IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17317 of 2006 Between: Buvanagiri Krishnaiah Gandhi Prasad, s/o B.Krishnaiah, Andhra Bank, S.V.S.Medical College, Extension Counter, Mahabubnagar. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The General Manager (Personal), Andhra Bank, Head Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy General Manager, Andhra Bank, Head Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant General Manager (Personal) Andhra Bank, Head Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent vide Lr.No.666/20/V/T-705/232 dated 26-7-2006, confirming orders of 2nd and 3rd respondents dated 23-5-2006 and 28- 1-2006 respectively, as is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside and consequently direct the respondents to bring in status quo ante by placing the writ petition in the earlier post of J.M.G.S.-I officer from which he was reverted through impugned proceedings Lr.No.666/20/V/T-705/232 dated 26-7-2006 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.Y.ASHOK RAJ Counsel for the Respondent No.: DR.K.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner joined the 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 there for. In the year 2000, while working at Rajahmundry, the petitioner applied to the Life Insurance Corporation, to sanction loan for purchase of a house. A sum of Rs.5,25,000/- was sanctioned, and there is no controversy as to repayment of the instalments. Alleging that the petitioner furnished the salary certificate unauthorisedly to the LIC, the Andhra Bank issued a Memo, dated 9.9.2004. It was also alleged that the salary certificate of surety was also furnished in similar manner. Petitioner submitted his explanation. Not being satisfied with that, the bank issued charge sheet dated 24.3.2005. In the domestic enquiry, out of the three charges leveled against the petitioner, charge No.2 was held proved. A show-cause notice was issued, based upon the report of the enquiry officer. Petitioner submitted his explanation, dated 20.11.2005, and on consideration of the same, the 3rd respondent passed an order, dated 28.1.2006, imposing the punishment of reduction to a lower grade, i.e. from J.M.G.S-I Officer, to clerical cadre. Petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent, and the same was rejected on 23.5.2006. Review filed before the 1st respondent was also rejected. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner contends that except that he enclosed his pay-slip, along with the loan application to LIC, he did not file any document, in the name of the bank. He contends that the small discrepancy as to the salary in the form is an error, on the part of the officials of the LIC, and he never resorted to any acts of indiscipline. He submits that the hard earned promotion, through dint of hard work, was taken away from him, without any factual or legal basis. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, justifying the action taken against the petitioner. It is urged that in case, the petitioner wanted any certificate as to his emoluments, he ought to have filed necessary application before the bank, and instead, he enclosed his pay-slip, in the form of a salary certificate. Sri Y. Ashok Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the enquiry officer himself found that the two charges leveled against the petitioner were not proved, and even as regards the charge held proved, the finding is vague and contrary to record. He submits that a major punishment of this nature was uncalled for, from the facts of the case. Dr. K.Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that though no monetary loss can be said to have resulted to the respondents, being an employee in the cadre of officer, the petitioner ought not to have resorted to the acts attributed to him. He contends that the disciplinary authority, as well as the appellate authority, have taken the material on record, into account, and have arrived at a just and proper conclusion. The petitioner intended to avail loan, for the purpose of purchasing a residential flat at Rajahmundry. He approached the LIC. As required under the loan application, he was under obligation to furnish information about his emoluments. Since he was being issued a pay-slip every month, the petitioner enclosed the pay-slip, for the month of October 2000, in proof of the information about the emoluments. It was acted upon and the loan was sanctioned. Nearly four years after the loan was sanctioned and when the instalments were being remitted regularly, the bank issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, pointing out certain acts and omissions, on the part of the petitioner. Not being satisfied with the reply, the bank issued a charge sheet dated 24.3.2005, with the following charges: “1) 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. 2) 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 unauthorisedly certified false salary particulars for availing the loan from LICHF. 3) 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.” The enquiry officer found that charges 1 and 3 were not proved. However, as regards charge No.2, he held that the allegation is proved. If one closely examines the charges, it emerges that while charge No.1 is general in nature, charges 2 and 3 supply the particular instances. When the 1st charge itself was not held proved, it is difficult to reconcile the findings of the enquiry officer recorded by him, in his report. The only thing attributable to the petitioner is that he certified his earnings as Rs.16,403/-, as against Rs.15,403/-. If at all anyone, it was the LIC, that could have taken such an objection. Even for them, it would have become incompatible, on account of the fact that the petitioner had enclosed his salary certificate, and everything was available on record. Totally different things would have ensued, had it been a case where the petitioner quoted certain figures, without enclosing the necessary certificates. At any rate, the bank cannot be said to have suffered any detriment. It was not even suggested that but for the alleged misrepresentation, the LIC would not have sanctioned loan. An otherwise inconsequential typographical error, was sought to be projected, as a major issue, and the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. This court is of the view that the punishment of reverting the petitioner to a lower category, is totally uncalled for, in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not as if the petitioner became an officer of JMGS-I, by way of routine promotion. The selection to that post was on the basis of the performance in the written test and oral interview. The petitioner cannot be denied the position, which he acquired in stiff competition, on the basis of the trivial allegations made against him. At the most, increments could have been withheld, to remind the petitioner that he ought to have been careful in submitting the particulars in his loan application. 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. _______________ 9th April 2008 PAN