L. Nagaraju vs Syndicate Bank, rep. by the General Manager, Syndicate Bank Zonal Office, Pioneer House, Somajiguda, Hyderabad

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(AP) 1146

High Court of Andhra Pradesh
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, JJ.
L. Nagaraju
Versus
Syndicate Bank, rep. by the General Manager, Syndicate Bank Zonal Office, Pioneer House, Somajiguda, Hyderabad & Others
C.C.C.A. No. 89 of 2003
Decided on: 18-12-2013

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:C.S.K.V. Ramana Murthy, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Deepak Bhattacharjee, SC.

Headnote:(A)SERVICE LAW - Salary - Salary for period of unauthorized leave can be withheld—Absence on medical grounds must be supported by doctor’ prescription.
(B) SERVICE LAW - Harassment at work place – Proof—Allegation cannot be believed when none of documents disclosed that cause for those problems is mental or alleged harassment by Branch Manager of Bank.
(C) SERVICE LAW - Voluntary Retirement from Service—In absence of any rule providing personal hearing of employee, passing an order permitting employee to retire from service voluntarily, is not violative of principles of natural justice---Order of VRS upheld.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

Allegation of Harassment at Workplace: The appellant claimed that the 4th respondent, as Manager of the branch, subjected him to various forms of verbal and mental harassment, which allegedly impacted his health and compelled him to retire voluntarily. However, the evidence did not substantiate the allegations of harassment, especially verbal abuse or physical misconduct, as no witnesses or objective proof supported these claims (!) (!) (!) .
Definition and Evaluation of Workplace Harassment: The document provides a comprehensive overview of what constitutes harassment at the workplace, including unwelcome conduct, verbal abuse, physical threats, and creating a hostile environment. The evidence did not establish that the appellant’s complaints met these criteria, particularly since the alleged verbal harassment was not corroborated by witnesses or specific instances (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Timing and Nature of Alleged Harassment: The appellant’s allegations of ill-treatment beginning after his reporting date as an officer, and the subsequent issues, were not supported by detailed evidence. The period of alleged harassment was brief, and the evidence did not show a direct link between the conduct and deterioration of health (!) (!) .
Medical Evidence and Health Deterioration: The medical records and certificates produced did not conclusively link the appellant’s health issues to the alleged harassment. The certificates were deemed suspicious and lacked examination by the issuing doctors, making it difficult to establish that harassment caused his health problems (!) (!) .
Voluntary Retirement and Its Validity: The appellant’s application for voluntary retirement was based on a proforma (Ex.B.1), which clearly indicated that he was seeking transfer or retirement on personal/medical grounds. The order of retirement was accepted without objections, and the appellant received retirement benefits. The courts held that this order was made with free consent and did not violate principles of natural justice (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Effect of Retirement on Harassment Claims: Once the appellant voluntarily applied for and accepted retirement benefits, he was estopped from claiming that the retirement was due to harassment. The evidence indicated that the retirement was on his own accord, primarily for health reasons, and not under duress or harassment (!) (!) .
Claims for Damages and Arrears: The appellant’s claims for damages, salary arrears, privilege leave, pension re-fixation, and gratuity were either unsupported by sufficient evidence or had been settled/paid. The court found that the actual payments made and the calculations based on revised pay scales were correct, and the appellant was not entitled to further relief (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Procedural and Evidentiary Issues: The court noted the lack of corroborative witnesses, the absence of medical expert examination, and the failure to substantiate allegations with specific instances or objective proof. These deficiencies led to the conclusion that the allegations of harassment and related claims lacked merit (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Legal Principles Applied: The judgment emphasized that misconduct such as unauthorized absence, failure to follow leave procedures, and disobedience of directives are misconduct under service regulations. Such misconduct, in the absence of clear evidence of harassment, cannot be converted into harassment claims (!) (!) .
Final Decision: The court upheld the findings of the trial court, dismissing the appeal and confirming that the appellant’s retirement was voluntary and not due to harassment. The claims for damages and arrears were rejected, and the overall conduct of the appellant was characterized as misconduct rather than harassment (!) (!) .

These points collectively demonstrate that the court found the appellant’s allegations of harassment unsubstantiated and that his retirement was voluntary, based on personal and health reasons, rather than workplace harassment.

Judgment :

M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.576 of 2000 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, preferred this appeal against the impugned decree and judgment dated 11.11.2002.

2. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants in the suit and hereinafter referred to as “the appellant” and “the respondents”, for the sake of convenience.

3. The appellant filed suit against the respondents for the following reliefs:-

“(a) for recovery of a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization by way of damages on account of humiliation, harassment and insult by D4, who acted as Manager of D3 and inaction, illegal and unconstitutional decision of D1 and D2;

(b) for recovery of Rs.23,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation towards salary arrears on account of Pay Revision as Award Staff from 1.11.1997 to 2.5.1999 and as Officer from 3.5.1999 to 27.4.2000;

(c) for recovery of Rs.16,720/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realisation being salary for 31 days of Privilege Leave after deducting the amount already paid to his Privilege Leave Account;

(d) for recovery of a sum of Rs.40,451/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realisation as salary for 75 days from 1.11.1999 to 15.11.1999 and from 25.11.1999 to 27.4.2000 by treating it as Sick Leave;

(e) to direct D1 and D3 for re-fixing his pension taking into account the correct figures of salary, pursuant to the revision of pay scales from 1.11.1997 with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realisation;

(f) for recovery of Rs.28,990/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realisation being the differential amount of gratuity due and payable after recalculating the gratuity amount taking into account the correct figures of salary after revision of pay scales; and

(g) for costs of the suit.”

4. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant joined as Clerk in Syndicate Bank on 2.11.1978 and worked at different places in the same cadre. Later he was promoted as Officer on 3.5.1999 and posted in the 3rd respondent Branch at Banswada, Nizamabad District. During the period as Probationer in the 3rd respondent Branch, he was subjected to physical and mental harassment by the 4th respondent, who is the Manager of the 3rd respondent Branch, which resulted in deterioration of health and faced difficulties in discharging his duties under the 4th respondent. Thus, the appellant was put to different kinds of harassment by the 4th respondent.

5. The specific instances of harassment as pleaded in the plaint are as follows:

(a) The 4th respondent, being the Head of the 3rd respondent Branch, is having a supervisory control over the appellant, while exercising supervisory powers, started humiliating and ill-treating the appellant, particularly expressing official bias, vindictive temperament quite often trying to insult the appellant in the presence of customers for no reason. The ill-treatment reached to a peak stage and whenever the appellant gave advance intimation for availing casual leave in connection with unavoidable social function, the 4th respondent used to entrust unavoidable official assignment for that day compelling him to remain on duty, thereby the appellant was prevented to attend all those social functions. The appellant was prevented to attend the marriage of his niece on 27.10.1999 and funeral of his maternal uncle on 13.10.1999;

(b) The 4th respondent directed the appellant to collect an amount of Rs.100/- from the neighbouring Branches without official acknowledgement at the time of handing over the stationery relating to Public Issue of equity shares brought from Regional Office for distribution around Banswada, like Gandivet, Durki, Menur,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(AP) 1146

Cases Referred (10)