The court upheld the disciplinary findings against the employee but modified the penalty to a minor one, emphasizing the need for proportionality in disciplinary actions.

JUDGMENT :

(Abhay S. Oka, J.)

FACTUAL ASPECT

1. The respondent was employed with the appellants (Syndicate Bank) as a clerk. In due course, he was promoted as a branch manager. He worked as the branch manager of the Mudigubba branch between 11th June 2007 and 03rd November 2008. An investigation was conducted against the appellant. On 02nd December, 2010, the Investigating Officer submitted a report against the appellant. After issuing notices, the Syndicate Bank issued a chargesheet to the respondent on 17th October, 2011. The allegation, in short, in the chargesheet was that while working as the branch manager in the Mudigubba branch during the period between 11th June, 2007 and 03rd November, 2008, the respondent abused his position by making fictitious debits to crop insurance account narrating the credit to various Syndicate Kisan Credit Cards (SKCC) accounts. He fraudulently withdrew the amounts by debiting the SKCC head without the borrowers' knowledge. The allegation against him was that he made fictitious debits/releases under SKCC accounts and, in certain cases, exceeded the sanctioned limit. He dishonestly obtained additional withdrawals from certain customers by deceiving them. Another allegation is that he sanctioned a vehicle loan to a borrower, which was a Non-Performing Asset (in short, ‘NPA’), in violation of the guidelines. In collusion with two other persons (Shri A Nagireddy and Shri M Ramakrishna), he fraudulently siphoned off Rs. 70,000/-. He misappropriated a sum of Rs. 9,000/- received by the branch under the debt waiver scheme to the SKCC account of one Shri D. Nagaraju. It was alleged that the respondent had committed many illegalities and irregularities, which tarnished the fair image of the Syndicate Bank. The statement of imputations was also served upon the respondent.

2. A disciplinary inquiry was conducted against the respondent. The inquiry officer submitted a report on 15th March, 2012. He held that the charges against the respondent were proved. After receiving a copy of the inquiry report, the respondent submitted a written response on 18th April, 2012. By order dated 03rd May, 2012, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the respondent from the service of Syndicate Bank with immediate effect for committing the breach of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of Syndicate Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations 1976 (for short ‘the Regulations’). The respondent preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority, by an order dated 30th March 2013, confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority.

3. As the respondent was exonerated in criminal proceedings, he made representations on 28th August, 2013 and 24th November, 2014 requesting the Bank to set aside the penalty of dismissal. Thereafter, the respondent filed a writ petition to challenge the order of dismissal. Learned Single Judge on 15th June, 2022 set aside the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority on the ground that principles of natural justice were not followed in the inquiry and ordered the reinstatement of the respondent and since he had superannuated, the Court held that he would be entitled to all consequential benefits from the date of dismissal from service till the date of his superannuation. The appellant challenged the decision of the learned Single Judge by preferring a Writ Appeal before the Division Bench. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal by holding that it was a case of no evidence against the respondent.

SUBMISSIONS

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants invited our attention to the allegations against the respondent in the chargesheet served upon him. Learned senior counsel submitted that during vigilance investigation and disciplinary inquiry, the respondent admitted the transactions in respect of which allegations were made in the charge sheet. He submitted that the officer who conducted the preliminary inquiry was examined as a witness in the discip