APHC010188182020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 12076/2020 Between: Banda Ranga Swamy, ...PETITIONER AND The Chairmen and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. JADA SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V UMA DEVI The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue an appropriate Writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in not paying the full back wages and other perks for the suspension period from 07.11.2017 till the date of superannuation i.e., 31.05.2019, despite the petitioner discharged from the charge vide proceedings No.43/BM- 5/2019, dated 08.11.2019 and imposed minor punishment of REDUCTION OF PRESENT BASIC PAY SIX STAGES AS ON DATE OF HIS RETIREMENT by the Board of Directors as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural 2 justice and also Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution and consequently set aside the impugned enquiry proceedings No.15/PER-HRD/CGS/840/2018, dated 02.07.2019….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a clerk at Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank on 09.01.1985 and thereafter promoted as Assistant Manager on 01.10.2014 and retired on 31.05.2019 on attaining the age of superannuation. During his employment, certain allegations were levelled against the petitioner for sharing his password negligently to his colleague, who in turn, misappropriated an amount of Rs.4,15,000/- and thus the petitioner was also made responsible and suspended. An enquiry was conducted vide proceedings No.15/PER- HRD/CGS/840/2018, dated 27.04.2018 and the petitioner was suspended on 07.11.2017. After conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report vide proceedings dated 28.03.2019 to the disciplinary authority. The 1st respondent discharged the petitioner vide proceedings dated 02.07.2019 stating that the petitioner was negligent in sharing his password, thus imposed punishment of “REDUCTION OF PRESENT BASIC PAY SIX STAGES AS ON DATE OF HIS RETIREMENT i.e., 31.05.2019” and stated that the period of suspension is treated as period not spent on duty and as such he will not be entitled to any back wages and all other benefits for the suspension period, except the subsistence allowance which had already been sanctioned to him. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Board of 3 Directors. The Board of Directors has confirmed by the punishment imposed by the 1st respondent vide its order dated 08.11.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated and thus benefits were reduced six stages and accordingly, the petitioner had been paid retirement benefits. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not paying full back wages and other perks for the suspension period, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. This Court, vide order, dated 29.01.2025, has forfeited the right to filing of counter by the respondents under Rule 12(1) of Writ Proceeding Rules, 1977. 4. Heard Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.V.Uma Devi, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the petitioner was in suspension from 07.11.2017 to till his date of retirement i.e., on 31.05.2019. The petitioner was reinstated and allowed to retire from the services on 31.05.2019 on attaining superannuation. He further submits that during the first three months, the petitioner was paid 1/3 of subsistence allowance and rest of the months, ½ amount of salary was paid to the petitioner. Except the subsistence allowance, the petitioner did not receive any kind of perks or other benefits during his suspension period. He further submits that the petitioner is 4 entitled to receive remaining salary during his suspension period as he received only half salary for 14 months and 1/3 salary for first three months. He further submits that the petitioner made a representation dated 16.01.2020 to the respondents for release of entire emoluments relating to leave encashment, full salary for the period of suspension, leave travel concession, releasing of increments by six stages reduced and withheld as a measure of punishment and pass necessary orders. But the respondents neither considered the representation of the petitioner nor paid back wages during the suspension period. The respondent authorities imposed penalty of six increments reduction and even considering the same, the petitioner is entitled to back wages for the relevant period along with perks. The respondent authorities did not even look into the representation made by the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Raj Narain vs. Union of India and others1, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “The appellant was placed under suspension on 23.10.1979 and his suspension was revoked on 21.10.1987. An interesting development took place during the interregnum by which the disciplinary proceedings were dropped on 21.03.1983. It is clear from the record that the Appellant was the one who was seeking postponement of the departmental enquiry in view of the pendency of criminal case. The order of suspension was in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. By virtue of the disciplinary proceedings being dropped, the Appellant becomes entitled to claim full salary for the period from the date of his suspension till the date of closure of the departmental enquiry.” 1 2019 LawSuit (SC) 997 5 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, submits that, the order passed by the 1st respondent in limiting the rights of the petitioner salary during suspension period and consequential order that the petitioner will not be entitled to any back wages and all other benefits for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance which had already been sanctioned to him is illegal, arbitrary and cannot stand in the eye of law. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 8. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed for grant of any relief in the present writ petition and submits that the petitioner shown gross negligence/indolence to comply with the guidelines and his negligence has facilitated the Officer of the Bank to swindle bank funds thereby caused financial loss to the Bank, thus failed to promote the interest of the Bank thereby committing a breach of Regulation Nos.18 and 20 of Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank (Officers’ and Employees’) Service Regulations 2010, thereby committing acts of misconduct with the meaning of Regulation No.39 of Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank (Officers’ and Employees’) Service Regulations 2010. She further submits that the 1st respondent has rightly imposed the punishment vide proceedings dated 02.07.2019 stating that the petitioner should not share his passwords under any circumstances, since the fraudulent transactions are with his user ID, he has to borne the responsibility 6 without any exception. She further submits that the punishment imposed by the 1st respondent was rightly confirmed by the Board of Directors and therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Perused the record. 10. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, admittedly, the petitioner was working as Assistant Manager in the Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank. The Bank discovered some fraudulent transactions using the petitioner’s ID and suspended him from service. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his remarks, stating that his password has been copied and he had no knowledge of the fraudulent transactions. However, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment stating that the petitioner should exercise due diligence and should not share his passwords under any circumstances. Since the fraudulent transactions occurred using his user ID, the petitioner was held responsible without exception. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that, there is no merit in the instant writ petition. However, the respondents are directed to pay the amounts as per the petitioner’s eligibility criteria, if any, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 7 12. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 13. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date : 28.02.2025 BMS