Amingad Basavaraj vs The General Manager (P), Syndicate Bank and Others

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent.

The petitioner was said to be working as the manager of the Kalyanadurg branch of the Syndicate bank, represented by the respondents herein. He was in the middle management grade Scale-II pay scale of the bank. He was working as the Branch Manager at Hagari branch during the period 21.6.1999 to 2.6.2004. The branch was recommended for closure in May 1999 due to continuous loss for 10 years prior thereto. When the petitioner reported for duty in the said branch, the total business of the branch was as follows:

There were no major agricultural loans, but after the petitioner joined the branch, he immediately doubled the total business by increasing the numbers of customers and succeeded in making the branch viable and profit making and reduced the Non-performance level to 5%. And therefore when the petitioner was transferred to Sandur branch, the position of the branch was as follows:

The petitioner claims to have given special attention to the agricultural sector and the Regional Office, Bellary had awarded scroll of honours, on monthly basis, for the all round performance of the branch from the year 2000 to 30.3.2004. He had received the following awards:

These are particularly stated by the petitioner to indicate his performance and his blemishless service for over 30 years. It transpires that when he was working at the Kalyanadurga branch, he was served with a charge sheet on 3.10.2006 and certain articles of charge were levelled against the petitioner.

A copy of the charge memo dated 3.10.2006 containing the articles of charge and statement of imputations of misconduct was received by him. It was stated that the list of documents and witnesses were annexed to the charge memo, but the same were not enclosed along with the memo. It was issued by the third respondent in his capacity as the disciplinary authority.

As the petitioner had filed a detailed reply to the same on 8.11.2006 and it was particularly pointed out that the alleged joint investigation conducted by the senior manager in respect of the allegation made against him was in his absence and therefore, no credibility was to be attached to the said report of the Senior Manager (Vigilance). The petitioner had also produced letters given by the borrowers withdrawing the complaint against the petitioner and therefore sought dropping of the proposed action in terms of the Regulations.

Despite his reply, the third respondent has proceeded to appoint the inquiring authority to conduct an inquiry and the inquiring authority, without conducting the inquiry in terms of Regulation 6 of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees'' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, submitted his report to the third respondent. The inquiring authority framed five issues and had held that issue Nos. 3 and 5 were not proved.

However, the second respondent, on the basis of the report submitted, had passed an order of dismissal without noticing that he had not issued the charge memo. It was the third respondent who had issued the charge memo to the petitioner and he had filed his reply only to the third respondent and not to the second respondent.

The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of dismissal had filed an appeal and had raised several grounds none of which have been considered by the appellate authority in dismissing the appeal by order dated 7.11.2008. Being aggrieved by these actions of the respondents, the present petition is filed.

The petitioner was 56 as on the date of the filing of the petition in the year 2009 and has now attained the age of superannuation. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would primarily contend that the penalty imposed on the petitioner is without jurisdiction. In that, Sub-Regulation (3) of Regulation 6, says that where it is proposed to hold an inquiry, the disciplinary authority shall frame definite and distinct charges on the basis of the allegations against the employee and the articles of charge, together with statement of allegations on which they are based, should be communicated in writing to the officer employee.

Admittedly, the petitioner was holding the post carrying a pay scale of Middle Management Grade Scale-II and the disciplinary authority, prescribed in the schedule to the regulations is the Assistant General Manager and the Deputy General Manager of the zone, in cases of officers working in the zone and in respect of officers working anywhere in India, it is the Assistant General Manager or the Deputy General Manager of the head office. In the present case on hand, the disciplinary authority who had issued the show-cause notice and the charge memo was the Assistant General Manager. Whereas the punishment has been imposed by the Deputy General Manager. This, according to the learned counsel, is an irregularity which goes to the root of the matter. The exercise of power cannot be interchanged as between the said authorities since both of them are competent to act as the disciplinary authorities and therefore one having issued a charge memo and the other having imposed penalty is wholly without jurisdiction and would fall foul of the Regulations.

It is on this primary ground that the learned counsel would submit that the entire proceedings are vitiated as the penalty has been imposed by the disciplinary authority which had no jurisdiction, as he was not the authority who had issued a charge memo in the first instance and could not therefore impose the punishment. The learned Counsel also urges other grounds on the merits of the case as regards the appreciation of evidence or rather lack of proof of evidence which the petitioner had placed before the authorities. It is contended that the several contentions raised and the explanation offered have not been discussed by the inquiry officer and have been mechanically accepted by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority.

While the learned counsel for the respondent would seek to justify the action of the second and third respondents. He would contend that as seen from the schedule to the Regulations, the disciplinary authority prescribed are both the Assistant General Manager and the Deputy General Manager insofar as the petitioner was concerned and therefore there can be no distinction drawn as between these two officers acting as the disciplinary authority and which cannot be claimed to be an infirmity that goes to the root of the matter. In other words, the learned counsel would admit the position that the charge memo was issued by the Assistant General Manager whereas the penalty has been imposed by the Deputy General Manager.

This contention cannot be accepted. It is one and the same authority which is expected to act as the disciplinary authority for it is that authority who would be conversant with the facts and the basis on which the charge memo was issued and would also be in a position to appreciate the findings and impose a penalty. The exercise of power of the disciplinary authority cannot be inter changed merely because both the officers namely, the Assistant General Manager and the Deputy General Manager are both competent to act as the disciplinary authority. This would lead to an aberration if the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted that one or the other could initiate proceedings and one or the other could impose penalty. This would not be the intent of the Regulations. The mere prescription of the said officers being named as the disciplinary authorities does not give them a leave to interchange acts in initiating proceedings and imposing penalty.

Therefore, the petition is allowed as the admitted position leads to an infirmity, which vitiates the entire proceedings. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Annexures - C and E are quashed. Since the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation, the question of granting him backwages or directing his reinstatement would not arise for consideration. However he would be entitled to continuity of service and seniority for the purpose of computing his pension and he shall be paid his pension with prospective effect from the date of receipt of this order.