APHC010749142011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 30887/2011 Between: 1. P.INNYASI RAO, RAJAMUNDRY-522003, S/O.LATE P.VENKAIAH EX.SENIOR MANAGER (UCO BANK) R/O.74-13-6/11, GOUTAMI APTS PRAKASH NAGAR, RAJAMUNDRY-522003 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE UCO BANK REP BY ITS ZONAL MANAGER ANOTHER, DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, ZONAL OFFICE 8-2-624, ROAD NO.10 BANJARA HILLS,HYDERABAD 2. THE UCO BANK REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER PERSONNEL, SERVICES) CUM APPELLATE AUTHORITY 3-4-DD BLOCK, SECTOR-1 SALT LAKE KOLKATA-700064 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction one more particularly in the nature of writ of Certiorari a. Calling for the records pertaining to Proceedings No.ZOH/PSD/1451/2010-11 dated 13.10.2010 and consequential revised Proceedings No.ZOH/PSD/1517/2010-11 dated 27.10.2010 of the 1st respondent and the order dated 20.7.2011 of the 2nd respondent confirming the orders of the 1st respondent as communicated through Proceedings No.PSD/DISC/SPS/2011-12/751 dated 22.7.2011 b.And consequentially direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back into service as Senior Manager (MMG Scale III Officer) under the Respondent 2 UCO Bank with all consequential past and future service benefits attached to the said post with effect from his date of his dismissal and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP 38314 OF 2011 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend Proceedings No.ZOH/PSD/1451/2010-11 dated 13.10.2010 and consequential revised Proceedings No.ZOH/PSD/1517/2010-11 dated 27.10.2010 of the 1st respondent and the order dated 20.7.2011 of the 2nd respondent as communicated through Proceedings No.PSD/DISC/2011- 12/751 dated 22.7.2011 by the respondent Bank and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioners/respondents to file counter along with the documents and receive the same on record in W.P.No. 30887 of 2011 and permit the petitioner to contest the matter judiciously IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to condone the delay of 114 days in filing the restoration application in WP No.30887 of 2011 and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to restore the WP No. 30887 of 2011 to its file by setting aside the order of dismissal for non-prosecution, dated 20-03-2025 and pass IA NO: 4 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the order Dated 20.03.2025,in WP.No. 30877 of 2011 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass 3 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KARANKI YASWANTH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N V SUBBA RAJU The Court made the following: 4 Order:- The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 13.10.2010, the revised proceedings dated 27.10.2010, and the subsequent orders dated 20.07.2011 and 22.07.2011. The petitioner is seeking a direction for reinstatement into service as Senior Manager with the respondent-Bank. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner, while working as Senior Manager at Attili Branch, was issued a show cause notice dated 21.03.2009, wherein 12 allegations were levelled against him, and he was called upon to submit a reply to the allegations levelled against him. The respondent-Bank found it appropriate to appoint an Enquiry Officer and conduct an enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that 8 of the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved, and the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. The disciplinary authority subsequently passed a revised order modifying the initial order of punishment by disqualifying the petitioner for future employment. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and that the enquiry was conducted solely on the basis of the submissions of the Presenting Officer on behalf of the respondent-Bank and the reply submitted by the petitioner. It is submitted that 5 the respondent-Bank’s procedure for imposing major penalties clearly prescribes the manner of conducting an enquiry and imposing punishment. 4. It is submitted that, in the present case, the respondents have not followed the said regulations and have considered the allegations levelled against the petitioner superficially and imposed the impugned order. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent-Bank issued a show cause notice and that the petitioner submitted a detailed reply. Apart from that, the petitioner was represented through a defence representative who participated in the proceedings. It is submitted that full opportunity was granted to the petitioner. It is submitted that Regulation No. 6 of the UCO Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 was scrupulously followed while imposing the punishment on the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner had admitted some of the allegations levelled against him and also sought for condonation, keeping in view the business generated by the petitioner. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 7. The disciplinary authority has evidently conducted a detailed enquiry and the petitioner was represented through a defence assistant while the enquiry was being conducted. 8. The reply submitted on behalf of the petitioner would indicate that the petitioner has conceded to charge Nos. 2, 5 and 8. The Enquiry Officer has conducted a detailed enquiry and has taken into consideration the various 6 documents presented by the Presenting Officer on behalf of the Bank. The Enquiry Officer has found that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved after considering the material exhibits presented before him. No grounds are made out by the petitioner for interfering with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The case of the petitioner does not stand on par with the case of the other employee, namely B. Ashirwadam, in whose case the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed, which was considered by this Court in W.P.No.12527 of 2012, dated 24.01.2025. 9. This Court finds no grounds to interfere with the impugned proceedings. However, the revised proceedings disqualifying the petitioner from future employment could not have been imposed by the respondent authority. The disciplinary authority cannot, suo motu, revise the punishment to impose a harsher one. On these considerations, the revised punishment dated 27.10.2010 is hereby set aside. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 16.04.2026 PNS