1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT APPEAL NO.1444 OF 2024 (S-DE) BETWEEN: CANARA BANK 112, J.C. ROAD BENGALURU - 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. GENERAL MANAGER. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE) [ AND: 1 . SRI. M.H. RON SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS: SRI PRASANNA M. RON S/O LATE M.H. RON AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 2 . SRI. ANANDA M.N. RON S/O LATE M.H. RON AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 3 . SMT. DEEPALI W/O PARTHASARATHI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.15 C, PRIMROSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.P. KULKARNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI. G. MADHUSUDHANAN, ADVOCATE ) 2 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.06.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.17802 OF 2005, ETC. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, M.I.ARUN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN) Aggrieved by the order passed in Writ Petition No.17802 of 2005, the respondent there is has preferred this writ appeal. 2. The appellant is a nationalized bank and one Sri..M.H. Ron was its employee. On certain allegations, disciplinary proceedings as well as criminal proceedings were initiated against the said M.H..Ron. The allegations in both disciplinary proceedings as well as the criminal proceedings 3 are similar. The employee has been discharged in the criminal proceedings. However, he was found guilty in the departmental inquiry conducted against him. In the meanwhile, after attaining superannuation, the said M.H..Ron has expired. Respondents herein are his legal representatives. The findings of the departmental inquiry has been confirmed by the appellate authority. Aggrieved by the same, respondents herein preferred Writ Petition No.17802 of 2005. Learned Single Judge on the ground that the allegations made in departmental inquiry as well as in the criminal case are similar and that in the criminal case, the delinquent employee has been discharged and that the evidence adduced in the disciplinary proceedings has not been appropriately appreciated by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, has set aside the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority and has allowed the writ petition and has in turn directed the appellant herein to pay all the retirement benefits along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The writ appeal is filed challenging the same. 3. It is the case of the appellant that mere discharge in criminal proceedings does not absolve the delinquent 4 employee from disciplinary proceedings. It is further contended that the evidence has been properly appreciated by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority but it has not been so done by learned Single Judge. It is further contended that learned Single Judge ought not to have done the exercise of fact finding and for the said reason it is prayed that the writ appeal be allowed and writ petition No.17802 of 2005 be dismissed. 4. Per contra, respondents justify the order passed in Writ Petition No.17802 of 2005 and prays for dismissal of the writ appeal. 5. There have been three charges made against the delinquent employee. The details of the charges, the inquiry officer's conclusion and the disciplinary authority's order are as follows, "The charges in the Charge Sheet and Inquiry Officer's Opinion The petitioner has failed to discharge his duties with utmost honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence and he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a bank officer and thus contravened Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of the Canara Bank Officer 5 Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 [for short, the 'Canara Bank Conduct Regulations 1976']. Hence, the petitioner is guilty of misconduct which is punishable under the provisions of the Canara Bank officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 [for short, the 'Canara Bank Discipline and Appeal Regulations 1976'] because of the following [A] The petitioner, while working as the Senior Manager at Halge Branch, has got insured 139 old assets [cattle] purchased by beneficiaries during 1982-85 availing loans from the bank. These cattle are insured with the active association of Sri.A.S.Shanbhag, Development Officer, NIAC Karwar who has created forged Veterinary Health Certificates for the purpose of insurance. The petitioner has got insured the cattle using forged Veterinary Certificates with active association of Sri.A.S.Shanbhag, Development Officer, NIAC. [B] The Petitioner, based on the forged Health Certificates, has got cattle of the six beneficiaries [as mentioned in the Statement of Imputation], insured without their knowledge. Further the petitioner has intentionally disbursed more premium amount to the Insurance company though he was aware of the correct insurance fee for the government The petitioner has obtained insurance cover without the knowledge of only one of the beneficiaries as against the six referred to in the Charge Sheet No.BLC: DAC:2022: CHO 10/94 dated 4.3.1994 and thus he has failed to discharge his duties with utmost honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence and thereby contravened Canara Bank Conduct Regulations, 1976. 6 sponsored schemes. [C] The petitioner has compelled the beneficiaries to submit Panchanama Reports signed by the village leaders to report death of their cattle. Article of Charges and Inquiry Officer's opinion The petitioner has failed to discharge his duties with utmost honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a bank officer and thus contravened Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of the Canara Bank Conduct Regulations, 1976 and is guilty of misconduct punishable under the provisions of the Canara Bank Discipline & Appeal Regulations, 1976. While working as the Senior Manager of Halge Branch from 23.9.91, the petitioner has made a false declaration to New India Assurance Company (NIAC), Karwar to the effect that an animal owned by Sri. J.R. Bandekar died on 10.12.87, and he has submitted a false claim proposal without the knowledge of the beneficiary. Based on this false claim, NIAC Karwar has settled the claim for Rs.1500/- and suffered a loss of Rs.1500/-. The details are more fully enumerated in the The petitioner is guilty of the charge of giving false declaration to NIAC, Karwar in respect of beneficiary, Sri.J.R.Bandekar to the effect that his cattle has died on 10.12.1987 and he has submitted a false claim proposal whereafter NIAC have settled the claim and suffered a loss of Rs.1,500/-. The charge to this extent is partly proved, and has thus failed to discharge his duties With utmost honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence and has contravened Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of Canara Bank Conduct 7 Statement of Imputations to the Articles of Charge. Regulations, 1976. Article of Charges and Inquiry Officer's opinion in charge Sheet No. BLC DAC 2024 CHO 12/94 The petitioner has failed to discharge his duties with utmost honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a bank officer and thus contravened Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of the Conduct Regulations, 1976 and has committed misconduct which is punishable under the provisions of the Canara Bank Discipline & Appeal Regulations, 1976 While working as the Senior Manager of Halge Branch from 23.9.91, the petitioner has made a false declaration to New India Assurance Company (NIAC), Karwar and has sanctioned 238 livestock loans and loans for self- employment, based on false documents, forms and certificates in active association with Sri.A.S.Shanbhag, Development Officer, NIAC Karwar and there are reasons to believe that he has accepted certain percentage of loan amount as illegal gratification from 23 loanees/beneficiaries. The charge against the petitioner in sanction of loan on false documents in active association with Sri. A.S.Shanbhag is not proved. However, the Charge that the petitioner has accepted certain percentage of loan amount as illegal gratification from 9 beneficiaries is proved, and thus he has failed to discharge his duties with utmost honest, integrity, devotion and diligence and contravened regulations 3(1) read with regulation 24 of the Canara Bank Conduct Regulations 1976" 8 6. Based on the same charges, criminal proceedings were also initiated against the delinquent employee and he has been discharged. The aforementioned facts are not in dispute. 7. In catena of judgments this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when an employee is acquitted honourably in a criminal case, then in that event he is entitled to the benefit of same in disciplinary proceedings sought to be initiated against him. 8. The culpable act on part of an employee can result in initiation of both criminal proceedings as well as disciplinary proceedings against him. The degree of burden of proof in both proceedings differ. In a criminal proceedings, it is 'beyond reasonable doubt' and in disciplinary proceedings it is 'balance of probability'. The same has to be discharged by the prosecution in criminal case and the employer in the departmental inquiry. Thus, a mere acquittal does not necessarily result in termination of disciplinary proceedings in favour of delinquent employee. However, as both the proceedings originate from the same set of facts and the 9 witnesses relied upon are the same and the charges levelled are the same, if there is an honourable acquittal, it shows that the accused was acquitted not merely because prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, but on the contrary failed to prove the case miserably and there was an honourable acquittal, it will not serve any purpose in the same witnesses being examined once again in the disciplinary proceedings. 9. In the instant case, the delinquent employee has been discharged in criminal proceedings, which is much more than a honourable acquittal. Admittedly, charges in the criminal case as well as the disciplinary proceedings are similar. No doubt appreciating the evidence let in, disciplinary authorities as well as the First Appellate Authority have concluded that the delinquent employee is guilty of the charges proved. Learned Single Judge under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice has re-appreciated the evidence and has concluded that there was no proper appreciation of all the relevant materials placed before the disciplinary authority and has come to the conclusion that findings of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate 10 authority to be erroneous. Learned Single Judge has specifically come to the conclusion that as per the article of charge one A.S.Shanbhag was the person behind manipulation of certain records and instigated the customers to file the complaint against the petitioner and that the said Shanbhag has admitted the same and this aspect has not been considered the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. With regard to the second imputation against the delinquent employee that he made a false declaration about death of a cattle owned by one J.R.Bandekar, the disciplinary authority has failed to take into consideration that the claim was made by J.R.Bandekar by making necessary declaration and that there is no material to show that the delinquent employee conspired with him. Similarly with regard to the third charge that delinquent employee has accepted certain percentage of loan amount as illegal gratification, it is noticed that the allegation pertains to the year 1987-88 and the complaint is lodged only in the year 1993 and there is no direct imputation of the delinquent employee concerned by any of the witnesses. Based on the said conclusion, learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition. 11 10. Learned advocate for the appellant is unable to point out, as to how the appreciation of material on record by learned Single Judge is erroneous. 11. Under the circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere in the well reasoned order of learned Single Judge and the writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG