IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD W.A.No.2323 of 2003 Between: G. Ratnachari .. Appellant AND The General Manager, Canara Bank, Bangalore and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: (per G. Bhavani Prasad, J) The Writ Appeal is against the order in W.P.No.8643 of 1991, dated 19-09-2002. The writ petitioner sought for quashing of the proceedings No.HYSO:10933:E.37:TSN/91, dated 05-01-1991 and the consequential proceedings No.HYSO:1930: E.37:91 WFM, dated 13-05-1991. He claimed that he was appointed as Agricultural Extension Officer on 03-04-1984 in Canara Bank and worked at Jampani, Guntur District and then at Kurnool. He was communicated a charge sheet by the Deputy General Manager, Circle Office, Canara Bank, Hyderabad, and informed about the proposal to hold an enquiry under Regulation VI of the Canara Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 in respect of the charge relating to the writ petitioner visiting the house of Sri S. Rami Reddy, demanding repayment of a loan No.AL Crop 338/84 sanctioned by the Kurnool branch on 5-11- 1984 for Rs.2000/-, which claim was later settled and the balance liability was written off. The writ petitioner was alleged to have promised Sri Rami Reddy to have the balance liability written off, if he paid Rs.2,000/- and collected the same from him on 28-04-1989 without issuing any receipt. He was also alleged to have unauthorisedly returned the ryot pass book to Sri Rami Reddy and to have not credited the amount to any account of the bank. Sri Rami Reddy was claimed to have made an oral complaint on which the writ petitioner was stated to have returned the amount taking back the ryot pass book. The writ petitioner was claimed to have obtained the signature of Sri Rami Reddy on a blank paper on 04-05-1989 and also a statement. Regulation 3 (1) and Regulation 24 of the Canara Bank Officers Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 were stated to have been violated and the writ petitioner was stated to have become liable for the said misconduct. The writ petitioner stated that he was placed under suspension pending enquiry on 19-08-1989 and the Junior Manager, Canara Bank, Eluru, was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who submitted his report on 08-10-1990. The findings were communicated to the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memo earlier and remarks on the findings later. The Deputy General Manager by the order dated 05-01-1991 imposed the punishment of removal from service and the appeal against it to the General Manager was disallowed on 21-04-1991. The orders dated 05-01-1991 and 13-05-1991 were without any reasonable opportunity to the writ petitioner and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The writ petitioner pointed out in the enquiry that the Manager of Canara Bank, Kurnool, who is inimical to him, engineered the plot and Sri S. Tulasi Reddy cited as a witness was sanctioned a loan of Rs.36,000/- on the guarantee of the complainant cited as MW.9. There were several contradictions in the version of the witnesses and MW.9. The Branch Manager testified that the writ petitioner did not remove any document from the bank unauthorisedly. Unless the two sets of keys with the Branch Manager and the officer-in-charge are operated, the safe cannot be opened for removing the document from it and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse, who gave undue weight to the version of the presenting officer. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from service without giving any reasons and there was total non-application of mind. The Appellate Authority also did not apply its mind and the documents relating to sanction of loan of Rs.36,000/- to MW.9, Sri Tulasi Reddy could not have been stated to be irrelevant. The writ petitioner claimed that he was made a scapegoat and hence, the writ petition. The respondent resisted the writ petition contending that on the complaint of Sri S. Rami Reddy orally through his son Sri Krishna Reddy on 03-05-1989, the misconduct came to light and a charge sheet with all the details was served on the writ petitioner and the Enquiring Authority found the writ petitioner guilty of the charges. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of removal from service, which shall not be a disqualification for a future employment and the writ petitioner filed an appeal and also W.P.No.3668 of 1991. The writ petition was dismissed with a direction to dispose of the appeal within three months and the dismissal of the appeal was communicated to the writ petitioner by proceedings dated 13-05-1991. The writ petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend himself and was defended by one of the officers of the bank as per Rules. The enquiry was adjourned from 24-02-1990 to 17-03-1990 at the request of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner did not let in any evidence and the application for a loan from Sri Tulasi Reddy, son of Rami Reddy was moved on 14-03-1990 whereas the evidence of Sri Tulasi Reddy was taken in January 1990 itself. The enquiry was conducted on 18-01-1990, 19-01-1990 and 24-02-1990 and was adjourned at the request of the writ petitioner to 17-03-1990. The loan application of Sri Tulasi Reddy was sponsored by the Self Employment Training Institute, Kurnool, due to which a loan of Rs.36,000/- was sanctioned. The writ petitioner cross-examined the witnesses and all the statements obtained during investigation were produced during the enquiry. When Sri Krishna Reddy complained, a colleague of the Manager was also present in the Manager’s cabin and the writ petitioner admitted during the enquiry about collecting Rs.2,000/- from Sri Rami Reddy, but failed to show in which account he credited the amount. The Manager, who received the oral complaint from Sri Rami Reddy, was transferred from Kurnool in June, 1999 and Sri Tulasi Reddy’s application was received by his successor. The writ petitioner had access to the loan documents as the officer-in-charge of the Loan Department. The evidence of Sri Raja Rao, a colleague of the writ petitioner and Sri Shankar Reddy, Sarpanch of the village, corroborated Sri Rami Reddy and the witnesses had no motives to implicate the writ petitioner. The Enquiring Authority, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority went through the entire record, appreciated the evidence and came to their own conclusions. The relevancy of the loan documents of Sri Tulasi Reddy was not established and no principles of natural justice were violated. When the integrity of the writ petitioner was doubtful, the punishment of removal was rightly imposed and hence, the respondents sought for dismissal of the writ petition with costs. In the impugned order, the learned Judge dealt with the rival contentions in detail and referred to the precedents cited. The learned Judge noted that the Apex Court laid down that the court will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in a domestic enquiry unless the finding of guilt is based on no evidence. The learned Judge also noted that the adjudication of a criminal case and a disciplinary proceeding are distinct and different. The Learned Judge found that at all the three stages, the evidence was thoroughly discussed by the authorities though the order of the Disciplinary Authority is not very elaborate. The learned Judge also observed that the Court cannot act as a fact finding authority unless the perversity in appreciation of evidence is palpably visible. Even on merits, the learned Judge found that there was sufficient material before the Enquiry officer to record a finding of guilt. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed without costs. The writ petitioner challenged the said order in the writ appeal contending that the discrepancies in the statements made by the Management and the evidence of the witnesses were ignored and the orders of the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority were without any application of mind. Whether there was legal evidence on record to prove the charge should have been seen and in view of the absence of any legal evidence and the infirmities and irregularities in the enquiry violating the principles of natural justice, the major punishment based on surmises and conjectures should have been set aside. Hence, the writ petitioner desired the impugned order to be reversed. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. The point for consideration is whether the finding of guilt and imposition of penalty are susceptible for interference on any factual or legal ground? The charge sheet containing the charge and statement of imputations was clear about the writ petitioner being fully aware of the liability in respect of the crop loan of Sri Rami Reddy being written off and in spite of it, the writ petitioner visited the house of Sri Rami Reddy where he left a chit of paper with Sri Tulasi Reddy mentioning Sri Rami Reddy’s name, the date and the amount of Rs.2,000/-. The events leading to collection of Rs.2,000/- by the writ petitioner and handing over of the ryot passbook to Sri Rami Reddy were stated in detail and the amount of Rs.2,000/- was stated to have not been credited to any account of the bank. When Sri Krishna Reddy, son of Rami Reddy complained to the Senior Manager of Kurnool Branch, the writ petitioner was stated to have admitted receiving Rs.2,000/- from Sri Rami Reddy and later the writ petitioner was stated to have returned the amount of Rs.2,000/- to Sri Rami Reddy and to have obtained the ryot pass book. The signature of Sri Rami Reddy was stated to have been obtained on a blank paper. Subsequent attempts by the writ petitioner to make Sri Rami Reddy sign a statement were also described. The charge sheet was duly served on the writ petitioner and the enquiry proceedings show that the writ petitioner denied the charges before the Enquiring Authority and the Presenting Officer was informed about the list of documents relied on and the details of the management witnesses. All the originals and copies of the documents were recorded to have been verified on behalf of the defence and copies of the statements have been received. The material on record also shows the manner of examination of the witnesses and the contents of their depositions and it is no doubt true that there was no cent percent identity in the versions of the witnesses. However, mathematical precision cannot be expected of oral evidence unless it is tutored and discrepancies are bound to occur in human testimony, more so, in view of the natural lapses of human memory due to passage of time. While a reanalysis and reappreciation of evidence before the Enquiring Authority does not appear called for, as to why the then Branch Manager of Kurnool plotted to involve the writ petitioner was not clearly alleged or satisfactorily probablised. Though as observed by the learned Single Judge, the proceedings of the Deputy General Manager/ the Disciplinary Authority were not very elaborate, the writ petitioner himself admitted in his appeal to the General Manager that he did not examine any witnesses in his defence and called for only the attendance sheet and the file relating to sanction of loan to Sri Tulasi Reddy. The file relating to Sri Tulasi Reddy, son of Rami Reddy was considered irrelevant by the Enquiring Authority and from the counter affidavit, it is seen that the Branch Manager, who was stated to be inimical to the writ petitioner and who was claimed to have plotted the entire story, was not the person, who received the loan application of Sri Tulasi Reddy and the said application was received by the successor and the details given in the counter affidavit clearly show that the loan was moved much later on 14-03-1990 after the evidence of Sri Tulasi Reddy and others was recorded in the enquiry earlier, more so, on the sponsoring of Sri Tulasi Reddy by the Self Employment Training Institute, Kurnool. Assuming that Sri Tulasi Reddy was sanctioned a loan on an application given to the successor of Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana, Senior Manager, subsequent to the recording of evidence in the enquiry, the alleged manipulation of a false complaint and evidence against the writ petitioner by Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana could not have been linked to any such loan. The contradictions between Sri Rami Reddy and his son about the source of Rs.2,000/- paid to the writ petitioner could not have been sufficient to throw out the entire story and it should also be remembered that a Disciplinary Enquiry is not governed by strict rules of evidence nor is any proof beyond all reasonable doubt required. In the appeal to the General Manager, the writ petitioner brought out all possible discrepancies between the witnesses during the enquiry, but the contradictions are not such material and glaring as to make the charge improbable or false. The learned Single Judge had gone through the orders of the authorities at all the three levels and satisfied himself about the required application of mind and acceptable reasons given by them. In fact, the Appellate Authority listed the 11 grounds on which the findings of enquiry were challenged and dealt with each of them in detail. The Appellate Authority noted that the chit given by the writ petitioner was not preserved by Sri Tulasi Reddy or Sri Rami Reddy and the enquiry report also noted the defence contentions in 10 aspects and answered each aspect separately. Having found no reasons to discredit the witnesses, the Enquiring Authority came to its conclusions concurred with by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. Though the dismissal of W.P.No.3668 of 1991 pending a decision in the appeal may not be relevant, the conclusions of the learned Single Judge with reference to settled principles cannot be interfered with in the absence of any strong grounds. The writ petitioner did not allege or prove any illegality or irregularity in the procedure of enquiry and the conclusion of guilt cannot be said to be based on no evidence. The writ appeal has to, therefore, fail and is accordingly dismissed without costs. _________________ B. PRAKASHRAO, J ____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 19-04-2011 Ksn