T BABA PRASAD Vs. ANDHRA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been instituted seeking a Writ of Mandamus for declaring the charge sheet issued on behalf of the Respondent - Andhra Bank on 9.3.2010 in violation of Regulation 10 of Andhra Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981, by the 2nd Respondent and the consequential order of appointment of the 3rd Respondent as Enquiry Officer on 29.4.2010 as illegal and to set aside the same.

(2.) The writ Petitioner was said to have been initially recruited as a casher in the service of the Respondent-bank on 17.4.1985. On 1.1.1993, he earned promotion as a Junior Management Grade - Scale I Officer, henceforth for brevity referred to as 'officer'. He worked as an officer at Ke-samudram Branch of Warangal Zone and later on at Nakkalagutta Branch at Hanumakonda. Subsequently, on 30.5.2009, he was transferred and posted as Assistant Manager, at Kakatiya Medical College (KMC) Branch, Warangal.

(3.) It is stated that on 26.8.2009, he was summoned to the Nakkalagutta Branch where he worked as a Departmental Officer and Gold Loan Officer earlier and he was pressurized into accepting certain irregularities in the matter of sanction of gold loans. It was also alleged that he was forced to accept to repay the amount latest by 28.8.2011. The Petitioner was coerced into submission as he appears to have filled in the loan application forms of some of the gold loan accounts and hence he was prima facie made responsible for the lapses. It is stated that as per the dictates, he gave a letter of confession. But, however, acting contrary to the assurance, the Chief Manager of the bank lodged a complaint on 27.8.2009 at 5.30 PM at Subedari Police Station and Cr. No. 401/2009 was accordingly registered. It is stated that the Petitioner has been arrested pursuant to the same and he was enlarged on bail on 17.9.2009 and the criminal case is still under investigation. It is stated by the Petitioner that one Sri Koteswara Rao, a Senior Manager of the Zonal Office at Warangal seems to have submitted a report on 28.8.2009 to the Deputy General Manager, Warangal Zone in which he has pointed out that out of 63 cases recommended by the Petitioner for sanction, eight (8) loans were sanctioned by the Chief Manager, by name Sri D.V.S. Chella Rao who currently was working at Vizag Zonal Office as Chief Manager and the balance Fifty five (55) loans were sanctioned by Sri A. Udaya Bhaskara Rao, Senior Manager at Nakkalagutta Branch at Warangal. However, leaving out these two officers, the Petitioner alone has been picked up along with the jewellery appraiser, by the Respondent bank for rough treatment. It is stated that the Petitioner was initially suspended on 27.8.2009 from service and the 2nd Respondent-Assistant General Manager and Disciplinary Authority has drawn a charge sheet on 9.3.2010 and served it on the Petitioner, leveling serious allegations. Though the Petitioner has denied his culpability behind the charges leveled against him through his reply dated 23.3.2010, but, nonetheless, the 3rd Respondent has been appointed as an Inquiry Officer. The Petitioner having attended the preliminary enquiry denied the allegations levelled against him. He has pointed out that for the very same allegations, he is facing prosecution and further when two other officers are also suspected to have played part in the allegations, it is only appropriate that common proceedings ought to have been initiated against all the three officers, one of whom is in the rank of Chief Manager, whose disciplinary authority is the General Manager (Personnel) at Head Office of the Bank. The Petitioner contends that common proceedings are liable to be initiated and failure to do so amounts to failure of a reasonable opportunity apart from being unfair. He placed reliance in support of this contention upon Rule 10 of the Andhra Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981 and also a judgment rendered by the Karnataka High Court in Arun Kumar Alva v. Vijaya Bank, 2006 3 LLJ 385 (Kar) wherein an identically worded provision of the Vijaya Bank Regulations fell for consideration before the Karnataka High Court.