The disciplinary authority has failed to take into account the documents submitted by the petitioner and has grossly mislead itself in holding the petitioner guilty for misconduct. The first charge on the petitioner ought to have put to a quietus by considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and also taking into account that the petitioner had foreclosed the housing loan. The second charge also was purely a private financial affair of the petitioner which was also settled. However, the disciplinary authority has grossly erred in holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct and arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner deserves to be removed from service. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is grossly disproportionate and also shockingly improper. Thus indulgence of this Court is essential in rectifying

*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

+WRIT PETITION No.6348 OF 2008

%16.02.2024

#Between:

G.Pardha Saradhi Naidu, S/o.G.Papa

Naidu, aged 46 years, R/o.H.No.18-

1-46/J-12, Prashanthi Nagar,

K.T.Road, TIrupati, Chittoor District

…Petitioner

and

State Bank of India, represented

by its Deputy General Manager

and Appellate Authority Zonal

Office, Tirupati – 517501 and

another.

…Respondents

!Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. P.Nagendra Reddy

^Counsel for the Respondent/s : Sri. K.B.Ramanna Dora

<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. (2014) 9 SCC 263

2. (2010) 5 SCC 775

3. (1996) 9 SCC 69

4. (1997) 3 SC 657

5. (1999) 5 SCC 762

This Court made the following:

2024:APHC:7325

-2-

WP.No.6348 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

+WRIT PETITION No.6348 OF 2008

#Between:

G.Pardha Saradhi Naidu, S/o.G.Papa

Naidu, aged 46 years, R/o.H.No.18-

1-46/J-12, Prashanthi Nagar,

K.T.Road, TIrupati, Chittoor District

…Petitioner

and

State Bank of India, represented

by its Deputy General Manager

and Appellate Authority Zonal

Office, Tirupati – 517501 and

another.

…Respondents

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 16.02.2024

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may

be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of order may be marked

to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair

 copy of the order?

 Yes/No

_______________________

 JUSTICE HARINATH.N

2024:APHC:7325

-3-

WP.No.6348 of 2008

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N

WRIT PETITION No.6348 of 2008

ORDER :

The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings dated

14.05.2007 whereby the petitioner was removed from

service with pensionary benefits and the subsequent

benefits of the appellate authority imposing the

punishment of discharge from service with pensionary

benefits.

2. The petitioner joined the respondent/bank as a Clerk –

Cum – Typist on 01.07.1985. He was promoted as Senior

Assistant in the year 2000. The petitioner applied for

housing loan of Rs.3,60,000/-, which was sanctioned for

construction of a house at Mannavarappadu Village,

Nellore District. The petitioner was subsequently

transferred to Tirupati in the month of August, 2003. An

amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was credited to the account of

petitioner on 06.05.2003. The Chief Manager of the

respondent/bank addressed a letter dated 16.01.2004

calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the

construction could not start in spite of availing the

housing loan. The petitioner submitted his explanation the

2024:APHC:7325

-4-

WP.No.6348 of 2008

Branch Manager subsequently on 08.09.2004 the

petitioner was called upon to close the loan account by

repaying the entire amount.

3. The petitioner repaid the loan amount along with interest

on 06.10.2004. However, on 02.11.2004 a memorandum

of charge was issued as to why Disciplinary Action should

not be initiated against the petitioner for having obtained

the loan and failing to start the construction. The act of

obtaining housing loan and not starting the construction

was viewed seriously and the petitioner was called upon to

explain. The respondent/bank initiated a second charge

memo that the petitioner issued certain cheques without

maintaining sufficient balance and the cheques were

returned unpaid for the reason insufficient funds and stop

payment etc., The petitioner submitted his response and

an enquiry is said to have been conducted. The

disciplinary authority had held that the petitioner has

availed the housing loan of Rs.3,60,000/- and that the

petitioner has submitted a false declaration that he has

incurred an amount of Rs.3,15,000/- towards purchase of

material like steel, cement, bricks etc., It was held that the

employee did not start the construction and also failed to

2024:APHC:7325

-5-

WP.No.6348 of 2008

submit the relevant receipts. The other charge pertaining

to having obtained loans from ICICI Bank and also from

one K.Bala Rami Reddy and issuance of stop payment

instructions towards the cheques issued to them were

viewed seriously.

4. The petitioner had submitted that, the housing loan

obtained from the bank was closed. The petitioner’s father

passed away on 09.11.2002 and that he purchased a plot

within a period of one year from the date of expiry of his

father. Elders and well-wishers of the petitioner had

advised the petitioner not to go ahead with the

construction in the plot which was purchased by him

within a period of one year from the date of expiry of his

father. The petitioner had closed the housing loan as the

respondent/authorities declined to extend time for

construction as requested by the petitioner.

5. The other allegation or charge against the petitioner is that

the petitioner obtained loan from ICICI Bank and also

from a private individual and that cheques issued towards

repayment of the EMI to ICICI Bank and cheque issued

towards repayment of the loan amount from a private

2024:APHC:7325

-6-

WP.No.6348 of 2008

individual could not be honoured on account of stop

payment instructions.

6. The petitioner submitted that raising of loans for

construction and meeting personal expenses has nothing

to do with a discharge of duty as an employee of the bank.

That apart the petitioner is also stated to have submitted

the proof of foreclosure of the loan obtained from ICICI

Bank and also a letter of settlement from the third party

from whom a hand loan has been obtained. These facts

are also recorded by the disciplinary authority.

7. Considering these allegations, the disciplinary authority

has very strangely come to a conclusion that the petitioner

is guilty of misconduct and as such deserves to be

removed from service with superannuation benefits. The

petitioner filed an appeal before appellate authority and

the appellate authority has simply reiterated the

contentions raised by the respondent/bank and has

upheld the punishment but modified it as discharge from

service instead of removed from service with

superannuation benefits.

8. The respondents have filed a counter and reiterated that

withdrawing of loan amount without starting construction

2024:APHC:7325

-7-

WP.No.6348 of 2008

was serious misconduct and that a fair enquiry was

conducted and in the enquiry also adequate opportunity

was given to the petitioner, the learned counsel for

respondent/bank submitted that the scope of judicial

review of this court is limited and places reliance on Oil

and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs. Western Geco

International Limited1

, Administrator, Union Territory

of Dadra and Nagar Haveli Vs. Gulabhia M.Lad2,

Disciplinary Authority – Cum – Regional Manager &

Others Vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik3, Rae Bareli

Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Bholanath Singh & Others4

In all these Judgments the legal position with respect to

exercising the power of Judicial Review is settled. Unless

and until any illegality or procedural irregularity which

would shock the conscious of the Court or Tribunal, the

discretion can be exercised. It may not matter as to

whether there was no loss which was resulted by the acts

of the charged officer.

1

(2014) 9 SCC 263

2 (2010) 5 SCC 775

3 (1996) 9 SCC 69

4 (1997) 3 SC 657

2024:APHC:7325

-8-

WP.No.6348 of 2008

9. In the matter of Bank of India & another Vs. Degala

Suryanarayana5, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held

that strict rules of evidence is not applicable to

departmental enquiry proceedings. The only requirement

of law is that the allegation against the delinquent officer

must be established by such evidence acting upon which

reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity

may arrive at a finding upholding the gravamen of the

charge against the delinquent officer. The Court exercising

the jurisdiction of the judicial review would not interfere

with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental

enquiry proceeding except in a case of malafides or

perversity i.e., where there is no evidence to support a

finding or where a finding is such that no man acting

reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that

finding. The Court cannot embark upon re-appreciating

the evidence or weighing the same like an appellate

authority so long as there is some evidence to support the

conclusion.

10.It is no doubt well established law that this Court can

exercise its jurisdiction of judicial review if the petitioner is

5 (1999) 5 SCC 762

2024:APHC:7325

-9-

WP.No.6348 of 2008

able to place the case of the petitioner within the

exceptions carved out by the established law and the

various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

11.On the facts on hand in the present case, the petitioner is

able to place his case for judicial review by this Court on

the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.

The first charge with respect to applying and obtaining a

housing loan and drawing an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-

but failing to submit the receipts evidencing purchase of

material was viewed seriously and the memorandum of

charge is dated 16.01.2004. The petitioner foreclosed the

housing loan along with interest on 06.10.2004. The

enquiry which was conducted after foreclosure of the

housing loan without considering the explanation of the

petitioner for not starting the construction even after

obtaining the loan was not considered. The reason

mentioned by the petitioner that he was advised not to

start construction of a new house within one year from the

date of expiry of his father ought to have been considered

by the disciplinary authority. It is a practice in several

orthodox families not to take up any auspicious events

such as marriages, housewarming functions within one

2024:APHC:7325

-10-

WP.No.6348 of 2008

year from the date of death of member of family. This

aspect was not dealt appropriately by the disciplinary

authority.

12.It appears that the respondent/bank has exhibited its

vengeance against the petitioner by issuing a second

charge on the petitioner on 31.05.2005. Whereby the stop

payment instructions for the cheques issued by the

petitioner towards repayment of monthly equated

installments for the loan obtained from ICICI Bank and

K.Bala Rami Reddy were dishonoured is the crux of the

second charge. The disciplinary authority has completely

ignored the documents submitted by the petitioner which

evidenced the foreclosure of loan of ICICI bank and also

settlement of loan of K.Bala Rami Reddy.

13.The disciplinary authority has failed to take into account

the documents submitted by the petitioner and has

grossly mislead itself in holding the petitioner guilty for

misconduct. The first charge on the petitioner ought to

have put to a quietus by considering the explanation

submitted by the petitioner and also taking into account

that the petitioner had foreclosed the housing loan. The

second charge also was purely a private financial affair of

2024:APHC:7325

-11-

WP.No.6348 of 2008

the petitioner which was also settled. However, the

disciplinary authority has grossly erred in holding the

petitioner guilty of misconduct and arrive at a conclusion

that the petitioner deserves to be removed from service.

The punishment imposed on the petitioner is grossly

disproportionate and also shockingly improper. Thus

indulgence of this Court is essential in rectifying the

irrational and illogical acts of the respondents. The

proceedings of the disciplinary authority and the appellate

authority also fail the test of proportionality and deserve to

be set aside.

14.The petitioner has also crossed the age of superannuation.

The order of removal of petitioner from service with

superannuation benefits is hereby set aside. Accordingly,

the proceedings dated 14.05.2007 and the proceedings of

the Appellate Authority dated 24.10.2007 are hereby set

aside. The respondents shall treat the petitioner as in

service from the date of termination till the date of

attaining the age of superannuation. The respondents

shall release all service benefits to the petitioner including

back wages within a period of six weeks from the date of

receipt of this order.

2024:APHC:7325

-12-

WP.No.6348 of 2008

15.For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is

allowed, without costs.

 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any,

shall stand closed.

_______________________

JUSTICE HARINATH.N

Dt.16.02.2024

KGM

LR Copy to be marked.

B/o.KGM

2024:APHC:7325

-13-

WP.No.6348 of 2008

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N

WRIT PETITION No.6348 of 2008

Dt.16.02.2024

LR Copy to be marked.

B/o.KGM

2024:APHC:7325