The Executive Director Of Syndicate Bank vs. K V Subrahmanyam
Original PDF →Facts
The appellants, Syndicate Bank (now Canara Bank), are appealing an order dated August 23, 2022, by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. The respondent, a retired employee of the Bank, was initially appointed in 1974. While working as Senior Branch Manager in 2010, he allegedly granted overdraft facilities totaling Rs. 48,00,000/- each to three non-existent firms without verification, causing financial loss to the Bank. A charge memo was issued on August 16, 2010. The respondent retired on August 31, 2010, but disciplinary proceedings continued. The disciplinary authority imposed dismissal from service on January 10, 2012, which was confirmed by the appellate authority on July 11, 2012. The respondent then filed a writ petition, which was allowed by the Single Judge, who set aside the dismissal and modified the punishment to a stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect.
Held
The Court held that the learned Single Judge was justified in concluding that the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate to the charge levelled against the respondent. This conclusion was based on the admitted fact that the three firms had valid registrations (SSI, GST, VAT) and that their loan accounts were settled under a One Time Settlement Scheme, indicating no financial loss to the Bank. Furthermore, the respondent had rendered 36 years of service with a solitary charge in his entire career. However, the Court found that the learned Single Judge ought to have examined the matter and remanded it back to the appellants to impose any other punishment other than dismissal or removal, rather than modifying the punishment directly. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the appellants to impose a punishment other than dismissal/removal, taking into consideration the respondent's long service and solitary charge.
Key Issues
1. Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in interfering with the punishment of dismissal imposed by the disciplinary authority, considering the grave nature of the misconduct alleged against the respondent? 2. Whether the punishment of dismissal from service was shockingly disproportionate to the charge levelled against the respondent, particularly in light of his 36 years of service and the fact that this was a solitary charge? Contentions of the Appellants (Syndicate Bank): The appellants argued that the enquiry report dated April 20, 2011, proved the charge against the respondent. They contended that the respondent was given every opportunity in the enquiry and that the disciplinary authority rightly imposed dismissal due to the grave nature of the allegations. The appellants argued that the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the punishment of dismissal and modified it to a stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. Contentions of the Respondent: The respondent argued that no witnesses were examined to prove he extended overdraft facilities to non-existent firms. He contended that the learned Single Judge was justified in holding the punishment disproportionate, citing his 36 years of service and the fact that disciplinary proceedings were initiated just before his retirement. The respondent also argued that the firms had valid registrations (SSI, CST, VAT) and collateral security was taken, and that the overdraft limits were settled under a One Time Settlement Scheme, implying no loss to the Bank. He further argued that the firms were in existence.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
r") HON'BI-E SRIJUSTICE ABIIINAND KUMAR SHAVILI A\-t) HON'BLE SRI .IUSTICE ANII, KU]\{AR JUKANTI w 769 of 2022 JUDGMENT- (Per Han'hlr .\'n.ln,tu,t . littuta lanttr.\.irtut/i) Aggrieved by the order dated 23.08.2022 passed in \X/.P.No.29660 of 2013 by the leamed Single Judge, the present writ appeal has been filed.
Fleard Sri AKrishnam Raju, leamed Standing C-ounsel appearing for the appellanm and Sri N.Vijan learned counsel appearing for the resPondent.
It is the case of the appellanls that imtially the respondent was appointed as an Officer in the appellant-
2 Bank on 24.11.1974 and after rendering considerable Iength of service, he was promoted to various posts. \X.4'rile he was u,orking as Senior Branch Manager ul Sitarambagh Branch, Hyderabad, during 2010, he had involved in certain irregularities by granting overdraft facility to a tunc of Rs.48,00,000/- each to three non- existent [Lmu vb., M/s.Shiva Metal Industries, M/s. Vasudev Food Products and M/s. Rajya Lakshmr Foods, without verilying the fact as to whether the said three fimu are functioning or not, due to which, the Bank has suffered huge financial loss. The disciplinary authority has initiated disciplinary proceedings agarnst the respondent and issued a charge memo on 16.08.2010. Pending the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent has retired fircm service on 31.08.2010. Even after his retirement, the disciplinary proceedings were continued. ,.L
-7 After conducting a detailed enquiry and for the proven misconduct, the disciplinary authoriry has imposed the punishment of dismissal from serwice ide orcler dated 10.01.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent has prefer-red an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority had confirrned the order o1' removal uide order dated 1L.07.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent has approached this C-ourt by filing V.P.No.29660 of 2013. kamed Single JLrdge allowed the writ petition uide order dated 23.08.2022 by sening aside the order of dismissal and modified the punishment of dismissal to that of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect, and without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellants. Hence, the present writ appeal.
.t 04. lramed Standing C.ounsel appeanng for the appellants had contended that in the enquiryrePort dated 2O.O4.2OLL, the Enqury Officer has specifically held that the charge levelled against the respondent was proved and every oppottunity was given to the respondent in the enquiry and the discipiinary authoriry has rightly imposed the punishment of dismissal as the allegation levellled against the rcspondent was grave in nature. karned Standing Counsel had further contended that the leamed Single Judge ought not to have rrterfered with the punishment of dismissal and modified the same to that of stoppage of two incrcments without cumulative effect. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ apped, by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. e:i
5
Leamed counsel appearing for the respondent had contended that in the charge memo, it was alleged that the respondent along with Amn Ktrmar Sarda, Chartered Accountant, had indulged in ir:regulanties and illegally sanctioned loan to three non-existent. firrns Leamed counsel had further contended that no uitnesses were examined to prove that the respondent ertended the overdraft faciliry in favour of the said three non- existent firms. kamed counsel had further contended that the leamed Single Judge was justified in holchng that the punishment imposed against the respondent is shockingly disproportionate to that of the charge levelled against him as the respondent has rendered 36 yean of service with the appellant-Bank and just before his retirement, the appellants have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent. Leamed cor'' \ I I
6 further contended that since the rcspondent has rendered 36 years of seruice, the appellants ought to have imposed lesser punishment other than dismissal from serwice and if the respondent was allowed to rerire on compuisoqy retiement, he would get some benefits. Therefore, the lear:ned Single Judge has rightly inter{ered with the order of dismissal on the ground of proportionality. Leamed counsel had further contended that in the entire career of the respondent, rhis is the lone charge and the respondent has pennitted the above firms to utilize the overdraft facthty after being satisfied that the aforesaid three firms viz., M/s.Shiva Metal Industries M/s. Vasudev Food Products and M/s. Rajya Lalshmi Foods had SSI Registration Certrficare, CST Registration Grtificate, and VAT Registration Crrtificate and the respondent has taken collateral secur{ry of immovable t I II
Ff,@-e-:-z './ 7 properqi from the said three firms on rhe ground that the appellant-Bank would not suffer financial losses A6. kamed Standing C-ounsel appearing for the appellant-Bank had contended that the overdraft limit of the accounrs of the said three firrns was settled by the appellant-Bank under One Time Settlement Scheme. 07. karned counsel appearing for the respondenr had contended that the overdraft limir of the accounts of the said three firms vras semled under One Time Serdement Scheme, which would mean rhat no loss was caused to the appellant-Bank, but this fact was also taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge has rightly interfered with the punishment of dismissal on the ground of proportionaliry karned counsel appearing for the l i I
rc \, :..,d# \ '.. ti r. rcspondent had further contended that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the fact that sufficient collaterai securiry was hken by the respondent and the said three fir:rns were in existence. Thereforc, there are no merits in the writ appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed
Flaving considered the rival submissions made by the leamed counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that since the three firms viz., M/s.Shiva Metal Industries, M/s. Vasudev Food Products and M/s. Rajya Lakshmi Foods had valid registrations i..., SIS Registration, GST Registration and VAT and C Registrations, which fact has also been admitted by the appellants in the counter filed before the learned Single Judge, and the loan accounts of the said three firms were settled by the appellant-Bank under One Time
9 Senlemcnt Scheme. As rhe respondent has rendered J6 years of selice in the appellant-Banh the leamed Single Judge was justified in coming to the conclusion that the punishrnent of dismissal from service IS shockingly disproportionate to the charge levelled against the respondent, however, learned Single Judge ought to have examined the rnatter and remanded back to rhe appellants to impose any other punishment orher rhan dismissal or removal and the leamed Single Judge was not justified in modifying the punishment.
Therefore, the rnatter is remanded back to the appellants to impose any other punishment other than dismissal/removal against the respondent by duly taking into consideration the fact that the respondenr has rendered 36 lears of service in the appellanr-Bank and he was involved in solitarycharge in his entire career. I , ,A l0 To, 10. $7ith the above observations, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendins shail stand closed. K. SAIL HI DEPUTY REGIS //// SECTION FICER Two CD Copies 1 2 3 4 6 BSRU/ GJP :+r,N{'l*,ll,,.+*a#*{il[?[.x,;i:1g,::1ffi jiiir m,?xrFl:n.l;*flf; ; ",i J::"3iilJ"'lfj'3']'"' "3" "i'l' 6'' ni " o i't'i"t 5x'J'"tS-e ttfil"A. ^*,., *o* RAJ u, s c. Fo R BAN K [oP u c] Uli: EE iI Siiii'iViiAv, Advocate roPUCl
HIGH COURT DATED: 1910912023 -a.-a' .f JUDGMENT WA.No.769 of 2022 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL, WITHOUT COSTS 1[ BIT 2[B ; .r,- \ I i
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.