HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 18413 OF 2019

O R D E R:

Petitioner seeks to declare the proceedings issued by the 2^nd respondent dated 27-09-2018, order of rejection passed by the 1^st respondent (Appellate Authority) vide letter dated 07-03-2018, and the consequential rejection of review petition communicated through proceedings dated 09-07-2019, as illegal, arbitrary, and therefore liable to be set aside.

2. Petitioner was appointed as Officer-JMGS-I on 09-11-1985 and was subsequently, promoted as Officer MMGS- III on 18-12-2013. In his career, he rendered service at various places and consistently maintained an unblemished service record. He served as Manager of Uppal Branch, Hyderabad from 04-11-2001 to 01-10-2004 and thereafter, at Laxminagar Branch, Hyderabad from 25-04-2014 to 29-10-2015.

While the matter stood thus, the Disciplinary Authority/Chairman issued charge memo dated 30-04-2016 alleging that petitioner was negligent in discharge of duties which is likely to cause loss to the respondent bank. A list of witnesses and documents to be relied upon by the disciplinary authority was appended to the charge sheet. Petitioner is stated to have submitted a detailed explanation denying the charges and sought that no further action be taken against him. However, disciplinary authority appointed Sri A. Shankar Goud, Officer SMGS-IV/Chief Manager, TGB, Sitharampally Branch as Enquiry Officer who submitted report on 13-06-2017, holding the charges proved. Petitioner alleges that Enquiry Officer did not take into consideration his defence and failed to provide an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the Presenting Officer; Enquiry Report is biased, perverse, and enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the Service Regulations of the Bank.

It is stated, pursuant to the Enquiry Officer’s report, the 2^nd respondent issued show cause notice dated 25-07-2017 proposing punishment of reduction of basic pay by three stages from Rs.54,410/- to Rs.50,030/-, for a period of three years as per the Bank’s pay structure. The notice stated that petitioner would not earn any increments or be eligible for promotion during the said period and that reduction would have the effect of postponement of future increments, which would be earned after the said three-year period at the rate of one increment per year. Petitioner contends that the show cause notice is illegal and arbitrary, as it disclosed predetermined mind of the disciplinary authority by proposing the punishment upfront, contrary to settled legal principles. Therefore, he sought extension of time and thereafter, submitted explanation dated 28-08-2017 requesting the 2^nd respondent to drop the proceedings as he always acted in Bank’s interest and that he received several commendations for performance. He emphasized that he had only left with 30 months of service and proposed punishment was not feasible. He urged that punishment be dropped, and his explanation dated 28-08-2017 be treated as part of the enquiry. However, without properly considering his explanation, the 2nd respondent, by proceedings dated 29-09-2017, imposed the punishment as proposed.

Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed Appeal which was rejected by order dated 30-01-2018. According to petitioner, the appellate authority did not consider the Appeal in a proper and fair manner, nor were the merits of the Appeal taken into consideration. Therefore, he preferred review petition before the 1^st respondent, but it was also dismissed by order dated 09-07-2019.

Petitioner contends that based on the same set of allegations made in the disciplinary proceedings, a criminal case was registered against him in C.C.No.427 of 2018, arraying him as Accused No.3; charge sheet was also filed but trial has not commenced. It is pointed out that Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry proceedings without awaiting the outcome of the criminal case.

3. The General Manager-I (Admin) of the respondent bank sta