ORDER
N.K. Patil, J.
1. In this petition, the petitioner is assailing the correctness of the proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority dated June 10, 2000 vide Annexure-E and the proceedings of the Appellate Authority, dated August 1, 2000 vide Annexure-G and to grant all consequential benefits including his reinstatement in service with full back wages, continuity of service and other service benefits.
2. The petitioner joined the services of respondent- Syndicate Bank as a Clerk on May 15, 1972. Due to his hard work, dedication and devotion to duty, he got successive promotions first as officer in Junior Management Grade, Scale I with effect from October 4, 1977 and later as Manager in Middle Management Grade, Scale II with effect from May 1, 1984. The petitioner has an unblemished record of service except for a penalty imposed in the year 1999. When things stood thus, during the year 1998 the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet alleging that, the petitioner while working as Inspector of Branches, he along with his team leader submitted an inflated T.A. Bill. After holding an enquiry into the charges, acting in a most arbitrary and vindictive manner, the respondent-Bank has imposed penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioner. Assailing the correctness of the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the said Appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the orders passed by both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has filed a writ petition before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court and the matter was remitted to the respondent-Bank for reconsideration afresh. Be that as it may, when the petitioner was working as Branch Manager at Malladihalli Branch of the respondent-Bank during the period from June 13, 1994 to August 31, 1995, it is the allegations of the respondent-Bank that, there is certain procedural irregularities in the functioning of the petitioner and a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner after the lapse of. more than three years. The said proceeding was initiated after issuance of a charge- sheet dated June 15, 1998 vide Annexure-A. The Enquiry Officer has commenced enquiry on September 21, 1998 but the said enquiry was not proceeded and after the lapse of nearly two years the enquiry was once again commenced on February 21, 2000. In the said enquiry, the Management has examined three witnesses in support of its charges. It is the further case of the petitioner that, the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity, of cross- examining the principal witness examined in support of the charges by withholding the Investigation Report submitted by M.W. 1. Thereafter, two witnesses were examined as MWs. 2 and 3. Subsequently, the petitioner has examined himself as a defence witness and the presenting officer did not cross-examine the petitioner. Without conducting the proper enquiry as per the existing regulations of the respondent-Bank, the report has been submitted by the Enquiry Officer stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner are 1 proved. The petitioner was served with a copy of the Enquiry report and called upon to make his submissions. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed his representation dated May 23, 2000, vide Annexure-D. The Disciplinary 2 Authority, without considering his representation and without assigning any reason either for rejecting the submissions of the petitioner or on the question of quantum of penalty has proceeded to pass the order on June 10, 2000, vide Annexure-E, imposing penalty of dismissal against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner has preferred an appeal as contemplated under Regulation 17 of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The Appellate Authority has proceeded to pass the order contrary to Regulation 17, by dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirming the penalty of dismissal imposed against the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority, by its order dated August 1, 2000 vide Annexure-G. It is the further case of the petitioner that, in pursuance of the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, he has been deprived of his livelihood in gross unjust manner. In view of these orders, the petitioner’s family that consists of his wife, his widowed sister and his two children who are studying has been left with no source of livelihood. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, as stated supra, the petitioner felt necessitated to present this writ petition.
3. The principal submission canvassed by Sri P.S. Rajagopal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, the order of the Disciplinary Authority imposing on the petitioner the penalty of dismissal from service and the order of the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal of the petitioner and the findings of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner is guilty are all arbitrary, discriminatory, perverse, based on no evidence and vitiated by a desire to victimize the petitioner and are contrary to the Regulations and the orders cannot be sustained in law. Further, he vehemently submitted that, the alleged allegations of misconduct pertains to the years 1994 and 1995. The investigation was conducted in the matter during March 1996. The charge-sheet itself was issued on June 15, 1998 and there is an inordinate delay of two years in holding the enquiry which has rendered the enquiry to be contrary to the principles of natural justice, deprived the petitioner of a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, that too, without taking into consideration the lapse of two years and the petitioner may not remember every minute details of the enormous number of transactions which took place during the years 1994 and 1995 and defend himself effectively and this aspect of the matter has been overlooked by both the authorities. Further, he submitted that the copy of the Investigation Report was required to be made available to the petitioner suo motu by the respondent-Bank and in the absence of the said documents the petitioner could not defend himself effectively, since he could not cross-examine M.W.1 effectively. Further he submitted that the Enquiry Officer ought to have held that the petitioner is not guilty of any charges, particularly in the light of the fact that there is no evidence inasmuch as evidence of the petitioner in his defence has gone unchallenged in the enquiry. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the penalty imposed against the petitioner is even otherwise excessive and is in the nature of victimisation. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned orders at Annexures-E and G passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are contrary to the principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14, 16(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank, inter alia, contended and substantiated the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority against the petitioner having regard to the serious charges levelled against him which are proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Further he submitted that, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority after critically evaluating both the oral and documentary evidence have given specific findings for imposing penalty of dismissal against the petitioner and in confirming the same. Further, he has submitted insofar as the specific contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding non- supply of the copy of the Investigation Report to the petitioner that, this stand has not been taken by the petitioner either before the Disciplinary Authority or before the Appellate Authority and for the first time, he is taking such a ground before this Court in this writ petition. Further, he submitted that when there is no demand from the petitioner, the question of issuing or supplying a copy of the report to the petitioner by the respondent-Bank does not arise. In view of non-supply of the copy of the Investigation Report, the proceedings initiated and concluded by the Competent Authority on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence cannot be vitiated. To substantiate his submission, he placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in B. Krishnamoorthy Beliya v. Syndicate Bank, Manipal 2004-II-LLJ-75 (Kant) and also the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Syndicate Bank v. A.M. Sugunasundaram W.A. No. 4599 of 2001 dated October 12, 2004 and submitted that non-supply of copy of the preliminary enquiry report has not resulted in any prejudice to the petitioner and both the authorities have considered the case on the basis of both oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, he submitted that, the petitioner is not entitled to seek any relief at the hands of this Court. Further, he submitted that, in spite of giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner by both the authorities, he has failed to make out a case before the authorities and therefore, he submitted that the impugned orders passed by both the authorities are in strict compliance of the regulations of the respondent-Bank. No 0 error or illegality or material irregularity has been committed by the authorities. Nor the petitioner has made out any good grounds to interfere with the well-considered orders passed by both the authorities.
5. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- Bank for a considerable length of time on January 6, 2005, this Court had directed the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank to produce the copy of the Investigation Report. Today, in pursuance of the order dated January 6, 2005 the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank has produced the Investigation Report submitted by the Investigation Officer. After careful perusal of the materials available on record threadbare and after analysing the entire Investigation Report which runs about 111 pages, it reveals from the Investigation Report submitted by the Investigation Officer that, there are several gray charges and irregularities committed by the petitioner. After careful perusal of the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority vide Annexure-E and the orders passed by the Appellate Authority vide Annexure-G respectively, it emerges on the face of the orders passed by both the authorities that they have not committed any error of law, much less any irregularity in passing the same. Both the authorities, after careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence have recorded the concurrent finding of facts against the petitioner. The Investigating Officer has submitted his report on April 30, 1996, which reads as follows:
“The petitioner while functioning in the capacity of Manager of the Malladihalli Branch had committed the following. –
1. Allowed debit balance in Savings Bank accounts just after opening of these accounts, without taking into account past dealings, necessity and purpose. Some of the debit balances were regularised by crediting the proceeds of loans. These debit balances were not reported to Competent Authority and approvals obtained if any are not on record, as enumerated in III-A from 1 to 10 and III-B from 1 to 7. 1
2. Sanctioned and extended loans without taking into account past dealings of the parties’ viability, feasibility of the proposals, without proper appraisal, flouting various norms and guidelines of the Bank, exceeded the per party limit and violated the other guidelines given in the various circulars 72/90, 283/94 and 158/94, not obtaining proper documents/with incomplete documents, not ensuring and use as enumerated in III-C from 1 to 42.
3. Misused the discounting facility by discounting a self- cheque to himself which was returned subsequently for want of balance and adjusted the discounted amount by allowing debit balance in his SB A/c No. 11621, not reported this unauthorized action to D.O. for approval.
4. Cheque No. 694783 (LSC 80/95) issued on May 25, 1995 for Rs. 15.000/- in favour of N. Vishwanath presented at Malladihalli Branch on June 2, 1995 out of his SB A/c No. 11621 was returned unpaid on June 2, 1995 for want of sufficient balance as enumerated in III-D.2.
5. Cheque No. 784159 for Rs. 8,000/- dated April 17, 1995 of SB A/c No. 11621 discounted at our Arasikere Branch (our LSC 62/95) under CDO 2/95 which was received at Malladihalli Branch on April 21, 1995 and this cheque was realised by crediting Rs. 10,000/- to the Account No. 11621. As on April 17, 1995 the SB A/c No. 11621 was having a balance of Rs. 78.85 only as enumerated in III-D.3.
6. Availed indiscriminate sundry advance disproportionate to the estimated expenditure and also not backed by valid purpose which were recovered by debiting to SB A/c No. 11621 by allowing debit balance as enumerated in III-D.4.
7. Violated leave rules frequently and did not inform sanctioning authority about his absences on many occasions as enumerated in IV-F.”
6. The Disciplinary Authority, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and after giving a sufficient opportunity to the petitioner has given a specific finding to the effect that:
“The petitioner being a responsible Officer Employee of the Bank ought not to have committed such serious irregularities like misusing the official position in sanctioning various loans/allowing TODs/Debit balances violating rules and procedures, misappropriating for his own benefit the amount handed over to him for credit of a loan account and deriving undue pecuniary benefit for himself at the cost of the Bank by issuing/discounting his own cheques without maintaining sufficient balance and drawing sundry advances misusing his powers. The charges levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature involving moral turpitude and due to the dishonest acts, huge funds of the Bank amounting to Rs. 4,55,515/- struck to the Books of the Accounts of the Bank. The Bank being a Financial Institution dealing with public money cannot afford to continue to employ such dishonest officer employees lest the Bank’s image might suffer in the eyes of the public and the public will lose confidence in the Bank/Banking System. The Disciplinary Authority having regard to the gravity of the misconducts committed by the petitioner and taking into consideration all the aspects involved in the dispute, has proceeded to pass the order by dismissing the petitioner from service.”
7. The Appellate Authority, after going through the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, after evaluation of each and every documents available on the original records made available before it along with the written statement filed by the petitioner, other materials connected with the case and also after taking into consideration the grounds urged by the petitioner in the memorandum of appeal, -has observed that:
“The petitioner was provided with all fair and reasonable opportunities to defend his case in the enquiry in consonance with principles of natural justice and the Disciplinary Authority has rightly held that the guilt of the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved and awarded the penalty in question which is commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct committed and by the above acts, the petitioner has committed the gross irregularities unbecoming of a Bank officer exposing huge amount of the Bank to the 2 risk of financial loss”. Further, the Appellate Authority has observed that:
“The petitioner being a senior official of the Bank should not have acted detrimental to the interest of the Bank causing exposure of 2 huge funds of the Bank to the risk of financial loss.”
The Appellate Authority, has given its findings that:
“The acts of misconduct committed by the petitioner which are proved in the enquiry are very serious in nature which shows lack of integrity on his part; in an organization like Bank, which deals with public money, 3 such acts undermine confidence of the public; it is not desirable to continue an employee in service whose honesty and integrity are under cloud, especially in an institution like Bank, which is dealing with 4 public money lest the confidence of the public in Bank would shake; since the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved beyond reasonable doubt, allowing him to continue in the service is undesirable 4 and the petitioner has failed to make out any grounds to reconsider the decision of the Disciplinary Authority.” Accordingly, the Appellate Authority has confirmed the penalty of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority against the petitioner and dismissed the appeal.
8. Both the authorities after through evaluation of both the oral and documentary evidence and the defence taken by the petitioner has rightly come to the conclusion and proceeded to pass the orders. In view of concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the authorities after thorough evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence, I do not find any justification or good grounds to interfere with the same. The petitioner has failed to make out any good grounds to interfere with the orders passed by both the authorities below. Therefore, I do not have any hesitation to dismiss the writ petition at threshold.
9. Insofar as the specific submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the respondent-Bank must suo motu make available the copy of the Investigation Report to the petitioner to enable him to defend himself effectively on the ground that he could not cross-examine MW No. 1 effectively. The said ground is urged by the petitioner for the first time before Court. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has demanded the copy of the report either before the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority. Having regard to this submission, he has fairly submitted before this Court on the last date of hearing that, this Court may call for the investigation report and look into the matter and accordingly, this Court had directed the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank to make available the report submitted by the Investigation Officer. In pursuance of the said direction, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has produced the original report before this Court. After careful perusal of the said report, it is clear that the Investigation Officer has submitted his report by giving his findings as stated supra. There is no substance or force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the copy of the Investigation Report should be made available by the Bank to the petitioner suo motu and the same cannot be accepted. In view of the law laid down by the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of B. Krishnamoorthy Beliya (supra), wherein this Court has considered the similar submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in that case and has given a specific finding in para 10 of its judgment. It is worthwhile to extract the same. The para 10 reads thus 2004-II-LLJ-75 at p. 81:
“10. Non-supply of copy of preliminary Investigation Report to the delinquent official, if it is relied on either by the enquiry officer or the Disciplinary Authority for holding that the charge-sheeted official is guilty of the charges, it will definitely prejudice the case of the delinquent official and the order of punishment imposed would be illegal, since the proceedings are in violation of principles of natural justice. In the present case, a perusal of the findings of the Enquiry Officer or the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority would not show that they have relied upon the preliminary Investigation Report to conclude that the delinquent official is guilty of the charges alleged in the charge memo. Secondly, the Investigating Officer was the sole witness for the management and the delinquent officer was given full opportunity to cross-examine the management witness and it is only based on his oral evidence and the documents marked through him in the enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry Officer has arrived at the conclusion that the delinquent official is guilty of the charges alleged in the charge memo. Therefore, in my view, as the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority have not relied upon preliminary investigation report while recording their findings, the copy of such report need not be supplied to the delinquent official and its non-supply cannot be said has vitiated the proceedings. In that view of the matter, even the second contention canvassed by the learned counsel has no merit and the same is rejected.”
The same view is also taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of AM Sugunasundaram (supra). The Division Bench of this Court has observed in the said appeal as follows:
“We are fully satisfied that non-supply of copy of the preliminary enquiry report has not resulted in any prejudice to the delinquent. In that view of the matter, we have no reason to differ from the opinion of the learned single Judge with regard to point No. 2.”
Further, it is observed that:
“…This submission of the learned counsel for the delinquent is not acceptable to us. By no stretch of imagination, the preliminary enquiry report can be regarded as a statement of the author of the report. It is true that the management having framed certain charges against the delinquent, it is the onus of the Disciplinary Authority to discharge the same. In order to discharge that onus, the Disciplinary Authority has examined a witness on behalf of the management. Merely because that witness happens to be the author of the preliminary enquiry report that fact itself would not be a justification for the Court to regard it as his statement….”
10. In view of the views taken by the learned single Judge and Division Bench of this Court as referred above, I do not find any substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that copy of the Investigation Report has not been furnished to the petitioner by the respondent-Bank and therefore, the said submission is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected.
11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above and taking into consideration the totality of the case in hand, I do not find any good grounds to interfere with the orders passed by both the authorities.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.