K.CHANDRAIAH Vs. TELANGANA GRAMEENA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of 7 Writ Petitions, the petitioners in 6 Writ Petitions, i.e., W.P.Nos.4911, 4913, 13749, 13991, 21759 and 22212 of 2020 are challenging the respective orders of the 1st respondent bank dismissing the petitioners from service and also the orders of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the appeals filed by the respective petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to direct the 1st respondent bank to pay the terminal benefits like gratuity, leave encashment and pension to the petitioners along with interest; while the petitioner in W.P.No.17089 of 2020 is challenging the order of the respondent bank in refusing to release provisional pension to the petitioner therein as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same and to direct the respondent bank to release the provisional pension and to pass such other order or orders.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petitions are that the 1st respondent is a Regional Rural Bank established under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 and is sponsored by State Bank of India and the 2nd respondent is the appellate authority constituted under the Service Regulations of the Bank. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.4911, 4913, 17098 and 21759 of 2020 were working as Officers, Scale-II, while the petitioners in W.P.Nos.13749 and 13991 of 2020 were working as Officers, Scale-III and the petitioner in W.P.No.22212 of 2020 was working as Officer, Scale-I. All of them worked in Aziz Nagar Branch.

(3.) All the petitioners were issued notices dt.17/5/2018 pointing out that certain irregularities were committed by them in Aziz Nagar Branch of the Bank and that the petitioners did not exercise supervisory functions in a diligent manner enabling the Clerk-cum-Cashier of the Bank, one Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy, in causing large scale misappropriation of funds and loss to the Bank. The petitioners submitted their explanations on various dates stating that for the period in which they have worked in Aziz Nagar Branch, the accounts of the branch were audited regularly by the internal audit as well as by the statutory audit party and no irregularities were found/pointed out for the said period. It was further stated that Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy was kept in the same branch for more than 12 years and hence misappropriation of amounts by him cannot be held against the petitioners and held that they failed to work in a diligent manner. However, not being satisfied with the explanation of the petitioners, the Bank has initiated departmental enquiry against all the officers vide letter dt.6/11/2018 and the enquiry proceedings commenced and during the course of the enquiry, the Presenting Officer of the Bank has placed their documents on record and the enquiry officer has marked them as Exs. ME 1 to ME 370. MW1, the officer of the Bank was examined to produce the complainants as the witnesses. MW2 who is also the officer of the Bank was asked to confirm the contents of the documents and MW3 to MW5 were also examined. It is submitted that no evidence was adduced from the side of the Management to explain the contents of the exhibits and to correlate them with reference to the misconduct alleged against the petitioners. Thereafter, the Defence Representative was permitted to cross-examine the Management Witnesses (MWs) and that it was also confined only to the contents of the documents and the enquiry was accordingly closed and the petitioners were asked to submit their brief within a period of 4 days and accordingly, the petitioners submitted their written briefs to the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer submitted his report on 30/4/2019 to the disciplinary authority holding all the petitioners as guilty of the alleged acts of misconduct. The enquiry report was furnished to the petitioners asking them to submit their objections against the findings of the enquiry officer and the petitioners submitted their objections in a detailed manner. The petitioners have raised the specific contention that the exhibits were only photocopies and the originals of the same were not produced and hence the photocopies could not have been marked. The objections submitted by the petitioners were rejected by the disciplinary authority. In the mean time, when some of the petitioners reached the age of superannuation, their services were extended notionally for completion of the disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, the order imposing punishment of recovery of Rs.25,00,000.00 from the petitioner in W.P.No.4913 of 2020 was passed, while the petitioners in W.P.Nos.4911 and 21759 of 2020 have been imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service. The orders imposing punishment of dismissal from service were also passed against the petitioners in W.P.Nos.13749, 13991 and 22212 of 2020 while the order rejecting the claim of provisional pension was passed against the petitioner in W.P.No.17098 of 2020.