THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY WRIT APPEAL NO.746 OF 2025

JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Aparesh Kumar Singh)

Heard Mr. B.S.Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. Mujib Kumar Sadasivuni, leaned counsel for appellants on record and Mr. Jogram Tejavat, learned counsel for respondent.

2. The writ petitioner was the Scale-I Officer in the appellant-Bank when he was proceeded against for 25 charges, which also related to several charges of misappropriation committed during his service period. After detailed disciplinary enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held that Charge Nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 13, 16, 23, 24 and 25 as proved; Charge Nos.2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 22 as partially proved; Charge Nos.8, 14, 20 and 21 as not proved. The writ petitioner has submitted written statement of defence on enquiry report and thereafter, the following penalty was imposed by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 30.10.2013 (Annexure-P2).

“DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS ANDHRA PRADESH GRAMEENA VIKAS BANK (OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES) SERVICE REGULATIONS, 2010 CHARGE SHEET NO.APGVB/V&DP/188/882/11-12, DATED 19.01.2012.

01. I have gone through the enquiry proceedings, the evidence that were let in during the course of the enquiry, the findings of the Enquiry Officer, your submissions dated 15.05.2013 on the Enquiry Officer’s findings and all the relevant material on record. I am satisfied that there are no violations of principles of natural justice during the entire proceedings. A tabular statement containing the charge, Evidences in support of each Charge, Findings of the Enquiry Officer, your submission and our comments thereon is enclosed.

02. Out of the 25 Charges levelled against you, the Enquiry Officer held ten Charges as proved, eleven Charges as partially proved and four Charges as not proved. I am in agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The proven acts of misconduct are serious in nature and warrant extreme penalty. However, considering your age and to give you an opportunity to prove a better account of yourself, I am inclined to take a lenient view in the matter and decided to impose on you the penalty of “Monetary Recovery of Rs.1,65,000/- (Rs. one lac and sixty five thousand only) i.e., pecuniary loss caused to the Bank on account of your acts and reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by (05) five stage with cumulative effect and with a further direction that you will not earn increments during the period of such reduction” as provided for in terms of Regulation 39(1)(a)(iv) and (b)(i) respectively of Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations 2010. Accordingly, the penalty inflicted on you will take effect from the date of this order.

03. It has been decided to treat the period spent by you under suspension as “not on duty”. Accordingly, you will not be eligible for any back wages and other attendant benefits other than what has already been paid to you by way of subsistence allowance.”

3. This was challenged in the writ petition by the aggrieved employee. The learned Writ Court did not interfere in the findings of the Enquiry Officer, but modified the penalty inter alia holding as under:

“8. In view thereof, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the charges which are held to be proved or not proved against the petitioner. However, it is also an admitted fact that where the punishment imposed is shockingly excessive or exorbitant, this Court can interfere with the said punishment by setting aside of the report of the Enquiry Officer or by modifying the punishment itself in order to shorten the litigation by giving cogent reasons submitted thereof. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 1st punishment is monetary recovery of Rs.1,65,000/-. It is claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire amount has been recovered by the bank from the bo