P RANGACHARY Vs. STATE BANT OF HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition is filed with the prayer for issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring Charge Sheet No. R.III.Gr..I/5641, dated 20-10-1982 and all other consequential proceedings including the order No. DPC/499 dated 24-3-1988 of the 2nd respondent and the consequential order of the 1st respondent thereon to be quashed as being illegal, null and void and unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and to issue a direction to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith with all othef consequential benefits.

(2.) When the matter came up for hearing before a learned single Judge (Sri Justice M.N. Rao), the learned single Judge felt that in view of the importance of the matter, invovled in the writ petition, and the conflicting decisions thereon, it would be necessary to have a decision of a Division Bench in the matter. Thus, it is by virtue of the order of reference made by the learned single Judge that the matter has been placed before this Division Bench for a pronouncement on the conflicting questions of constitutional importance involved in the writ petition.

(3.) A brief resume of the facts of the case will not be out of place to arrive at a conclusion in this matter. The petitioner joined the service in the State Bank of Hyderabad on 7-12-1964 as a Clerk and was promoted as Officer Grade-II under Group 'A' with effect from 16-10-1976 as per the communication No. PER/PF/1221 dated 12-11-1976 of the Managing Director of the State Bank of Hyderabad. Initially the petitioner was placed under probation for one year and his probation was declared as Officer Grade-II under Group 'A' by the Executive Committee. While he was working as Officer Junior Management, Grade Scale-I at Sangareddy Branch, the Regional Manager, Region-I, State Bank of Hyderabad, in his letter dated 24-8-1981, reported certain alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner while he was functioning as Branch Manager at Kulakacherla Branch and directed the petitioner to submit his explanation. The petitoner denied the allegations levelled against him in his letter dt. 19-10-1981. But, he was placed under suspension pending disciplinary action through letter dated 17-5-1982 of the 3rd respondent, viz., the General Manager (Operation), State Bank of Hyderabad. The 3rd respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under Regulation 50 (4) read with Regulation 66 of the State Bank of Hyderabad (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979, hereinafter referred to, for short, as 'the Service Regulations'. In all, three charges were framed against the petitioner, which are as follows: (i) The official had sanctioned agricultural term loans of Rs. 2,500/- each to eleven borrowers of Antharam village for the purpose of purchasing milch animals. The borrowers were paid only a sum of Rs. 2,200/- each at the cattle market and the balance amount of Rs.300/- was withheld and not released to them under the pretext of payment towards insurance premia. The borrowers' accounts were subsequently debited with a sum a Rs. 87-50 each towards insurance premium, resulting in the borrowers preferring a complaint in the matter. It, therefore, appears that the difference in amount i.e., Rs. 300/- in respect of each borrower has been misappropriated by the official. (ii) The official had sanctioned loans of Rs. 3,000/- each to three borrowers of Peerampalli village as crop loans but actually released an amount of Rs. 1,500/- only to each borrower at Kosgi Cattle Market through Shri G. Satyanarayana, a Clerk working at Kulakacherla Branch. Subsequently after returning to the village, the employee paid Rs. 100/- each to two borrowers. Thus, the loan amount released to the three borrowers aggregating Rs. 4,700/- as against Rs. 9,000/- sanctioned to them indicating that the official in collusion with Sri G. Satyanarayana, the employee, misappropriated the difference amount of Rs. 4,300/-. (iii) The official had purchased six cheques drawn by his wife and others, purportedly from some staff members and two other outside parties adopting unfair and dubious practices, with an intention to derive undue benefit for himself, despite being aware of the non-availability of adequate funds in the respective accounts of the drawers of the cheques. Three individuals from whom the cheques were said to have been purchased had denied their discounting of the relative cheques at the Branch. The official himself had subsequently made arrangements to provide funds in the relative drawers accounts to get cheques honoured when presented for payment. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 16-12-1982 to the charge memo denying all the allegations. Thereafter an Enquiry Officer was appointed on 7-1-1983 to conduct the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer in his findings found that the charge relating to misappropriation of Rs. 300/- in each of the cases relating to all borrowers was not proved. Similarly, the Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner was not guilty of misappropriation of Rs. 1,500/- from each of the three crop loan accounts as mentioned in the second charge. The Enquiry Officer, however, found that the petitioner was guilty of discounting and purchasing of cheques for his own benefit and held the third charge as proved. Thus, it is seen that while the first two charges were held to be not proved against the petitioner, only the third charge was held to have been proved by the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the material on record, concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on charges 1 and 2. In regard to charge No. 1 the Disciplinary Authority held that the evidence on record is not adequate to hold the serious imputation levelled against the petitioner as established. With regard to the second charge, concurring with the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority held that the charge was not proved against the petitioner. As regards charge No. 3 is concerned, the Disciplinary Authority, while concurring with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, held that the petitioner was guilty of the third charge of discounting and purchase of cheques for his own benefit. When the matter was referred to the Appointing Authority, i.e., Chief General Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent herein he disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority on the findings with regard to charges 1 and 2 and held that those charges were also established. The Appointing Authority, of course, concurred with the Inquiring Authority and the Disciplinary Authority as far as charge No. 3 is concerned and held that the petitioner was guilty of the charge of discounting and purchase of cheques for his own benefit.