CH.CHANDRAMOULI v. TG.GRAMEENA BANK,CHAIRMAN/APPELLATE AUTH.,HYD,AND 3
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-12-06. CH.CHANDRAMOULI v. TG.GRAMEENA BANK,CHAIRMAN/APPELLATE AUTH.,HYD,AND 3. Read the judgment and...
Judgment text
I \7' I I I I I I I I 3300 [ ] i TELANGANA HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF i AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) I ! I I FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER I TWENW FOUR TWO THOUSAND AND ! i PRESENT JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA THE HONOURABLE SRI 412 0F 2016 WRIT PETITI ON NO: 31 Between: Occ Clerk-cum- (Died Ch Bhadrappa' Age 50 vears' 1. Ch. Chandramouli, -d;#;;;'-'i;';ril )S/o oec&n Grameena Bank)' cashier, Telansana lrt'Tnetti District' Mandal, Ransa Reddv Effi ffi ;priil;ir;t', r-ui[ilnaria ch age. 58. Rr/o vears' , $:mll'fi:i,'%1f"*i;:ffi! ,e . chandramouri' - Ranoa Reddv District E. *-hi'botonv K'V E. ii". rri-z'os/airlrleli', 19 dilnciramouti- Age. y-ears, occ student 3. chowdari Mahesh si;'H;ch. ' - Reddv District il;ii. Nd. 7-Ci t, tvtanoipat, K V Ransa 8tn:,8T,fi #r? lsil='ili'-'=';H',e',. "',^i'xf,? JtrilSiSl'i"'"'l"ll,Hi''*"' ... PETITIONERS AND Deccan Grameena Bank bank(Formerly 1. The Telangana Grarneena .. No' Autn5ritv' H'No' 2-1'520' street Reoresented u, it.
cf,lii,ilirniieiilie g. -fr aitat<unta, Hyderabad- 500060 lT) H. No. 2- Manager (Administration and 2. The Discipti""rv nrtfi5fiil1,"6"""^iiat ' - 500060 i:it2o','i)-tr6;i N6. g, iitattakunta, Hvderabad ,[li,5;SfA:lryip3j:ili. ;g#{tu€',1s"^r,:ngU*(5,tfl "'fi i "fffi Parigi Branch' Ranga Reddv Deccan Grameena Bank' o. ? fl313P;""n Manager, District. ... RES'ONDENTS PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe Court may be affidavit filed therewith' the High circumstances stated in the or Direction' more particularly a Writ in the nature pleased to issue a Writ, Order Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the 2nd respondent vide of '15-10-2015 in imposing the punishment of Lr. No. Gr. Vll/20 15-1615434, dated removalfrombanksservicewhichshallnotbeadisqualificationforfuture by the 1st and the confirmation orders passed employment on the Petitioner RespondentvideLr. No. Gr.
Vllt2ol6-17t11g1'dated18-5-20l6withoutfollowing - any procedure contemplated under law, without exam:ning none of the customers even though one ,rf the similarly situated employee of the bank was given minor punishment inspite of the charges proved against him as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the rules and set aside the orders passed by the 2nd Respondent Lr. No. Gr. Vlr/20. r 5- 1615434, dated 15-10-2015 and . l"r confirmation orders passed by the Respondent vide Lr. No. Gr. vlll2o16-17t1191, dated 18-5-2016 by directing the Respondents to re-instate the Petitioner into service as clerk cum cashier with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice l. A. NO: 'l OF 2016(wPMP.
NO:38859 oF 2016t Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to continue petitioner the as clerk cum cashier in the Respondent Bank by suspending the orders passed by the 2nd respondent vide Lr. No. Gr. Vll/2015-1615434, dated i5-10-2015 and confirmation orders passed by the 1st Respondent vide Lr. No. GrlVlll2016-17111g1, dated 18-5-2016 in the interest of justice pending disposal of the Writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RAVI KUMAR VADLAKONDA Counsel forthe Respondents: SRt S. MUJIB KUMAR, SC FOR TELANGANA GRAMEENA BANK The Court made the following: ORDER NAGESH BHEEMAPAXA HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE oF 2016 N No. 31412 UIRIT OR DER: i questlon the order of the 2'd !
Petitioner calls in I ) General Manager Authority I Disciplinary respondent - I imposing the dated 15 1O'2O15 (Administration & IT), : shall not be a from service which punishment of removal I I on petitioner and employment for future disqualifrcation i I I I confirmationorderspassedbythel$respondentTelangana i I order dated Authority by Grameena Bank Appellate - I i r8. 05. 2016. i I is that while he was working case of petitioner 2. The ! atleging misappropriation i as OIIice Assistant' at Parigi Branch t I the 2"d respondent - Rs'4,8O0/ -' of Rs. 10,OOO/-and i I I passed the impugned t Disciplinary Authority/ Genera' Manager t: lst thereagainst to the Appeal preferred order of remova-l.
Bank (formerly' Chairman, Telangana Grameena respondent - DeccanGrameenaBank)wasrejected,confirmingtheorderof removal'Petitionerstatesthatrespondents,inacasualmanner imposed the punishment According to conducted enquiry and of Sri J' Krishna Mohan' Cashier-cum-petitioner, in the case was charged for Branch who Clerk, Neredigonda I I misappropriat. ion of funds, the same disciplinary authority imposed minor punishment of reduction of basic pay by two stages for a period of two years and he was reinstated into service, but in the sarne set of facts, petitioner was imposed major punishrnent of removal. I I 3. Respondents filed counter-a-ffidavit stating that petitioner wilfully did not credit the amount deposited by the 4th respondent bzrnk's customers Venkateshwara - Banjara MPS at I Rs. 1O,OO0/- rnd Srinidhi Mahila Sangam at Rs. 4,800/- on 02. O9. 2013 and 72. 71. 2013, after the said customers complained tc the bank, they came to know t1.
e fraud played by I I petitioner and therefore, issued him show cause notice. i i I According to respondents, misappropriation of funds is a j I serious fralrcl, particularly in banks ald staff member concerned cannot be allowed to take shelter ing it as 'mistake' and 'minor' in nature. It is stated that petitioner did not bring to the notice of the bank the factum of receiving cash from custonrers and not crediting to the respective accounts, hence, it can safely be concluded that the conduct of petitioner tantamounts I,o misconduct as petitioner has not brought to the notice of thc bank about non-crediting of cash by him rill the customers cornplained about the fraud and only therezrftcr, hc t /,' deposited the amount into t. Ile customers' accounts. The explanation grven by petitioner is not satisfactory, hence, charge memo was issued as he voluntarily confessed his wrongs.
It is j also stated that misconduct of petitioner is borne out by i l documentar5r evidence and Enquiry Officer rightly considered , i such evidence ald submitted his report; the 2. d respondent properly appreciated tJ:e evidence and imposed the punishment after following due process. The Appellate Authority also independently analysed the evidence on record and conhrmed the punishment. It is further stated that the facts and circumstances in the case of Sri J. Krishna Mohan are different from the one on hand, therefore, he cannot compare his case wirh him. 4. During pendency of Writ Petition, petitioner died, hence, his legal representatives i. e. wife and son were brought on record uide order dated 08. 02. 2O24 in I. A. No. I of 2024. 5. Heard Sri Vadlakonda Ravi Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Bank Sri Mujib Kumar Sadasivuni. 6.
karned Standing Counsel submits that a bank ofhcer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity; every oflicer employee of the bank is required to take / all possiblt: steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, hones[r, devotion and diligen,:e and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer; goo'C conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every oflicer / employee of bank. Hence, he contends that the impugned orders are not required to be interfered uith. He relied, in this regard, on tl. e judgment of the Hon'ble Su;rreme Court in Cltairrrrra;n dtud. Managlng Director, United. Colmm,ercio,l Bank p. C. Kakkort. u. 7.
A perusal of the material documents hled by petitioner uide merno and the averments of writ alfidavit as well as the coun:er and on hearing learned counsel on either side, it is evident rhat petitioner in the writ alfidavit stated that if any mistakes have becn occurred, they are minor in nature which are done neither intentionally nor negligently but due to lack of computer krLou,ledge; without checking the account number, he entered the amoun[ in the passbooks of the customers as that was a busy day and he thought he can update in the bank computer system later; later on, when he started updating in the bank c()ntpuLer system, he found wrong account numbers in the vouchers; and also in the counter_foils of two customers; a immediatcl,v, he called those two customers and handed over ' 1:oo;1+ scr' .
;6 : t I the counterfoils and money and asked them to write correct Petitioner also but they did not tum up' account numbers, l 30'09'2015 to representation dated l, submitted his explanation / I to drop further action; the notice dated 15. 09. 2015 requesting I issues took certain irrelevant he had stated that Enquiry Offrcer I I the documents ME2' ME16' l and with curiosity did not consider accepted MEg, MEl1, DEI and DE2 where customers clearly : i financial Ioss and neither any that there was no I I I hled documents along misappropriation of money' Petitioner i I 2023 which were taken on record' with a memo in September, by Venkateswara Banjara Mahila Sangam The letters addressed I Sangam dated 15'O5'2O15 disclose and Srinidhi Mahita Podupu i in the bank; as the account that they sent amount to deposit I I I number was wrongly mentioned, the amount was returned and thereafter on 13-12.
2013 and 1l'L2'2O23' they again got the has amount deposited in their accounts ald cashier concerned the said transactions' no connection with of customers that the clear depositions 8. In view of loss, this Court is of tJle opinion that they did not sustain any said had not considered the the disciPlinary authoritY on punishment of removal imPosed depositions and the disproportionate to the gravity of petitioner is harsh and i t I i I I tl misconduc,t. Had he been alive, this Court would have ordered his reinstatement, in the circumstances. Unfortunately, it is brought to the notice of this Court, petitioner died on 2O. 7I. 2O2:\. Consequent to his death, his wife and son carne on record as petitioners 2 and 3 as legal representatives. 9. Petitioner No. 1 produced a copy of the Circular dated 21 72. 2023 for implementation of compassionate appointment scheme in RRBs-Clarification from DFS, MoF, Gol, in terms ol paragraphs 8. 1 and g.
2 of the Scheme, application for employment under the Scheme from eligible dependents should nornally be considered up to five years from tJle date of death or retirement on medical grounds and decision to be taken on rnerit in each case. However, bank can consider ,. request for compassionate appointment i when the death or retirement (ln i medical grounds of the employee took place long back, even five _vears ago. Keeping this in view, RRBs are advised to,:onsider the etigibte applicants for appointment on I I t compassionate grounds; in I terms of paragraph g. 2 of the I I Scheme, in case the death of the employee had occurred within i ! five years preceding the adoption ol the Scheme, subject to the I f other conditions laid dou,n in the said Scheme. Learned i i Standing Counsel for Bank submits that ,. this Circular has no i t \, \ t application to the case of petitioners for, her husband died he was removed from service.
The said contention, in the factual backdrop narrated supra and also in view of the conclusion arrived at by this Court, does not hold good. It is deemed therefore, appropriate to direct respondent bank to consider the feasibitity of appointing the 2'a petitioner on compassionate grounds. 10. The Writ Petition is therefore, disposed of directing the respondent bank to consider the case of petitioner No. 2 on compassionate grounds consequent to death ofher husband i'e' petitioner No. 1 , forthwith- No costs. 1 I . Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if shall s[and closed' sD/- ASSI T ,/TRUE COPY/I ECTION OFFICER To, ? ,? "n. 8'fJliiL^Bi:T,$,:ff{,1'",*r? iiKlr::? 8. ':3i,""i'*t 'I::". "#,1ffi b. -fi attafunta, Hvderabad- 500060 ard 2. The Disciplinary Authorrty/, Genera. l ManaOer,(illlnistration cuuuou. ' 1-520. Stieet No. 9, Nallakunta, Hyderabao - . ix. sii::g*,$:fi :r',lyo"roTf a8ii,i:1ru8{n,€rg'^r'lruxa*(5,fl o ?
fl3o$P;*n Manager, Deccan Grameena Bank' Parigi Branch' District. toPUCl vADlAtlo-tloS. n!. yocate s 6it'Ec to SRl. RAVI KUMAR 6. SiiE 6d i6 sAi s. r',ruirE'iitir',rnii, sd'ionriLeruenNAGRAMEENA BANK [OPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies BM PSK v HIGH COURT DATED:0611212024 tta /G k c t r 4it -*i I'A'rC ifiitt ORDER WP. No. 31412 of 2016 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I \,5 I
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.