Jammalamudi Vijaya Bhaskar vs Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent, the disciplinary authority, in awarding punishment to the petitioner vide letter No. APGVB/V&DP/ 188/659/2013-14, dated 30.10.2013 and as confirmed by the appellate authority vide letter No. APGVB/Board/26/2014-15, dated 04.06.2014, as illegal and arbitrary.

The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Branch Manager in the respondent bank on 15.02.1985 and after restructuring the cadres in the bank, during February, 1997 the petitioner was re-designated as Officer Junior Management Grade-I. Thereafter, he was transferred from Head Office to Komuruvelli Branch as an accountant under one Mr.V.Narender, who was the then Manager of the branch. It is the claim of the petitioner that he was not given the work of officer but was entrusted with Clerical work and that he discharged his duties sincerely. It is submitted that while he was working as Manager in the year 2009 in the month of May, 2009, the computerization of the bank had taken place by engaging an outsourcing agency and the petitioner and his entire team was given all the manual data for computerization but in the said process, mistakes had occurred and the petitioner was issued charge sheet by framing twenty five (25) charges against him. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer had held that ten charges as proved, ten charges as partially proved and the balance five charges as not proved.

It is submitted that because of the social status of the petitioner, he being a person belonging to Scheduled caste, he was targeted and during the enquiry also he was not given proper opportunity for representation. It is submitted that all the borrowers had repaid the money and therefore, there is no financial loss to the bank and the punishment awarded to the petitioner is excessive and multifarious. He submitted that the disciplinary authority, while ordering monetary recovery of Rs.1,65,000/- i.e., pecuniary loss caused to the bank, has further ordered reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by five (5) stages with cumulative effect and with a further direction that the petitioner will not earn increments during the period of such reduction as provided for in terms of Regulation 39(1)(a)(iv) and (b)(i) respectively of Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations 2010. Further it was directed to treat the period spent by him under suspension as “not in duty” and therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for any back wages and other attendant benefits other than what has already been paid to petitioner by way of subsistence allowance. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the punishments are multiple punishments for a single offence and since there is no monetary loss to the bank, the recovery of the same is also unsustainable. He further submits that the reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by five (5) stages with cumulative effect is not a punishment that is enumerated under Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations 2010. Hence, imposing such a punishment is not justified. He further prayed that the punishment of reduction to a lower stage with consequential direction that petitioner will not earn increments during the period of such reduction be set aside and the suspension period also be treated as on duty and back wages be paid.

Learned Standing counsel for the bank, on the other hand, submitted that there was no allegation by the petitioner at anytime either during enquiry or during the disciplinary proceedings that there were any irregularities committed by the Enquiry Officer. He submits that the respondents have followed all the procedure while conducting enquiry and the punishments imposed are strictly in accordance with the bank rules. He also submits that there is no computer mistake as alleged by the petitioner and under Article 226 of Constitution of India, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence. She submitted that petitioner has not made out any case as to which of the documents has not been considered by the Enquiry Officer and therefore, punishment cannot be interfered with it. She placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Others AIR 1996 SC 484 in support of her contentions.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, reiterates that the entire amount of Rs.1,65,000/- has already been recovered by the bank from the borrowers and therefore, there is no pecuniary loss to the bank. Further, he also reiterated the stand about the bias against him because of his social status and submitted that he had taken the said stand before the Enquiry Officer as well as Appellate Authority. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside of the punishment.

Having regard to the rival contentions and material on record, it is seen that out of total 25 charges framed against the petitioner about the financial irregularities allegedly committed by the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer has held that ten charges are proved, ten charges are partially proved and five charges are not proved.

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court cannot go into merits of findings of the Enquiry Officer or disciplinary authority unless perversity of the same is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

In view thereof, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the charges which are held to be proved or not proved against the petitioner. However, it is also an admitted fact that where the punishment imposed is shockingly excessive or exorbitant, this Court can interfere with the said punishment by setting aside of the report of the Enquiry Officer or by modifying the punishment itself in order to shorten the litigation by giving cogent reasons submitted thereof. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 1st punishment is monetary recovery of Rs.1,65,000/-. It is claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire amount has been recovered by the bank from the borrowers, if that be so the amount recovered from the petitioner would have to be refunded to the petitioner as it is not punishment, it was only recovery of pecuniary loss caused to the bank. The respondent bank is therefore directed to verify and refund the amount which has been already recovered from the borrowers to the petitioner. As regards the 2nd punishment is concerned i.e., reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by five (5) stages with cumulative effect is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Rule 39(1)(b)(i) does not provide for reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by five (5) stages. He drew the attention of this Court to Rule 39(1)(a)(v) which provides reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay for a period not exceeding two years without cumulative effect and rule 39 (1)(b)(i) refer to Major Penalties and clause (i) provides that same as provided in item (v) of clause (a) of Sub-regulation (1) of regulation 39, reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay for a specified period. Further, the same clause provides that the reduction to a lower stage in time scale pay for a period shall not exceeding two years, even if it is with cumulative effect. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the punishment for reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by five (5) stages is not permissible. Therefore, this Court deems it fit and proper to modify the punishment to reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by two (2) stages with cumulative effect with further direction that the petitioner will not earn any increments during the said period. As regards by the petitioner’s suspension period not being treated as on duty and further that the petitioner will not entitled for any back wages, this Court holds that this Court does not deem it necessary to interfere with the said punishment.

In view of the above, the punishment given to the petitioner is modified and the respondents are directed to give consequential effect to the monetary benefits of the petitioner and pay the same to the petitioner within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.