Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 22926
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
A. SATYAPAL REDDY HYD. – Appellant
Versus
A.P.G.V.B. AND 2 OTHERS – Respondent
WP/26947/2008
Disciplinary proceedings conducted in accordance with regulations; no entitlement to personal hearing under service rules; delay in appeal without condonation provision upheld.
Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulations, 2006 - Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India - Writ petition challenging disciplinary proceedings and penalty of censure imposed on the petitioner for misconduct as Branch Manager - Court found that disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with applicable regulations, and the penalty was within the discretion of the disciplinary authority. (Paras 6, 9)
(B) Disciplinary Enquiry - The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to a personal hearing under the applicable service regulations, and the claim of denial of natural justice was not substantiated. (Paras 7, 9)
(C) Delay in Appeal - The court noted that the appeal was filed beyond the stipulated period without any provision for condonation of delay, thus finding no fault with the rejection of the appeal. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a former officer of the Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, challenged the legality of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, which resulted in a penalty of censure for alleged misconduct related to a Rs.1 lakh transaction involving a suspended officer.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision, stating that the proceedings were conducted fairly and within the regulatory framework.
Issues: The main issues addressed were the legality of the disciplinary proceedings, the right to a personal hearing, and the delay in filing an appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the disciplinary authority acted within its discretion, and the applicable regulations did not mandate a personal hearing for the petitioner.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31.03.2007 in Charge Sheet No. V&DP/332/133/2004 dated 21.06.2004 issued by the 3 rd respondent – Chairman, A.P. Grameena Vikas Bank and the order dated 15.04.2008 in APGVB/V&DP/21/08-09 of the 3 rd respondent, which communicated the decision of the 2 nd respondent. Petitioner contends that these orders are illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, disproportionate and violative of the Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulations , 2006, in addition to being violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India .
2. Case of petitioner, in a nut shell, is that he joined the service of the then Nagarjuna Grameena Bank, which later became the 1 st respondent bank on 21.3.1978, and served in various capacities until his retirement on 31.7.2008, holding the position of Officer in Junior Management Grade 1. Throughout his career, he claims to have discharged his duties with sincerity, honesty, and to the satisfaction of everyone, without any blemish on his record. He highlights his notable achievements during his tenure, such as uncovering a major fraud while serving as Branch Manager at Pochampalli and regularizing bad accounts to save the bank. Additionally, he claims that during his time at Bummalaramaram Branch, he turned around the branch's performance, generating impressive profits and eliminating losses accumulated over 10 years. He also claims that his efforts at Bibinagar Branch helped the branch transition from Scale I to Scale II, wiping out accumulated losses from the previous 15 years. Furthermore, he states that under his leadership, Koyyalagudem Branch won the Best Branch Award, and he consistently earned “well run” ratings for all the branches where he worked. The petitioner asserts that for 15 to 16 years, he worked without claiming TA&DA, and that when he received Rs.1 lakh as goodwill from electric motor and rig owners, he credited it to the borrowers' deposit account at Bibinagar, which was appreciated by the bank management. Additionally, when he received bribes from purchasers of milk animals at Kankipadu, he reported the matter to the bank management and credited the money to their savings accounts.
Petitioner states that troubles began in 2003 when he filed Writ Petition No. 1172 of 2004 seeking directions to the bank to clarify its promotional policy which led to animosity from the bank management, as a result, he was placed under suspension on 06.05.2004, raising flimsy grounds. He remained suspended until his reinstatement on 03.08.2006. During this period, he was issued charge sheet on 21.6.2004 (V&DP.332/133/2004), which levied four charges against him.
The charges were as follows:
1. The petitioner was alleged to have allowed an amount of Rs.1 lakh, deposited on 4.11.2003 by Sri P. Veerkumar Reddy (the son of Sri P. Upender Reddy, a suspended officer) into a sundry deposit account at Choutuppal Branch, where the petitioner was serving as Branch Manager.
2. The petitioner was accused of keeping the Rs.1 lakh in Choutuppal Branch instead of sending it to Motkur Branch, where the fraud was reported.
3. The petitioner was alleged to have knowingly allowed the withdrawal of Rs.1 lakh from the sundry deposit account by Sri P. Veerkumar Reddy on 2.12.2003, despite knowing that it was connected to the fraud committed by his father, Sri P. Upender Reddy.
4. The petitioner was charged with not informing the head office about the receipt and withdrawal of the Rs.1 lakh, which pertained to a suspended employee.
Petitioner denies all the charges and asserts that the incident involving Rs.1 lakh was a routine matter. He clarifies that the amount was deposited by Sri P. Veerkumar Reddy, who was trying to earn interest on the money, into a sundry deposit account due to the absence of an account in his name and the incomplete formalities for opening a new account. The amount was later withdrawn by him on 02.12.2003. Peti
