ORDER
N.K. Patil, J.
1. The petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 9-8-1999 passed by the 3rd respondent in Appeal No. 478 of 1998 vide Annexure-A and the order dated 17-7-1998 passed by the 2nd respondent in Dispute No. A(I&M)DIS:D2:1940:96-97, has presented this writ petition.
2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that; the 1st respondent is working in the petitioner-Bank as a Manager and while he was discharging his duty as District Manager of Raichur District during 1993, the cheque leaf bearing No. 120600 with the counterfoil was missing from the cheque book relating to PCRD Bank, Raichur. It was brought to the notice of the 1st respondent by M.Y. Manganahalli Superintendent of the Bank on 5-12-1994. The 1st respondent, being the District Manager had not taken prompt action in informing the State Bank of Hyderabad for stoppage of payment of the cheque. That missing cheque was encashed by one Kuberappa of Raghavendra Electricals. The 1st respondent, being the District Manager, had not sought explanation in writing from his subordinate officers regarding missing of cheque leaf bearing No. 120600 from the cheque book; not informed the same to the Head Office and scrutinised the work of his subordinate staff. The 1st respondent being the District Manager, it is duty cast on him to protect the interest of the Bank by lodging a complaint before the police.
3. Further, it is the case of the petitioner-Bank that, on 10-12-1994, one Sri Adavachar, Senior Assistant who is entrusted with the work of writing loan cheques of the Gangavathi PCRD Bank, brought to the notice of the 1st respondent regarding the missing of cheque book bearing Nos. 120751 to 120800 from the Senior Accounts Officer from 10-12-1994 which was issued by the State Bank of Hyderabad, relating to the Gangavathi PCRD Bank. The 1st respondent being the District Manager ought to have taken prompt action for searching the missing cheque book and informed the State Bank of Hyderabad for stop payment. Instead of that, he asked some of the Subordinate Officers to write a letter to the State Bank of Hyderabad for stop payment and left the headquarters on 10-12-1994 to attend the meeting at Bangalore to be held on 14-12-1994. This fact has not been brought to the notice of the head office and he has failed to protect the property of the Bank not once but ore than two times. It shows that, the 1st respondent being the District Manager has failed to maintain and to take follow up action and he attended the meeting in Head Office at Bangalore on 14-12-1994, but he has not informed and reported the same in writing. Having regard to these background, the enquiry proceeding has been initiated against the 1st respondent and Enquiry Officer has been appointed. The Enquiry Officer on the basis of the materials available on record, issued the charge memo to the 1st respondent alleging seven charges against him. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry as per the mandatory provisions and held that the charge No. 1 was disproved and charge Nos. 2 to 7 are proved and submitted a report. On the basis of the enquiry report, the petitioner-Bank after hearing the 1st respondent imposed the penalty of withholding of three increments vide Annexure-D. Against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the 1st respondent has filed an appeal before the Board of Directors of the Bank as provided under Rule 21(viii) of the Subsidiary Rules. The Board of Directors, after considering the gravity of charges, the overall responsibility of the 1st respondent as a District Manager and also negligence of the duty on his part, has modified the order and reduced penalty imposed on the 1st respondent and ordered for stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and a resolution has been passed to that effect on 19-11-1996 vide Annexure-E. Being aggrieved by the resolution passed by the Board of Directors on 19-11-1996 vide Annexure-E, the 1st respondent has raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent after thorough evaluation of the materials available on record and the oral and documentary evidence has passed the award holding that the decision taken by the Board of Directors of the petitioner-Bank is contrary to the materials on record, because, the 1st respondent is not a custodian of the cheque book and the custodian of the cheque book, the Senior Accounts Officer and the petitioner-Bank has failed to substantiate its stand in ordering for stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and set aside the order passed by the Board of Directors. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Arbitrator vide Annexure-B, dated 17th July, 1998, the petitioner-Bank has filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in No. 478 of 1998. The said appeal had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 9th August, 1999. The Appellate Tribunal, after thorough evaluation of the materials available on record and after reassessing the oral and documentary evidence has dismissed the appeal by confirming the order passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies-2nd respondent on 17th July, 1998. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the respondents 2 and 3, vide Annexures-A and B, the petitioner felt necessitated to present this writ petition.
4. The principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, the impugned orders passed by both the authorities are liable to vitiate. Both the authorities have failed to appreciate that the 1st respondent is the Manager of the petitioner-Bank and it is duty cast on him to supervise the functioning of the Bank and he has committed mistakes not once but more than twice. Once a cheque has been misplaced earlier and thereafter another 19 cheques were misplaced. Instead of taking action, he has directed the Subordinate Officer to stop payment regarding the missing cheque and he straightaway come to Bangalore to attend the meeting in the head office. When he was present in the headquarters, he has failed to inform the same. At least he might have sent communication for initiating proper action against the concerned officials who are involved in the incident. Therefore, in view of negligence of work on the part of the 1st respondent, the petitioner-Bank was constrained to initiate enquiry against the 1st respondent and appointed an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer has submitted his report holding that the out of 7 charges levelled against the 1st respondent, six charges were proved against him and he is not discharging his duty as per the norms and Regulations of the Bank. In view of the negligence on his part, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report recommending to stop three increments. On the basis of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order for stoppage of three increments which has been modified by the Board of Directors for stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, having regard to the status and nature of the dispute. But both the authorities have not appreciated this aspect of the matter. The 2nd respondent has allowed the dispute contrary to the materials on record and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, he submitted that the orders at Annexures-A and B passed by the respondents 2 and 3 are not justifiable and they are liable to vitiate.
5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, inter alia, contended and substantiated the impugned orders passed by both the authorities. Both the orders are in strict compliance of the Regulations. Further, he submitted that in view of concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the authorities below, the petitioner-Bank cannot redress its grievance before this Court by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court in series of matters.
6. After careful perusal of the impugned orders passed by the respondents 2 and 3 vide Annexures-A and B, respectively, it is manifest on the face of the orders that, both the authorities have not committed any error of law, much less irregularity in passing the same. It is significant to note that the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies by its order dated 17th July, 1998 has considered the matter in detail and after appreciation of the materials available on record and after critical evaluation of both oral and documentary evidence and the provisions of Rule 20(a-4)(i) of the Subsidiary Rules of the petitioner-Bank, has come to the conclusion that, “it is proved beyond doubt that the petitioner-Bank has not incurred any loss in this transaction and the 1st respondent has no intention to cause any damage or loss to the petitioner-Bank. The petitioner-Bank has not established any point to prove the connivance of the 1st respondent with Sri Kuberappa who encashed Rs. 4,79,000/- and hence there is no motive on the part of the 1st respondent to cause loss to the petitioner-Bank”. The Appellate Tribunal after reassessing the oral and documentary evidence and the materials made available by the petitioner-Bank has come to the conclusion and given a specific finding that “the 1st respondent is in no way connected with the negligence and dereliction of duties on his part and has taken appropriate action to stop the payment against the missing cheque that were in the custody of the Senior Accounts Officer”. Further, the Tribunal has given a specific finding that, “the petitioner-Bank has certainly erred in imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment which would certainly go to spoil the career of the 1st respondent and therefore, they do not concur with the action taken by the petitioner-Bank in stopping of one increment, because, it is not justifiable and by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be held to be a proper action and amounts to punishing an officer who has done his best, under the circumstances to protect the interest of the Bank as a District Manager”. Therefore, in view of the concurrent finding of fact given by both the authorities after reappreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the interference by this Court at this stage is not justifiable. Further, it is a well-settled law laid down by the Apex Court that, once the authorities below, that too, the Appellate Tribunal after reappraising the oral and documentary evidence has given a specific finding and confirmed the order passed by the Competent Authority, this Court cannot interfere in such a finding of Appellate Tribunal.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, I do not find any justification or good grounds to interfere with the impugned orders passed by both the authorities below. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.