IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1364 of 2000 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 9.03.2000 in W.P.No.5842 of 1990 on the file of the High Court.) Between: S. Venugopala Rao .....Appellant And 1. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad. 2. The Managing Director, State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad. 3. The Disciplinary Authority and General Manager (Operation), State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad. .....Respondents Counsel for the appellant : Sri J. Sudheer Counsel for the respondents : Sri A. Krishnam Raju The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, C.J.) 1) The appellant was working as an officer in Junior Management Grade Scale-I in State Bank of Hyderabad. He was dismissed from service after holding a regular departmental enquiry. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the appellant had filed Writ Petition No.5842 of 1990, which was rejected on 9th March, 2000. Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed by the original petitioner. 2) The facts, as stated in the writ petition, in a nutshell are that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the appellant. Out of seven charges, the following charges had been proved and, therefore, by an order dated 2.5.1989, the appellant had been dismissed from service: “1) The charge-sheeted official encouraged middlemen who interfered in the disbursal of Bank loans, milch animals were not purchased in respect of ATL A/cs sanctioned. Rs.350/- per a/c was deducted while releasing cash and further an amount of Rs.65/- per a/c was received by him by raising debits to the a/cs without the knowledge of the borrowers through general debit vouchers. 2) He did not comply with the procedure prescribed by the bank in the purchase of cattle. While releasing 2nd instalment of ATLs for purchase of donkeys on 25th May, 1983, withheld a part of the loan amount and after borrowers’ protest credited at Rs.150/- each to 30 borrowal a/cs. 3) He sanctioned and released loans to defaulters of co-operative institutions in order to give them the benefit of subsidy. 4) He was negligent in follow up of 3 advances resulting in the a/cs becoming doubtful of recovery.” 3) After hearing the learned Advocates and looking to the facts of the case, the learned Single Judge rejected the petition. 4) The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was appointed by the Managing Director of the respondent Bank, whereas the order of dismissal was passed by the Chief General Manager, who was lower in rank than the Managing Director. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge ought to have quashed and set aside the order of dismissal. 5) Thereafter, it has been submitted by the learned Advocate that in the enquiry there was no evidence and yet, the appellant was dismissed from service. According to him, it was a case of ‘no evidence’. It has also been submitted by the learned Advocate that the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the appellant was very harsh and, therefore, the said punishment should not have been imposed. 6) It has been lastly submitted that officers, who were involved in similar offences, had not been dismissed from service, but only the appellant had been dismissed and, therefore, it amounts to discrimination. It has been submitted that the appeal be allowed and the order of punishment be modified. 7) On the other hand, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent bank has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge and has submitted that at the time when the appellant was dismissed from service, the appointing authority for Junior Management Officer Grade Scale-I officer was the Chief General Manager. He has, therefore, submitted that at the relevant time, the appointing authority being the Chief General Manager, who had dismissed the appellant from service, it cannot be said that the order of dismissal is bad in law. 8) It has been denied by the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent that there was no evidence to substantiate the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer. He has referred to the contents of the order passed by the disciplinary authority so as to substantiate his case that there was sufficient evidence to establish that the charges had been proved. 9) So far as discrimination is concerned, it has been submitted that no case of discrimination was made out by the appellant before the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the said submission cannot be made at the appellate stage. 10) With regard to the quantum of punishment, it has been submitted that normally, this Court would not look into proportionality of the punishment imposed. It has, however, been submitted that the appellant was working as an officer in the bank and severe charges with regard to misappropriation had been proved. Looking to the said fact, the respondent bank could not have spared such an officer and, therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service was just and proper. 11) We have heard the learned Advocates and have considered the facts of the case. 12) Upon perusal of the impugned order and the findings of the disciplinary authority, we are in agreement with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge. It is an admitted fact that the appointing authority of the appellant at the time when his services had been terminated by the impugned order of dismissal was the Chief General Manager. If Chief General Manager was the appointing authority at the relevant time, it cannot be said that the officer who had dismissed the appellant from service was subordinate to an officer, who had initially appointed him because of the change in the rules and regulations in view of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India v. S. Vijaya Kumar[1]. In our opinion, the authority, who had dismissed the appellant from service, was the appointing authority at the relevant time and, therefore, the order of dismissal cannot be said to be bad on that count. 13) Upon perusal of the findings of the disciplinary authority, we find that sufficient evidence was adduced in the course of enquiry so as to establish that the afore-stated charges were proved. For the afore- stated reason, and more particularly, normally, this Court would not re- appreciate the evidence adduced in the enquiry proceedings unless there is a case with regard to violation of principles of natural justice, and, therefore, we do not go into the said aspect. 14) So far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, it is settled law that this Court would, normally, not interfere with the order of punishment unless the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate. According to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India[2], Union of India v. Parma Nanda[3], Union of India v. G.Ganayutham[4] a n d Om Kumar v. Union of India[5], this Court, ordinarily, would not look into the quantum of punishment. Moreover, looking to the fact that the afore-stated charges had been proved, in our opinion, in a banking industry, no person who is charged with regard to misappropriation of funds can be continued in service. The appellant was holding a responsible post as an officer in the respondent bank. In our opinion, once it has been established that the appellant had misappropriated funds or had committed financial irregularities, the respondent employer would be justified in dismissing him from service. 15) So far as the submission with regard to discrimination is concerned, in our opinion, the said submission cannot be looked into at this stage for the reason that it had not been made before the learned Single Judge. Moreover, the appellant has not even placed on record cases similar to the one in which the appellant was involved and persons similarly situated had been treated leniently. In the absence of any such averment or evidence, this Court would not like to consider the said submission. 16) For the afore-stated reasons, we are in agreement with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 12th August, 2009 C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. ........REGISTRAR To 1. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad. 2. The Managing Director, State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad. 3. The Disciplinary Authority and General Manager (Operation), State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad. 4. Two CD copies. ARS [1] (1990) 4 SCC 481 [2] (1987) 4 SCC 611 [3] AIR 1989 SC 1185 [4] (1997) 7 SCC 463 [5] (2001) 2 SCC 386