V. SRINIVASULU Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed as Manager at the respondent bank's Gannavaram Branch, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. While so, the petitioner was dismissed from the service vide order of the 4th respondent, dtd. 28/10/2016, communicated vide letter bearing No.IB:ZO:VIG:VJA:123-2016-17, dtd. 28/10/2016 on the allegations of misutilizing the funds in a Government Account of Executive Engineer, RWS, Project Division, Vijayawada and sanctioning loans to relatives, exceeding his discretionary powers, during the period from 25/7/2013 to 13/9/2015. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed vide order of the 3rd respondent, dtd. 2/3/2017, communicated vide letter bearing No.VIG:VIJ:Appeal:27519:2852:2016-17, dtd. 6/3/2017. The petitioner then filed a revision before the 2nd respondent, which was rejected on 18/2/2019 and communicated vide letter bearing No.CO:VIG:VJA:Review:27519::2828::2018-19, dtd. 18/2/2019. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) The respondents 1 to 3 filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that the petitioner deliberately and intentionally misused the powers vested in him as the bank's branch head. The petitioner committed various misappropriations and misused funds, particularly the government accounts of the Executive Engineer, RWS, Project Division, Vijayawada. In addition to this, without following due procedure and the bank's guidelines, the petitioner sanctioned loans to his relatives, exceeding his discretionary powers. All these actions took place while the petitioner was discharging his duties as the bank manager at the Gannavaram Branch, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh, during the period from 25/7/2013 to 13/9/2015. As such, his dismissal was correct, and the same was confirmed by the appellate and reviewing authorities. It is further stated that the petitioner is liable to be punished under Regulation 24 of the Indian Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, as his actions would be in breach of Regulation 3(1) of the said Regulations. Every bank official is bound to adhere to the operational guidelines of the bank, which are framed from time to time, with the purpose of ensuring discipline and punctuality. Due to the petitioner's acts and misappropriations, the government took back all its deposits from the bank's branch. The bank's fiscal operations primarily involve accepting deposits and lending amounts, which the petitioner completely ignored.