HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A. No. 905 of 2008 DATED: 08.08.2011 Between:- The General Manager The Dy. General Manager The Asst. General Manager .. Appellants A N D Sri Buvanagiri Krishnaiah Gandhi Prasad .. Respondent JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Appeal arises out of the order dated 09.04.2008 passed in W.P. No. 17317 of 2006 by the learned Single Judge, wherein it is observed as follows: “For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. In the place of punishment of reversion to the clerical cadre, the punishment of withholding of one annual increment, for a period of two years, without cumulative effect, shall stand imposed against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.” The brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein, who is the writ petitioner, joined service of the Andhra Bank in the year 1982, as a Clerk. He was promoted to the Junior Management Grade Scale- I, in the year 1986 on the basis of his performance in the written test and interview, conducted therefor. In the year 2000, while working at Rajahmundry, the respondent applied to the Life Insurance Corporation for sanction of loan for purchasing a house. A sum of Rs.5,25,000/- was sanctioned and there is no controversy as to repayment of the instalments. While so, the Andhra Bank, alleging that the respondent herein furnished the salary certificate unauthorisedly to the LIC, issued a Memo, dated 09.09.2004. It was also alleged that the salary certificate of surety was also furnished in similar manner. The respondent submitted his explanation. Being not satisfied with that the Bank issued charge sheet dated 24.03.2005. In domestic enquiry, out of the three charges framed against the respondent herein, Charge No.2 was held proved. A show cause notice was issued based upon the report of the enquiry officer. The respondent submitted his explanation, dated 20.11.2005, and on consideration of the same, the 3rd appellant-Assistant General Manager, Andhra Bank, passed an order, dated 28.01.2006 imposing punishment of reduction to a lower grade i.e. from J.M.G.S-I Officer to clerical cadre. The respondent preferred an appeal to the 2nd appellant-Deputy General Manager and the same was rejected on 23.05.2006. Review filed before the 1st appellant-General Manager was also rejected. Challenging the order passed by the General Manager, the respondent filed the writ petition in W.P. No. 17317 of 2006 and this Court, by order dated 09.04.2008, allowed it in terms as aforementioned. Assailing the same, the appellants-Bank have preferred the present Writ Appeal seeking to set aside the order dated 09.04.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge. The charges framed by the Andhra Bank against the respondent herein are as follows: i) You have availed a housing loan of Rs.5.25 lakhs from LIC Housing Finance Limited (LICHF), Rajahmundry on 16.11.2000, for purchase of Flat No.E-1, Fourth Floor in Akhil Apartments, D.No. 76-1-17, Gandhipuram – 2, Rajahmundry-3 by submitting fake and fictitious documents. ii) You have certified your own salary particulars in the “employer’s certificate’ dated 10.11.2000 (as per the proforma of LICHF), in the capacity of an authorized signatory without having any such authority to do so. While certifying the salary particulars, you have fraudulently certified your earnings as Rs.16,403/- as against Rs.15,403.10; and your deductions as Rs.2,273/- as against Rs.11,346.13; thereby inflating your net salary/pay. Thus, you have submitted and unauthorizedly certified false salary particulars for availing the loan from LICHF. iii) You have, in the capacity of an authorized signatory, without having any such authority to do so, certified the salary particulars in the ‘employer’s certificate’ dt.15.11.2000 (as per the proforma of LICHF) pertaining to one Mr.K.Venkateswara Rao, purportedly working at Regional Office, Rajahmundry, who stood as guarantor for the loan availed by you. However, no such person was working at Regional Office, Rajahmundry, during the relevant period.” Sri K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Bank appearing on behalf of the appellants has contended that the learned Single Judge committed serious error in substituting the finding of the disciplinary authority with the punishment of withholding one annual increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect, which is uncalled for and impermissible under law. He has further contended that either the imposition or modification of the punishment is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority. In support of his argument, he has relied upon a judgment reported in V.S.P. v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu[1] wherein the Apex Court held to the following effect: “The jurisdiction of the High Court in this regard is rather limited. Its power to interfere with disciplinary matters is circumscribed by well-known factors. It cannot set aside a well- reasoned order only on sympathy or sentiments. Once it is found that all the procedural requirements have been complied with, the Courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. The superior Courts only in some cases may invoke the doctrine of proportionality. If the decision of an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the jurisdiction would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands proved.” He has also submitted that under the Andhra Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981, one of the major penalties which may be imposed on an officer employee, for acts of misconduct or for any other good and sufficient reasons, is reduction to a lower grade or post, therefore, the disciplinary authority has rightly imposed the punishment which cannot be interfered with, and prays to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. Sri Surender Rao, learned counsel for the respondent – delinquent officer, has vehemently contended that even though the disciplinary authority has observed in his proceedings that the respondent-delinquent officer has committed fraud by making deliberate attempt to cheat the Andhra Bank, the same is not fortified with the finding given by the enquiry officer in his report. Nonetheless, it is submitted that there is some glaring mistake on the part of the delinquent officer, for which the learned Judge rightly modified the punishment of major penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority, and the same cannot be interfered with, and prays to dismiss the writ appeal. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. It is an undisputed fact that Charge No.2 out of three charges framed against the respondent – delinquent officer, is proved beyond reasonable doubt. From a perusal of the employer’s certificate signed by the respondent for obtaining loan, it is obvious that the respondent furnished particulars by inflating his actual net pay, however that does not mean that the charged officer has any fraudulent intention whatsoever to cause any loss or damage to the Andhra Bank, but the very act signified that the charged officer furnished his false salary particulars only with a view to deriving some benefit by way of getting more loan than he is actually eligible for. In fact, it is not even the case of the appellants that the Andhra Bank has sustained any pecuniary loss by reason of more loan being sanctioned to the respondent. Further, the finding of the disciplinary authority that the charged officer made deliberate attempt to fraud the appellants is not in consonance with the report of the enquiry officer. That apart, it is to be noticed that in case the appellants had been on the premise that the respondent had fraudulent intention, the respondent would not have been sanctioned the loan. However, having regard to the fact that Charge No.2 is said to have been proved against the respondent in furnishing false salary particulars for obtaining more loan than his eligibility, by act of which, the appellants have not sustained any monitory loss or damage, and the fact that there is no fraudulent intention on the part of the respondent, we are of the opinion that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority on the respondent on the basis of the proved misconduct, seems to be shockingly disproportionate or highly excessive and is too harsh which pricks the judicial conscience of the Courts. Further, in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court cited supra that the jurisdiction of this Court is rather limited and its power to interfere with the disciplinary matters is circumscribed by well-known factors and it cannot set aside a well-reasoned order only on sympathy or sentiments, we hold that it is a fit case for remanding the mater to the disciplinary authority for fresh consideration and imposition of suitable punishment. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Appeal is partly allowed and the order dated 09.04.2008 passed in W.P. No. 17317 of 2006 by the learned Single Judge is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority for fresh consideration and imposition of less punishment than the reduction to lower grade i.e. from Junior Management Grade Scale-I Officer to clerical cadre. It is made clear that this exercise shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 08.08.2011 ________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J bcj [1] (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 569