APHC010245992001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY.THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR WRIT PETITION NO: 14345 OF 2001 AND 23542 OF 2002 WRIT PETITION NO: 14345 OF 2001 Between: Moses Eprahim Francis, S/o. Daniel Francis Clerk (Under Suspension), Syndicate Bank, Anantapur Main Branch, Anantapur, R/o.Flat No.C-106, First Floor, PBR Apartments, ...Petitioner AND The Chief Vigilance Officer, Syndicate Bank, Vigilance Department, P.B.No.1, Head Office, Manipal - 576 119 (South Kanara). The Asst General Manager Disciplinary Authority, Syndicate Bank, Industrial Relations Section, No. 6-3-653, 'Pioneer House', Zonal Office, Somajiguda, Senior Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, P.B.No.20, Station Road, Anantapur Main Branch, Anantapur-515 004. Regional Manager, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, P.B.No.35, Srinivas Nagar, Anantapur-515 001. 1. 2. 3. 4. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandmus directing the i) First respondent to reassess the entire case in the light of various representations made to him placing the factual, and to remit the case to the Disciplinary Authority for proceeding further in the matter, ^ 0^ case there exists against petitioner. ' •if!'''' -. i|'Second respondent to Issue a fresh Charge Sheet with full particulars aloqg with the List of Documents and the List of Witnesses relaying on whom he wants to sustain the alleged charges to enable petitioner to prepare his defence and submit reply to the same iii) Third respondent to release Subsistence Allowance of petitioner per provisions of Bipartite Settlement right from the date of order of suspension forthwith treating the actions of the respondents in not considering the above as illegal. Irregular, Arbitrary Adament and violative of all rules procedures and also violative of Principles of Natural Justice and fair play, discriminative and above all violative of Article Constitution of India. lA NO: 1 OF 200irWPMP 17927 OF 2001 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceeding No.OGS/HYD/2001/28 dated; 22-5-2001 issued by the second respondent and pass. as and 14,16 and 21 of the in pursuance of Charge Sheet jA NO: 2 OF 2001(WPMP 17928 OF 2QQ1 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the third respondent to release Allowance forthwith from the date of suspension. lA NO: 3 OF 2001fWPMP 29219 OF 2001 petitioner Subsistence Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandmus ^ illegal, irregular, arbitrary Adament law and set aside the declaring the actions of the respondents and violative of all rules, procedures and as ex parts enquiry proceedings including the second show cause Notice No.1810/F.2001/28{W)/IRS dt 31/10/2001 i — issued by the second punishment of DISMISSAL respondent proposing the Punishment of extreme just basing on the exparte enquiry proceedings No.2 to allow the petitioner to submit his and direct the respondent written statement of defence for his consideration and after considering the reply submitted found satisfactory he can proceed further in the matter, and also direct the 3rd respondent to release his subsistence allowance right from the date of date of his suspension i.e. 15-3-2001 to till date forthwith. by him, if at is not lA NO: 4 OF 2001fWPMP 29220 OF ?nni Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the third respondent to release the Subsistence Allowance to petitioner right from the date of his suspension i.e. from 15-3-2001 to till date. lA NO: 5 OF 2001fWPMP 29221 OF 2001 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent not to proceed further and take steps including dismissal of the petitioner from the services of the bank in pursuance of the impugned Second Show Cause Notice No. 1810/F.2001/28(W)/IRS dated 31.10.2001 pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondents; SRI A KRISHNAM Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T B L MURTHY RAJU r APHC010184952002 05 WRIT PETITION NO: 23542 OF 7009 Between: Moses Eprahim Francis, s/o Daniel Francies EX-CLERK syndicate Bank, Anantapur Main Branch & R/o flact No: C-106, First Floo PBR Complex, ...Petitioner AND 1- The Chief Vigilance Officer, Syndicate Bank, Vigilance Department P.B. No.1 Head Office, Manipal-576119 2. The General Manager Personnel the. Appellate Authority, Syndicate P-B. No. 1, Head Office, Manipal- bank. Industrial Relations Dept. 576119 3. The Asst General manager the Disciplinary, Authority, Syndicate Bank Industrial Relations Section,. No. 6-3-65 Pioneer House' Zonal Office, Somajiguda 4. the Senior Branch Manger, Syndicate Anantapur-515 004 5. The Regional Manager, Syndicate Anantapur-515004 bank, P.B. No. 20, Station road. Bank, P.B. No. 35, Srinivas Nagar, ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the in the circumstances stated i Constitution of India is filed praying that in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a Writ of order may more particularly one in the nature of writ records pertaining to the proceedings of the third of Certiorari and call for the respondent N. PRS; AGM: HYD; 2001:61, dated 19-11-2001 and confirmed by the second respondent proceedings No. 53;PD IRD (W) dated 24-7-2001 and quash the same as the said proceedings are illegal, Irregular, Arbitrary adamant and violative Rules, Procedures, law and also against the principles of Natural justice and against Article 14,16 19 and 21 of the constitution of India and are also malicious, and reinstate the petitioner into the service of the Bank forthwith with all consequential benefits lA NO: 1 OF 2002(WPMP 29531 OF 2002 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the proceedings of the third respondent passing the extreme punishment of Dismissal vide his proceedings No. PRS/AGM/HYD/2001/61 dated 10-11-2001 and confirmed by teh second respondent in a mechanical manner vide his proceedings No. 53/PD/ IRD(W) dated 24-7-2001 as the same has been passed in a hasty manner without subsistence allowance to the petitioner right from the date of paying any suspension Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondents: SRI E MADAN MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T B L MURTHY The Court made the following Common order: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR WRIT PETITION Nos.14345 of 2001 and 23542 of 2002 COMMON ORDER: These are the two writ petitions between the same parties concerning the same dispute. Therefore, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. Prayer in W.P.No.14345 of 2001 The Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing 1. more the i. First respondent to reassess the entire case in the light of various representations made to him placing the factuals and to remit the case to the Disciplinary Authority for proceeding further in the matter, if a prima facie of case there exists against petitioner a Second respondent to Issue a fresh Charge Sheet with full particulars along with the list of documents and the list of witnesses relaying on whom he wants to sustain the alleged charges to enable petitioner to prepare his defence and submit reply to the same Hi Third respondent to release subsistence allowance of petitioner as per provisions of Bipartite Settlement right from the date of order of suspension forthwith treating the actions of the respondents in not considering the above as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, adamant and violative of all rules and procedures and also violative of Principles of Natural Justice and fair ploy, 2 Dr.VRKSJ WP.Nos.14345 of 2001&Batch discriminative and above all violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders that this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and according to the facts and circumstances of the case. Prayer in W.P.No.23542 of 2002 For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to Issue a Writ of Order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the third respondent No: PRS: ACM: HYD: 2001:61 dated: 19.11.2001 and confirmed by the second respondent proceedings No: 53:PD:IRD(W) dated: 24.07.2001 and quash the same as the said proceedings are Illegal, Irregular, Arbitrary, Adamant and violative of rules. Procedures, law and also against the Principles of Natural Justice and against Article 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and are also malicious and reinstate/ the petitioner Into the services of the bank forthwith with all consequential benefits and pass any such other order or orders that this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and according to the facts and circumstances of the case. The writ petitioner was recruited on 13.07.1981 as a clerk in Syndicate Bank. At the relevant time, he was working in the branch in Anantapur. On 03.03.2001, the officer of the Bank lodged written information in Anantapur I town Police Station and the same was registered as FIR.No.43 of 2001 for the offences 2. 3 Dr.VRKSJ WP.Nos.14345 of 2001&Batch under sections 120 (B), 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The substance of the allegations mentioned therein are that certain transactions that took place between 27.09.2000 to 26.02.2001 pertaining to accounts of two account holders of the bank were found to be fraudulent transactions utilizing fake mail transfers of funds from Anantapur branch to other branches. An amount of Eight lakhs plus was the loss suffered by the bank. The written information further disclosed that all the relevant papers pertaining to those accounts including the specimen signature forms, and all the papers connected to these transactions were found removed from the books of the bank. In the written information, the names of the members of the Bank staff including the present writ petitioner stating that they were handling those accounts and attended those transactions and raised suspicion about their involvement. 3. On 15.03.2001, the writ petitioner was served with orders of suspension and the same reads as below: During the period of suspension, you will be paid subsistence allowance as per the partial modification of Paragraph 557 of Sastry Award and Paragraph 17.14 of the Desai Award as detailed below: /. For the first three months, 1/3rd of the Pay and Allowances which you would have got but for the suspension; a. Thereafter, 1/2 of the Pay and Allowances 4 Dr.VRKS,J WP.Nos.14345 of 2001&Batch Hi. After one year full pay and allowances if the inquiry is not delayed for the reasons attributable to you or your representative, and the matter is not taken up for trial by any outside agency i.e. Police/Court. In such eventuality the quantum of subsistence allowance payable to you will vary as per the provisions Bipartite Settlement. You should not enter the premises of the branch during the period of your suspension. For the purpose of operating your own account maintained at the branch, you have to seek prior permission from the Sr. Branch Manager, Ananthapur Main branch and only when such permission is granted, you shall enter the branch premises. All the transactions shall take place in the Manager's cabin and in his presence/other authorised person. However, if it is found that you are misusing the facility to harm the investigation/ routine work in the branch the above facility will be withdrawn. You are also advised to furnish immediately to your Branch Manager, your residential address to enable the bank to send the official communication meant for you in future. As a gesture of goodwill the bank is granting concession towards deducting of loan instalments from the Subsistence Allowance. If you desire to have this facility, you are required to send an application as per the proforma enclosed to this Memorandum. From the time, the FIR was registered on 03.03.2001 till the 4. time of suspension order was served, the petitioner was subjected to police investigation. In W.P.No.14345 of 2001 various details of humiliations as perceived by the petitioner in connection with the police investigation were mentioned with allegations that Bank and its officers were instrumental in that. 5. On 16.03.2001, the petitioner left his headquarters at Anantapur and went to Hyderabad. On 17.03.2001, claiming sickness he joined in hospital for treatment. 5 Dr.VRKS,J WP.Nos.14345 of 2001&Batch 6. Subsequently, there was written correspondence between the petitioner and the officers of the bank. According to the petitioner without their being a prima facie case and without looking into the explanations he offered, the bank initiated departmental inquiry and issued a charge sheet on 22.05.2001. It is in that context, he filed W.P.No.14345 of 2001. The main grievance in this writ petition is that the bank had not released his subsistence allowance and thereby violated his Fundamental Rights and Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. According to the writ petitioner, though a charge sheet was served on him he was not served with the list of witnesses and list of documents, which hindered his right to give appropriate reply and make his lawful defence. The date of inquiry was fixed on 16.03.2001 at Anantapur. The writ petitioner did not participate in the inquiry and has been in communication with the bank raising questions with reference to non-payment of subsistence allowance and his sickness and his need for money to participate in the inquiry. However, the inquiry proceeded further and an adverse inquiry report was given against him and he was dismissed from service by orders dated 19.11.2001. Aggrieved by it, he preferred an appeal and there also he was complaining 6 Dr.VRKSJ WP.Nos.14345 of 2001&Batch against the bank for its refusal to pay subsistence allowance as a cause that deprived him of participating in the inquiry. However, the appeal was dismissed by the competent authority by orders dated 24.07.2002. It was in such circumstances he had filed W.P.No.23542 of 2002. Heard arguments of Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel for writ petitioner and Sri T.B.L.Murthy, learned counsel for respondents. 9. Learned counsel for writ petitioner contended that at the 8. relevant time, he was entitled for subsistence allowance and the same was unlawfully denied and that deprived his right to have reasonable opportunity in participating in the inquiry and it infringed the principles of fair play and natural justice and therefore, the prayers made in the writ petitions be allowed. As against it, learned counsel for respondents contended that on 13.07.2001, the bank had furnished list of documents and 10. list of witnesses to the petitioner and despite that he did not choose to participate in the inquiry. It is further argued that mere non-payment of subsistence allowance by itself is no ground to interfere with the disciplinary inquiry proceedings unless the writ petitioner pleads and establishes the prejudice that occurred to him. He was well within his right to appear before the inquiring 7 Dr.VRKSJ WP.Nos.14345 of 2001&Batch officer and verify the documents and seek for payment of subsistence allowance. Despite communications to him to submit his hospital records so as to disburse his subsistence allowance he was adamant in not doing that. The main submission of the learned counsel for respondents is that the writ petitioner left Anantapur without obtaining permission from the bank and that is against the rules and therefore initially subsistence allowance was not paid and in fact explaining these aspects written communications were sent to him. it is further stated that subsistence allowance was thereafter paid to him. Unless there is plea and proof that he was in dire need of subsistence allowance because of any financial distress a duly constituted inquiry cannot be interfered with. In the present case, the writ petitioner was in service for about 20 years by the time the departmental inquiry was initiated and therefore it could not be stated that he was in such utter poverty inhibiting his travel to Anantapur to participate in the inquiry. It is for these reasons, learned counsel for respondents urges this court to dismiss both the writ petitions. The points that fall for consideration are; 1. Whether the employer is under legal obligation to pay subsistence allowance to the suspended employee/writ 11. 8 Dr.VRKS,J WP.Nos.14345 of 2001&Batch petitioner and is under a legal obligation to furnish of documents and list of witnesses charge sheet served on him? list along with the 2. Whether non-payment of subsistence allowance relevant time and at the non furnishing of list of witnesses and list of documents at the relevant time have bearing on the inquiry that was held against the writ petitioner? Point Nos.1 and 2: - 12. The order of suspension dated 15.03.2001 the earlier paragraphs. One would notice that this was extracted in order itself indicates about the entitlement of the writ petitioner to receive subsistence allowance. The other aspect to be noticed from the suspension order is that it has directed the writ petitioner to furnish his residential address him in future. It needs a mention here that the so as to enter communication with suspension order has not made a mention about his place of stay at Anantapur. That naturally makes the suspended employee to think that he was entitled to be there at any place and had only a duty to suspension order communicate his residential address. The further makes it clear that the bank was well aware of the 9 Dr.VRKS,J WP.Nos.14345 of 2001&Batch indebtedness of the suspended writ petitioner and his loan account. 13. The material papers furnished would show that on 24.04.2001, the writ petitioner addressed a letter to the bank praying for release of his subsistence allowance. By its communication dated 08.05.2001 bank rejected to release subsistence allowance stating that he left Anantapur without obtaining permission of the bank. While there was other correspondence, it was on 01.06.2001, the writ petitioner once again addressed a letter for release of his subsistence allowance. Similar is the case in the communication dated 25.06.2001. With reference to the omission of furnishing him the list of witnesses and list of documents, he addressed letters to the bank. Though charge sheet was dated 22.05.2001 and was served on him, he was furnished with list of documents and list of witnesses not that day but after correspondence and finally they were furnished on on13.07.2001. 14. As the subsistence allowance was not being paid, the writ petitioner was forced to move W.P.M.P.No.17928 of 2001. A learned Judge of this court after hearing both sides passed \ order dated 13.11.2001 directing the bank to pay subsistence an 10 Dr.VRKS,J WP.Nos.14345 of 2001&Batch allowance at once. This position being a matter on record cannot be disputed. That makes it clear that the writ petitioner having been suspended on 15.03.2001 was not paid subsistence allowance till 13.11.2001. Be it noted charge sheet was served on him way back on 22.05.2001 and the first date for inquiry was fixed on 16.08.2001. By those relevant dates which are crucial for a departmental inquiry there was no payment of subsistence allowance. The contention of the respondents that he left Anantapur without obtaining permission from the bank may be right on facts but such act on part of the suspended bank employee may result in framing an additional charge in the inquiry or may be a subject matter of a separate inquiry as could be considered by the competent authorities of the bank. However, the dereliction of duty on part of the suspended employee does not allow a statutory body such as bank from not paying subsistence allowance. It may also be stated here that the writ petitioner had to move a contempt case in C.C.No.1648 of 2001 before this court stating that despite orders of this court on 13.11.2001 subsistence allowance was not paid. It is a matter of record that the bank responded through its counter stating that it paid the subsistence allowance till October, 2001. It was in such 11 Dr.VRKSJ WP.Nos.14345 of 2001&Batch circumstances, the contempt case was closed. Referring to that aspect of the matter, the learned counsel for writ petitioner argued that though the bank remitted the subsistence allowance, it did so in his loan account and deducted that towards loan installments and thereby it effectively deprived him of utilizing funds and that inhibited the writ petitioner from participating in the inquiry. These facts cannot be disputed as the papers do indicate the same. In Indra Bhanu Gaur Vs M.M.Degree College^ and U.P. State Textile Corporation Vs P.C.Chaturvedi^, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that mere non-payment of subsistence allowance cannot ipso facto be a ground to vitiate the proceedings in every case. It is to be specifically pleaded and established as to in what way the effected employee was handicapped because of non-receipt of subsistence allowance. Unless prejudice is shown and established, the proceedings against such employee cannot be interfered with. It is on such principles, the argument of the learned counsel for respondents rested. 15. \ ' ^(2004) 1 see 281 ^(^2005) 8 sec 211 12 Dr.VRKS,J WP.Nos.14345 of 2001&Batch One is required to notice the ratio of their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Bihar Vs Arbinct^. 16. That was a case where their Lordships recorded that the suspended employee therein had clearly indicated that the authorities know about his financial conditions and also about his inability to remain at headquarter. The case of the employer was on the fact that the suspended employee did not remain at headquarters and therefore no subsistence allowance was paid. It was in the context of above facts, their Lordships considered the earlier referred principles of doctrine of prejudice and held that those aspects have to be decided based on the facts of each case and any rules of the employer are always subject to the constitutional validity. 17. With reference to the attitude of the bank, the learned counsel for writ petitioner brought to the attention of this court, the orders in W.P.Nos.16216 of 1996 and 18162 of 1999 wherein also omissions similar to the present case were committed by the bank and the courts noticed such omissions and passed necessary orders. Though the learned counsel for respondents argued the distinct features of those above cases and the present / M2013) 16 see 615 13 Dr.VRKSJ WP.Nos.14345 of 2001&Batch proceedings, the fact remains that it was not the first occasion that the bank was committing these errors. Keeping the above referred principles in mind and having analyzed the material on record and having considered the submissions meticulously raised on both sides, it has to be 18. recorded that the order of suspension by itself did not mention that the suspended employee/writ petitioner should remain at Anantapur. The order of suspension itself made a provision for payment of subsistence allowance. The purpose of making such subsistence allowance is to allow the suspended employee to survive and to participate in the legal process. His failure to inform the bank authorities that he would be staying at Hyderabad and leaving Anantapur could very well be considered by the bank either as justified or unjustified. If it found that the conduct of the employee was unjustified it could have made the same as another charge for such indiscipline. When the suspended employee had by his communication already submitted his medical bills obstinacy of the bank in not releasing subsistence allowance clearly infringed the right to participate in the inquiry effectively. It is in these circumstances, this court holds that there is merit in the grievance raised by the writ petitioner. Considering ■ 1 14 Dr.VRKSJ WP.Nos.14345 of 2001&Batch the facts and circumstances, these writ petitions can be disposed of with certain directions. Accordingly, both points are answered. In the result, both the writ petitions are disposed of. The dismissal from service of Mr.Moses Eprahim Francis vide proceedings dated 19.11.2001 Ref.No.PRS/AGM/HYD/2001/ 61 and as confirmed by the appellate authority vide proceedings No. 53/PD:IRD (W)/DA-7 dated 24.07.2002 are quashed. Mr.Moses Eprahim Francis is reinstated for the purpose of holding fresh inquiry against him from the stage of granting time for filing written statement in response to the charges. To conduct or not to conduct fresh inquiry is left to the discretion of the respondents. He shall be paid subsistence allowance at the admissible rates governing the service as per the rules for all the period of suspension and dismissal and further till the respondents take a decision concerning fresh inquiry and thereafter in accordance with such decision, after giving due credit to what was already paid towards subsistence allowance. These payments shall be made within four months from the date of this order of the court. On culmination of the proceedings it is to the liberty of the respondents authorities to decide according to law as to how it shall treat the period from the date of impugned 19. 15 Dr.VRKS,J WP.Nos.14345 of 2001&Batch dismissal till the reinstatement ordered now as above and decide to what benefits and the extent of such benefits the writ petitioner is entitled to and all the related aspects of his service. Sd/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTl^OFFICER //TRUE COPY// ir To, 1. The Chief Vigilance Officer, Syndicate Bank, Vigilance Department, P.B.No.1, Head Office, Manipal - 576 119 (South Kanara). 2. The Asst General Manager Disciplinary Authority, Syndicate Bank, Industrial Relations Section, No. 6-3-653, 'Pioneer House', Zonal Office, Somajiguda, 3. The Senior Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, P.B.No.20, Station Road, Anantapur Main Branch, Anantapur-515 004. 4. The Regional Manager, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, P.B.No.35, SrinTvas Nagar, Anantapur-515 001. 5. The_General Manager Personnel the Appellate Authority, Syndicate bank. Industrial Relations Dept., P.B. No. 1, Head Office, Manipal- 576119 6. One CC to Sri. J Sudheer Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri. A Krishnam Raju Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri. T B L Murthy Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to Sri. E Madan Mohan Rao Advocate [OPUC] Three CD Copies 10. GSC HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 \ COMMON ORDER WP NOS. 14345 OF 2001 AND 23542 OF 2002 DISPOSING OF THE WPS WITHOUT COSTS