Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 32692 (KAR)

SRI C SURENDRA HEGDE v. PRAGATHI GRAMIN BANK

WP/54862/2013 · 2025-03-06

R Nataraj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9669 WP No. 54862 of 2013 C/W WP No. 22327 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 54862 OF 2013 (S-DIS) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 22327 OF 2011 (S-RES) IN WP No. 54862/2013 BETWEEN: SRI C SURENDRA HEGDE, S/O KRISHNAYYA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O CHARKADY VILLAGE AND POST, UDUPI TALUK, DISTRICT UDUPI-576 215. …PETITIONER (BY SRI N S BHAT, ADVOCATE [PH]) AND: 1. PRAGATHI GRAMIN BANK, HEAD OFFICE, P.B. NO 55, GANDHINAGAR, BELLARY-583 103, BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, PRAGATHI GRAMIN BANK, HEAD OFFICE, P.B. NO.55, GANDHINAGAR, BELLARY-583 103. 3. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY , PRAGATHI GRAMIN BANK BOARD, HEAD OFFICE, P.B. NO.55, GANDHINAGAR BELLARY-583 103. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9669 WP No. 54862 of 2013 C/W WP No. 22327 of 2011 (BY SRI T P MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 [PH]) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS. (i) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.11.2012 PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY PRAGATHI GRAMIN BANK BOARD, BELLARY, THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN REF: HO PW IR 389 2012-13 AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND ALSO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.10.2009 PASSED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY - THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN REF. NO. PGB:VIG::Compl.42:422:2009-10 (STATED AS PGB:VIG::Compl.42:423:2009-10 IN PRAYER PORTION OF THE PETITION) AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER INTO THE SERVICES OF THE PRAGATHI GRAMIN BANK AS MANAGER WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL MONETARY (SERVICE) BENEFITS AND BACKWAGES. IN WP NO. 22327/2011 BETWEEN: 1. SRI C SURENDRA HEGDE S/O KRISHNAYYA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O CHERKADY VILLAGE AND POST UDUPI TALUK, DISTRICT: UDUPI 576 215 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. N S BHAT, ADVOCATE (PH)) AND: 1. PRAGATHI GRAMIN BANK, HEAD OFFICE, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9669 WP No. 54862 of 2013 C/W WP No. 22327 of 2011 P.B.NO.55, GANDHINAGAR, BELLARY - 583 103 BY ITS CHAIRMAN 2. THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY PRAGATHI GRAMIN BANK, HEAD OFFICE: PB NO.55, GANDHINAGAR, BELLARY - 583 103 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 3. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PRAGATHI GRAMIN BANK BOARD, HEAD OFFICE: P.B.NO.55, GANDHINAGAR, BELLARY 583 103 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND THE DIRECTOR OF BOARD ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T R K PRASAD, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.07.2010 PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY PRAGATHI GRAMIN BANK BOARD, BELLARY, THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND ALSO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.10.2009 PASSED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY - THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN REF. NO.PGB:VIG::Compl.42:423:2009-10 AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER INTO THE SERVICES OF THE PRAGATHI GRAMIN BANK AS MANAGER WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL MONETARY (SERVICE) BENEFITS AND BACKWAGES. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9669 WP No. 54862 of 2013 C/W WP No. 22327 of 2011 THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER In W.P. No.54862/2013, the petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.PGB:VIG::Compl.42:422:2009-10 (stated as PGB:VIG::Compl.42:423:2009-10 in the prayer portion of the petition) dated 05.10.2009 passed by the respondent No.2 dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner has also challenged an order dated 15.11.2012 passed by the respondent No.3 in agenda No.34 at the Board meeting No.54 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Disciplinary Authority was dismissed. 2. W.P. No.22327/2011 is filed by the petitioner challenging an order bearing No. PGB:VIG::Compl.42:423:2009-10 dated 05.10.2009 passed by the respondent No.2, by which the petitioner was dismissed from service. He has also challenged an order dated 16.07.2010 passed by the respondent No.3 by which his appeal - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9669 WP No. 54862 of 2013 C/W WP No. 22327 of 2011 against the order of dismissal passed by the respondent No.2 was also dismissed. 3. Since the facts in both these writ petitions are common, they are disposed off by this common Order. 4. The petitioner was appointed as an Officer in Chitradurga Gramin Bank in the year 1984. The Government of India published an order which was notified in the extraordinary Gazette bearing F.No.1 (2) 2001 RRB dated 12.09.2005, amalgamating four Regional Rural Banks into new Regional Rural Bank called 'Pragathi Gramin Bank' with effect from 12.09.2005. The Pragathi Gramin Bank [Officers and Employees] Service Regulations, 2005 (for short, 'the Regulations, 2005') were framed which governed the terms and conditions of service of officers and employees of Pragathi Gramin Bank. The petitioner contends that Chitradurga Gramin Bank was also one of the banks that was amalgamated and after amalgamation was known as 'Pragathi Gramin Bank'. While the petitioner was working at the Holehonnur branch of the respondent No.1 - Bank, he had submitted leave applications along with corresponding medical certificates. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9669 WP No. 54862 of 2013 C/W WP No. 22327 of 2011 While things stood thus, a complaint was lodged at Holehonnur Police Station following which he was placed under suspension by the respondent No.2 with effect from 14.06.2008. He contends that the order of suspension was neither served nor communicated to him. However, the respondent No.2 without issuing any notice or serving any articles of charge on the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry, passed the order dated 05.10.2009 dismissing him from service. He claimed that during the period of suspension, he was not granted the subsistence allowance though he made a request to the respondent No.1 - Bank to credit it into his S.B. account at Holehonnur branch. He claimed that after a complaint was lodged against him at Holehonnur Police Station and after he was suspended from service, he shifted his family to his native place. Later, when he reported back to work, he realized that the respondent No.2 had passed an order dismissing him from service. The petitioner therefore filed two appeals against the orders of dismissal. The respondent No.3 without hearing the petitioner, passed an order dismissing the appeals by a non- speaking order. He contends that the order of dismissal passed by the respondent No.2 was not served on him. The petitioner, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9669 WP No. 54862 of 2013 C/W WP No. 22327 of 2011 therefore being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, has filed these two writ petitions. 5. W.P. No.22327/2011 was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.01.2012 which was challenged by the petitioner in W.A No.1140/2012. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the appeal in terms of the judgment dated 11.02.2021 and quashed the order impugned therein passed by the learned Single Judge and remitted the matter to the learned Single Judge to decide the same afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. Consequently, both these petitions are taken up for consideration. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No.2 did not issue any show cause notice to the petitioner and did not serve on him the articles of charge. He contends that no notice was issued to the petitioner about the appointment of an Enquiry Officer and the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer. He contends that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to contest the claim of the respondent No.2 that the petitioner was guilty of the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9669 WP No. 54862 of 2013 C/W WP No. 22327 of 2011 charges framed. He contends that a copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner and the respondent No.2 did not choose to issue a second show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to offer his comments on the enquiry report. He, therefore, contends that the impugned orders were passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 behind the back of the petitioner. He, therefore, prays that the same may be set aside and an opportunity be granted to the petitioner to contest the enquiry. 7. Per contra, the respondents have filed statement of objections contending that when the petitioner was working as Manager at Harihar branch of the respondent No.1 - Bank between 16.06.2004 to 06.07.2007, he had committed acts of financial irregularities resulting in breach of trust and thereby, caused financial loss to the respondent No.1 - Bank to the tune of Rs.1,51,07,000/- under different loan accounts. When these irregularities and breach of trust came to the notice of the respondent No.1, the petitioner absconded from duties. His whereabouts were not made known to the respondent No.1. He was therefore suspended from service on 31.05.2008. Following this, disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner by issuing five separate charge memos. A complaint - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9669 WP No. 54862 of 2013 C/W WP No. 22327 of 2011 was also filed by the respondent No.1 before the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Anti-corruption Branch, Bangalore, for investigation and action. The communications sent by the respondent No.1 to the last known address of the petitioner were not served. The charge sheet and other notices sent to the petitioner at his known address, were returned unserved. Therefore, a publication was caused in 'Vijaya Karnataka', Kannada daily newspaper dated 27.05.2009. However, there was no response from the petitioner. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority, left with no other alternative initiated proceedings under Regulation 38 of the Regulations, 2005 and waived the procedure prescribed for enquiry as provided under Regulation 39 of the Regulations, 2005. A Senior Manager of the respondent No.1 - Bank was appointed as an Enquiry officer. The Enquiry Officer issued a notice dated 13.04.2009 informing the petitioner to attend the enquiry scheduled on 24.04.2009 failing which the enquiry would proceed in his absence. Contemporaneously, a notice was published in 'Vijaya Karnataka', Kannada daily newspaper dated 15.04.2009. However, the petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry Officer on 24.04.2009. The Presenting - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9669 WP No. 54862 of 2013 C/W WP No. 22327 of 2011 Officer submitted list of documents and witnesses on the said date. In order to give an opportunity to the petitioner, the enquiry was adjourned to 08.05.2009. The petitioner was also informed about the adjournment of the enquiry by publication in 'Vijaya Karnataka', Kannada daily newspaper on 26.04.2009. However, the petitioner did not appear on 08.05.2009. As a result, the Presenting Officer proceeded with the enquiry and examined witnesses (MWs.1 to 15) and produced documents - Exs.M1 to M126. The Enquiry officer addressed one more letter dated 17.07.2009 to the petitioner informing him to attend the enquiry on 28.07.2009 and enclosed therewith copies of proceedings held on various dates. The notice sent to the petitioner was returned unserved and therefore, the Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry and called upon the Presenting Officer to submit his written brief. The Enquiry Officer then submitted his report on 12.08.2009 holding that the petitioner is guilty of all charges levelled against him. It is contended that the copy of the findings was placed before the respondent No.2, who forwarded a copy of the same to the petitioner for his submission. However, the same was returned unserved. The respondent No.2 sent a copy of the notice to the branch - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:9669 WP No. 54862 of 2013 C/W WP No. 22327 of 2011 where the petitioner worked last for displaying in the notice board. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter considered the issue in great detail and perused the documentary proof produced before the Enquiry Officer and held that the charges against the petitioner were proved. The Disciplinary Authority thus passed two separate orders of even date i.e., 05.10.2009, namely, one impugned in W.P. No.54862/2013 in respect of charge memo No.PGB:VIG:Compl.42:473:2008-09 dated 20.02.2009 and another impugned in W.P. No.22327/2011 in respect of four charge memo Nos.(i) PGB:VIG:Compl.42:471:2008-09 dated 20.02.2009 (ii) PGB:VIG:Compl.42:472:2008-09 dated 20.02.2009 (iii) PGB:VIG:Compl.42:474:2008-09 dated 20.02.2009 and (iv) PGB:VIG:Compl.42:475:2008-09 dated 20.02.2009, dismissing the petitioner from service. It is contended that the petitioner on coming to know of the orders of dismissal had filed two separate appeals before the respondent No.3 - Appellate Authority which were also dismissed. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner was responsible for not informing the respondent No.1 about shifting his place of residence. It - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:9669 WP No. 54862 of 2013 C/W WP No. 22327 of 2011 was, therefore, contended that the petitioner cannot now at this point in time obviate the consequences. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the above and submitted that the petitioner was accused of financial embezzlement which resulted in criminal proceedings against him. He contends that the petitioner did not leave information with the respondent No.1 - Bank about the place of his residence and the attempts of the respondent No.1 to serve notices and copies of proceedings on the petitioner proved futile. He contends that the Regulation No.39 of the Regulations, 2005 provided for waiver of the procedure prescribed for imposition of a major penalty by the Competent Authority when it is impracticable to communicate with an employee charged or when it is reasonably not practicable to observe the procedure prescribed under Regulation No.38 of the Regulations, 2005. He, therefore, contended that the articles of charge, notices of enquiry, second show cause notice, etc. could not be served on the petitioner and hence, the Disciplinary Authority waived the procedure and passed the impugned orders dated 05.10.2009 dismissing the petitioner from service. He contends that the petitioner has already - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:9669 WP No. 54862 of 2013 C/W WP No. 22327 of 2011 attained the age of superannuation and therefore, no useful purpose would be served in conducting a de novo enquiry. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents in both these petitions. 10. I have perused the articles of charge framed against the petitioner. All the charges related to embezzlement of money belonging to the respondent No.1 - Bank or its constituents. The petitioner was suspended from service and thereafter, a criminal case was lodged against him, which was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The documents produced by the respondents show that the respondents had taken all measures to inform the proceedings of the enquiry as well as the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner. The petitioner had admittedly shifted his family to Mangalore, but did not leave any information to the respondent No.1. This Court would have interfered with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority in view of the fact that the same was passed by treating the petitioner ex parte. However, it is seen that the petitioner was convicted by the XXXII - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:9669 WP No. 54862 of 2013 C/W WP No. 22327 of 2011 Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act') and Sections 120B, 468, 471, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') in Spl. CC No.67/2010. The petitioner had challenged the said judgment of conviction in Crl. A No.696/2012 before this Court which was allowed in part and the petitioner herein was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. However, his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 468, 471, 409 and 420 of IPC was upheld and in modification of the sentence ordered by the Trial Court, the petitioner herein was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for the day, i.e. till the raising of the Court and to pay enhanced fine of Rs.1,00,000/- by or before 15.03.2025 before the Trial Court, failing which, it was ordered that he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the aforesaid offences. This judgment is not challenged and the same has become final. Under Regulation 39 of the Regulations, 2005, the Disciplinary Authority is entitled to waive the procedure - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:9669 WP No. 54862 of 2013 C/W WP No. 22327 of 2011 prescribed for imposition of major penalties if an employee has been convicted on a criminal charge. Therefore, having regard to the nature of the charges alleged against the petitioner and the consequences that have ensued, the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority dismissing the petitioner from service do not merit any interference. Hence, both these petitions are dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45