate calling upon the respondents to desist
.:fglproceeding the enquiry and the matter is subjudice, the
is pending before the High Court though the
éw
25
interim prayer was rejected. The Enquiry Officer conducted
enquiry on Various dates. The date was informed.
delinquent officer also. The enquiry was held « _
9-4-1992, 10~»4m1992, 24-4-1992, i8–5:1992_ar’id:’i:i~f$¥€’i:-1-992′.
The appellant appeared only on 2444-
time thereafter he never turnecilup. The Man,a’g5e1r:ent3 has,”
examined their witnesses and the dloeulrnerits. The
appellant has not cross–e§§srr1ineC};-,’ :nan’agement witnesses.
Thereafter, the Enquiry a report on
22-7-1992. A was forwarded to
the Calling upon the
appellant .~*1’1r1e appellant vide his letter
dated 20;8.–l9El2 ._:inforrnedll”‘the respondent that the writ
eonlsideration before the Hon’ble High
Court his-stibjudice not to proceed further. In order
give one opportunity, the respondents vide letter
l 19r9’23=Q–l992 called upon the appellant to furnish his
a period of 3 days. In spite of the same,
A”
26
appellant has not furnished any reply. The Disciplinary
Authority after considering the Enquiry report in
appreciating the documentary and oral evidenc-e:.:’carne’i’to
conclusion that the charges levelled against are
proved. Further, taking into consideration they-past
that earlier he was punished for’-§”w-timevs ‘for”wtt1.e irregularity’
committed by him, Disciplinary .passed”thVe order on
29-9-1992 terminating his of its power
conferred under Regulation 24 of the
Syndicate Banekfi tconduct] Regulation
1996. T11eiǤaiVd quashed before the
Hon’ble Higla by amending the writ
petition and i”o.rf– order. This Hon’ble Court by
iij.S~V.OrC16r’:i.jre}e-cted..the prlayler of the appellant for stay of the
order dated 2959- 1992.
“”3§1i3*;.__l’Being.’ aggrieved by the rejection of the interim order,
9 4/ 1992 was filed by the appellant, which came to
£~
27
be dismissed by this Hon’ble Court on 4-11-1992. Thereafter,
the appellant preferred a statutory appeal before
Authority. The Appellate Authority after ”
memorandum of the appeal and :a’Js’o’*the–, grouiir:1sv’r’aised it
therein by its order dated 13~l-l992lA:rejec_ted said
The appellant has not challenged:”‘t,he the
Appellate Authority dated ¥i~:3f_f 1~ the learhed Single
Judge.
17. The learnedfbihgfiglle aftefivflloolnslidering the matter
by its orderfl iyr.it.’:appeal was pleased to
dismiss by giving elaborate
reasons. The”..learnled_RV counsel contended that the
second cause” cannot be issued for the same
cause agctiyon is contrary to the law laid down by this
Hon’ble.VlCouVrt ‘reported in ILR 1986 KAR 839 in the case of
we i§.s.R.T.C. As could be seen from the Article of
f ‘Char *’es issued earlier and the resent one, it is clear that in
.5 , _ P
Article of Charges the enquiry was confined to the
A~
28
irregularity with regard to 6 customers. During the process of
enquiry some new materials has come to light. The tVigil;ance
Cell has submitted one more report with or
irregularity of sanctioning of creditv-facility to .l4xV’cListon1ers. 7
The respondents issued one moreV*Ar’ticle Charg-es”.on,
l4~ 10-1991, which is a distinct oi’
the appellant cannot be Enquiry
Officer has given sufficienlthlift}-ie appellant to
have his say in only once
before the he remained exparte.
He has theuularticle of Charges except
issuing The Enquiry Officer
after considering each and every charge levelled against the
elaboratingv the evidence led by the parties
subinitted’ Reading of the said report makes
°’–itvery clear appellant acted beyond one’s authority
-4fan__”sanct1o’n.ed the loan and other facilities to the customers
recovery of the said loan amount has become
ii
30
the enquiry officer and accept the reasoning given
by him, in support of such finding, it
necessary for the punishing authorities”-i’..’ta:
reappraise the evidence arriving ‘
conclusion.”
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Cour.t:v”ir1_ the
clearly held that the Regi.1lationt—alsgo does ‘not’-‘obligate the
Appellate Authority to -‘._for its order.
Assuming, that by regulation also
requires the reasons, still its order
cannot be in’vaE–id:a;tedl,’fias it has discharged its
obligation by l’ “record and proceedings
pertaining to ..disciplinarydaction. Further, with regard to
..:_iiala’fi;de»_A-allegation'”made against the respondent during
the’c_o”ur_s’e. necessary foundation has not been
and.__alsoV.nloi::pIeading is made with regard to the bias or
-.l.l.l’1nalafide allegation against the officer. Though the allegation
rnade agaisnt Sri.U.M.Kini, he is not made party to
/9″
manner in which decision is made. The relevant portion of
the judgment reported in AIR 1996 SC 1232 in
STATE or TAMIL NADU AND
SSUBRAMANIAM reads as under:
” It is well settled law that “Tribunal:§ i
only power of judicial review’r«iofi the adrr1i’11istrative
action of the appellant on theicpornplaintls’relating
to service conditionsfiopfc lt is the
exclusive domain of ‘authority to
consider the “‘eviderice: record
findings the been proved or
not. lt__I_s technical rules
of evidence for the disciplinary
proceedingsand_.é’thel:_aa;thority is to consider the
material record.A’.In”‘.judicial review, it is well
V set_’iVlt?d21_paW__that”‘th.e…CJourt or the Tribunal has no
to –,:t~rench upon the jurisdiction to
5-.ciat’e.VplV_tlax,evevidence and to arrive at its own
coii.cplusion_;JVudicial review is not an appeal from
‘u__the decisjion but a review of the manner in which
“‘..:r*thei’-decision is made. It is meant to ensure that
thedelinquent receives fair treatment and not to
A”
33
ensure that the conclusion which the authority
re-aches is necessarily correct in the View of
Court or the Tribunal. When the conelnsioii
reached by the authority is based on exd.den*ee.’~tl1e
Tribunal is devoid of power towreapp-reciate’-the”‘
evidence and would come to lconc’I’n’sio.n
the proof of charges. The only consideratio«n”‘the”j
Court/Tribunai has in its ‘review to
consider whether coiicinsionllis–based. on “evidence
on record and supports the oryirliether the
conclusion is based or1’no.:’etrit1-eince.’-‘
In the instant’ arxived at by the
Disciplinary—-Au.thor:£ty*;.;is evidence. In View of
that the order j_7asseé{l.’ijy lvth<L§_'l'i'17:li:sciplina1y Authority cannot be
find fauit ..lI~£'etice,AAWe*~"hold that there is no delay in
i1ai';iatingf_' th¢.,,pro_eeedin' ' '
angle, the appellant has not made out
..l_lj'an.y'wcase to iiiterfere with the order passed by the learned
W
Single Judge and also the order impugned in the writ pe!',3§tion.
Accordingly, We pass the following:
The appeal is dismissed.
Parties to bear their own costs.-..
%%%% .. Judgé Judge