Telangana High Court
Kadavath Hari Singh vs The Director on 31 December, 2024
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION No.15714 of 2020
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus
declaring the action of respondents in not reviewing the
removal order vide order No.DPC/AO-2/HYD/VIG-405,
dated 15.03.2013 passed by respondent No.2 herein though
the petitioner was acquitted in the Criminal Case vide CC
No.636 of 2012, dated 27.06.2018, on the file of the Court
of the JFCM, Bodhan as illegal, arbitrary, unjust,
unreasonable and against the principles of natural justice
and consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate the
petitioner into service with all consequential benefits and to
pass such other order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition
are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a clerk-
cum-cashier on 17.07.1992 in the State Bank of India,
Adilabad Branch, Adilabad. Subsequently, he was
TMD,J
wp_15714_2020
2
transferred from Adilabad to Nizampet Branch, Medak
District in July, 1995 and from Nizampet Branch, he was
promoted as Assistant Manager (Credit) while working at
Binola Branch, Nizambad from November, 2001 to April,
2004 and worked as Assistant Manager (Advances) from
April, 2004 to November, 2006. Thereafter, the petitioner
was promoted as Deputy Manager and worked as Branch
Manager at respondent No.4 branch from December, 2006
to May, 2009. It is submitted that the petitioner was
selected as Best Branch Manager when working as Branch
Manager, Bodhan, Nizambad District and his branch was
given many awards due to his sincere and hard work.
However, while he was working as the Branch Manager at
Nizambad, certain allegations were made against him and
he was placed under suspension by the then Deputy
General Manager (Operations and Credit) and disciplinary
Authority, Regional Business Officer, Region IV, Hyderabad,
Administrative Unit-I, Hemadurga Sarada Galaxy, 1st floor,
TMD,J
wp_15714_2020
3
5-26/2, BHEL X Roads, Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad
vide Staff/con.No/f/23/29/11-12, dated 31.05.2011.
Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated vide
Charge Memo No.DPC/AO-2/Hyd/VIG 6, dated 06.07.2012
alleging that the petitioner has committed certain
irregularities/ lapses while he was working as Branch
Manager at Bodhan Branch during the period from October,
2006 to May, 2009.
The charges/allegations are as follows:
1. You have opened fictitious/ Benami Accounts and
disbursed the amount indiscriminately.
2. You have placed yourself in pecuniary obligation
with bank customers in violation of Service Rules
No.59 (i) of SBIOSR.
3. You have misused (diverted) the deposits that come
to the Bank and caused the breach of trust.
4. You have unauthorisedly debited BGL A/c.
No.9892705152 and credited to third parties
TMD,J
wp_15714_2020
4
accounts. Thus you have passed on pecuniary
benefit to others.
5. You have resorted to cover up operations by
debiting to another BGL A/c. No.97870051522
(Interest Income Cash Credit – SSI).
6. You have unauthorisedly debited the customer
accounts and credited the same to your relatives
accounts.
7. You have sanctioned loans to two customers on a
single unit.
8. You have given wrong confirmation.
9. You were absented from duty unauthorisedly.
10. Your above acts caused a likely loss of Rs.128.16
lakhs to the Bank.
3. It was further alleged that the above acts are violation
of Rule 15(4) of SBI Officers Service Rules. The petitioner
submitted his written statement of defense. The petitioner
further alleged that he was not furnished with any
TMD,J
wp_15714_2020
5
documents on the basis of which the above charges have
been framed and there were also no enclosure of names of
witnesses as required. Therefore, the petitioner addressed
a letter dated 14.08.2012 to the Deputy General Manager
(B&O) and Disciplinary Authority, SBI, Hyderabad
Administrative Officer- II, Patny Circle, Secunderabad,
stating that the very initiation of disciplinary proceedings
against him was illegal mainly on the ground that framing
of charges against him on 06.07.2012 after lapse of 14
months from the date of his suspension i.e., 31.05.2011, is
in violation of CVC Manual, Chapter VI, Paragraphs 6.8.2
and as per the said CVC manual, the charge sheet is to be
filed within a period of three months from the date of
suspension. It is further submitted that action was
initiated only against the petitioner herein, even though
alleged illegalities could not have been committed without
the connivance of other employees in the bank as there is
a double entry book keeping system and this fact clearly
TMD,J
wp_15714_2020
6
demonstrates that false and untenable allegations are
made against the petitioner with malafide intention to see
him out of his job in the Bank.
4. The petitioner also alleged that he was not paid
subsistence allowances from June, 2011 to September,
2011 and also other expenses such as cleaning material
and news paper bill etc, which is also in violation of
provisions of SBI OSR 68 A 7 (i) and that the charges
framed by respondent No.2 are after filing of charge sheet
by the police in the criminal case. However, the above
objections were not considered by the Enquiry Authority,
who was appointed by the Disciplinary Authority and he
proceeded with the Enquiry without furnishing the
documents on the basis of which the charge sheet was
issued to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the
petitioner had already submitted his written statements on
16.07.2012 and 27.08.2012 questioning the proceedings of
the Disciplinary Authority as illegal for the reasons stated
TMD,J
wp_15714_2020
7
above. Further, the petitioner, vide his letter dated
11.09.2012, has also requested the Enquiry Authority to
provide him certain documents to defend his case, but the
same was not furnished to the petitioner and no
opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend his case
and to prove his bonafides before the Enquiry Authority.
5. The Disciplinary Authority, thereafter passed the
order of dismissal vide No.DPC/AO-2/Hyd/Vig.405, dated
15.03.2013. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed WP
No.7152 of 2013 before this Court seeking a Writ of
Mandamus against the respondents challenging the
Disciplinary proceedings dated 16.08.2012 as unlawful,
illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The said Writ
Petition was, however, dismissed as infructuous vide orders
dated 24.04.2017. It is submitted that due to ill-health the
petitioner did not file any appeal within the prescribed
period against the final order of respondent No.2.
TMD,J
wp_15714_2020
8
6. It is submitted that in the meantime, the respondents
i.e., the Regional Manager, SBI Region, R.C. Puram,
Hyderabad has lodged a complaint before the police station,
Bodhan stating that an amount of fraud was involved and
substantial and approximate loss of Rs.167.38 lakhs has
been incurred therefor. As per the investigation report, an
amount of Rs.30 lakhs was recovered during the Bank
Inquiry and investigation revealed that there was
approximate loss of Rs.137.38 lakhs and an FIR No.418 of
2011 dated 28.11.2011 was registered by the police and
subsequently, a charge sheet dated 28.04.2011 was filed
and the matter was registered as CC No.636 of 2012 on the
file of the JFCM, Bodhan and the petitioner was acquitted
of the charges vide Judgment dated 27.06.2018 and no
appeal was preferred against such Judgment and thus the
Judgment has become final.
7. The petitioner further submits that after his dismissal
from service, he encountered various health problems and
TMD,J
wp_15714_2020
9
he was under medical treatment since July, 2009 and he
could not prefer an appeal against the order of dismissal
from service immediately, but he filed an appeal on
26.11.2018 specifically mentioning about the order of his
acquittal vide Judgment dated 27.06.2018. The appeal was
however rejected on the ground that there was lapse of five
years in filing of the appeal. It is submitted that due to ill
health and also due to unemployment, the petitioner could
not prefer the appeal within time and since there were no
sources of income, he and his family were put to starvation
and were facing many hardships and injury. Therefore, the
petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the
removal order and also the appellate order rejecting the
appeal as barred by limitation.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above
submissions and submitted that the Enquiry conducted
against the petitioner was in violation of principles of
natural justice as he was not provided with any of the
TMD,J
wp_15714_2020
10
documents, on the basis of which, the respondents have
passed the order of dismissal from service. He further
relied upon the following Judgments in support of his
contention:
1. ‘Desh Raj vs. Balkishan (D) through Proposed LRs’
(Civil Appeal No.433 of 2020 arising out of SLP
(Civil) No.6217 of 2019) 1.
2. State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Rajmati
Singh 2.
3. A. Laxminarayana Vs. District Collector (BCW),
Karimnagar and others 3.
4. Ramesh Chander Singh Vs. High Court of Allahabad
and another 4.
5. Union of India and others Vs. K.K. Dhawan 5.
6. Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another
Vs. Mst. Katiji and others 6.
1
AIR 2020 Supreme Court 621
2
2022 lawsuit (SC) 1486
3
2020 (5) ALT 1 (S.B.)
4
(2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 247
5
(1993) 2 Supreme Court Cases 56
TMD,J
wp_15714_2020
11
9. Learned senior counsel appearing for respondents
submitted that the petitioner has committed misconduct
while he was working as Branch Manager at Bodhan and
therefore, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and due
process has been followed while conducting the Enquiry
and before passing of final order, there was no objection
raised by the petitioner, at any point of time, about the
procedure adopted for enquiry and hence the petitioner
cannot be permitted to raise such grounds at this stage of
hearing and particularly when the petitioner did not prefer
an appeal before the appellate authority within the
prescribed period. He submitted that the petitioner has
filed the appeal only after he was acquitted from the
criminal case and the reasons given by the petitioner that
due to ill health, he could not file the appeal in time is not
supported by any evidence. He placed reliance upon the
following judgments in support of his contention about the
6
AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353
TMD,J
wp_15714_2020
12
maintainability of the Writ Petition and submitted that the
contentions raised by the petitioner are not sustainable.
(1) State of T.N. Vs. Thiru K.V.Perumal and others 7
(2) State of U.P. and others Vs. Ramesh Chandra
Mangalik 8
(3) Union of India through Secretary and others Vs. Udai
Bhan Singh 9
(4) Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage
Board and others Vs. T.T.Murali Babu 10
(5) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited
represented by Managing Director (Administration
and HR) Vs. C.Nagaraju and another 11
(6) State of Karnataka and another Vs. Umesh 12.
7
AIR 1996 SC 2474
8
AIR 2002 SC 1241
9
(2021) 11 SCC 393
10
(2014) 4 SCC 108
11
(2019) 10 SCC 367
12
(2022) 6 SCC 563
TMD,J
wp_15714_2020
13
10. A detailed counter affidavit has also been filed on
behalf of the respondents and both the parties have also
filed written arguments in support of their contentions.
11. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material
on record, this Court finds that the petitioner is alleging
violation of principles of natural justice in conducting of the
departmental enquiry by not furnishing of the documents
required by the petitioner and is further seeking a direction
to consider the judgment of the Criminal Court in
C.C.No.636 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Bodhan dt.27.06.2018 acquitting the petitioner
from all the charges leveled by the Bank. The Learned
Senior Counsel for the respondent bank, however, opposed
the same stating that the appeal has been filed with a delay
of 5 years and the petitioner has not given any reasonable
cause for such a delay. He has relied upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai
Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others
TMD,J
wp_15714_2020
14
Vs. T.T.Murali Babu (10 supra) to submit that the doctrine
of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside by
the High Court. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced
hereunder:
“16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be
lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the
explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The
court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary
and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a
duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is
to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an
aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the
court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under
legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage
should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the
way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may
not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would
only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of
the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a
litigant — a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms,
namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and
second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a
phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the
lis.
TMD,J
wp_15714_2020
15
17. In the case at hand, though there has been four years’
delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to
address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinise
whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any
justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated
approach gains more significance as the respondent employee
being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a
lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained
unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health.
We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously
oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On
the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others.
Such delay may have impact on others’ ripened rights and may
unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable
realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained
finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such
indolent persons — who compete with “Kumbhakarna” or for
that matter “Rip Van Winkle”. In our considered opinion, such
delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground
alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard
at the very threshold.
12. Therefore, this Court finds that it is important to
consider the issue of delay in filing of the appeal. It is also
important to note that the appeal has not been dismissed
on merits. This Court finds that the order of dismissal from
TMD,J
wp_15714_2020
16
service was passed in the year 2013, but the criminal case
has been disposed of in the year 2018 vide judgment
dt.27.06.2018 in C.C.No.636 of 2012 on the file of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bodhan. It is thereafter that
the petitioner has filed the appeal. The reasons given by the
petitioner for filing the appeal belatedly that he was not
having sources of income and also that he was suffering
from ill-health, though are not supported by any document,
cannot be said to be totally untrue. Further, when the
petitioner has alleged that he was not given the documents
required for defending his case, this Court finds that the
respondents ought to have considered the same. However,
the learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent
Bank has relied upon various judgments, wherein it is
stated that merely because the petitioner has required some
documents, they need not be provided and it is the burden
on the petitioner to prove that non-furnishing of such
documents has prejudiced his case. In this case, the
TMD,J
wp_15714_2020
17
petitioner has not shown as to how non-furnishing of the
documents required by him has prejudiced his case. It is
not his case that all the documents referred in the charge
memo or in the charge sheet have not been furnished to
him. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the
departmental enquiry is bad in law only because the
documents required by him have not been furnished to him,
cannot be said to be sustainable particularly since he has
not filed the appeal immediately thereafter challenging the
dismissal order. However, when on the very same facts and
circumstances, the criminal case has also been filed against
the petitioner and the same has ended in the acquittal of
the petitioner, the respondents ought to have considered
the appeal of the petitioner and also as to whether the
petitioner can be considered for reinstatement on the basis
of the said judgment in the criminal case.
13. Therefore, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct
the respondent authorities to review its order on the basis
TMD,J
wp_15714_2020
18
of the criminal Court judgment dt.27.06.2018 in
C.C.No.636 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Bodhan and to pass appropriate orders thereon
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
14. With these directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
15. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 31.12.2024
PLD/Svv