APHC010219392004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 20482/2004 Between: 1. M. RAMESH BABU, GUNTUR DISTRICT., S/O. KRISHNA MURTHY, EMPLOYEE, R/O. MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA HYDERABAD ANOTHER, REP BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, APPELLATE AUTHORITY LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, HYDERABAD. 2. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, STATE BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA. ...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 toto issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the entire records relating to Order dt. 22-7-2004 of 1st respondent herein confirming the orders dt. 17-3-2004 of 2nd respondent herein imposing penalty of 'Dismissal from service' on the petitioner and declare the same as arbitrary illegal capricious and violative of principles of all cannons of law and justice and consequently direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner in his services with all service benefits and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2004(WPMP 26825 OF 2004 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 direct the respondents to re-instate the Petitioner herein in his services 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 pleased to grant leave to the Respondent to file Counter Affidavit in W.P.No.20482 of 2004 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P RAJKUMAR 2. 3. E MADAN MOHAN RAO The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION No.20482 of 2004 ORDER: Present writ petition is filed seeking following relief: “to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the entire records relating to Order dt 22-7-2004 of 1st respondent herein confirming the orders dt 17-3-2004 of 2nd respondent herein imposing penalty of Dismissal from service on the petitioner and declare the same as arbitrary, illegal, capricious and violative of principles of all cannons of law and justice and consequently direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner in his services with all service benefits and pass such other orders.” 2. (a) Petitioner, while working as Assistant Manager (Advances) at Rajupet Branch of respondent bank, stated to have recommended for sanction of various crop loans without conducting proper inspection of records, the identity of borrower, the security offered, the purpose of borrowing and even accommodated the loans for several non-existent persons claimed to be agriculturists. Ultimately, the loans so sanctioned remained to be doubtful and bad debts, and hence, substantial amounts 2 CGR, J W.P. No.20482 of 2004 could not be recovered, causing serious loss to the bank. On account of the same, petitioner was initially issued charge memo setting out 10 articles of charges, all essentially relating to the recommendation or sanctioning of loans in fraudulent manner to several persons, including non-existing persons. The loans stated to have been sanctioned were during the period 1998 to 2000, and as many as about 50 such loans were recommended and granted, which ultimately resulted in severe financial loss to the bank. (b) Charges were refuted by petitioner by filing written statement and after conducting enquiry, the enquiry officer has submitted final report holding that all the charges were proved. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent, after issuing show-cause notice and affording due opportunity, has passed orders dated 17.03.2024 imposing major punishment of removal from service. (c) Assailing the same, petitioner preferred appeal before 1st respondent. The said appeal also eventually came to be rejected by impugned order dated 22.07.2004, upholding the order of the 2nd respondent. (d) Assailing the same, present writ petition is filed. 3. Respondents have filed detailed counter supporting the order of removal as well as order confirming the same. In the 3 CGR, J W.P. No.20482 of 2004 counter, it is stated that the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority have followed due procedure and after affording reasonable opportunity to petitioner have ultimately passed final orders recording specific findings supported by proper reasons that there were clear lapses and irregularities committed in recommending the loans for various persons including fictitious persons, which ultimately caused severe financial loss to the bank, therefore, such findings of fact clearly weighed the disciplinary authority to impose punishment of removal from service, which is clearly in proportionate to the charges which were grievous in nature. 4. Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel, representing Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for petitioner on record and Sri P.Raj Kumar, learned counsel, representing on behalf of respondents. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the disciplinary authority and as well as appellate authority have not considered the evidence on record in proper perspective and on mere surmises and conjunctures, have come to conclusion that the petitioner’s act resulted in loss to the bank and that he had committed lapses and irregularities in recommending or 4 CGR, J W.P. No.20482 of 2004 sanctioning the loans and that too to fictitious persons. He further contended that the findings and conclusions were arrived at without proper appreciation of evidence on record and application of mind and the same are perverse. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent bank tried to sustain both these orders by contending that since the finding of fact recorded by both authorities are after due appreciation of evidence on record supported by cogent reasons, even if a different view is possible, the conclusion drawn is required to be sustained and under the guise of judicial review such findings of facts should not be interfered in routine manner. He further contended that since the writ petition does not canvass the grounds of jurisdiction or patent illegality in the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority in coming to the conclusion, on mere finding of fact, the impugned orders cannot be interdicted. 7. Perused the record and considered rival submissions. 8. Petitioner was proceeded with disciplinary proceedings on the allegation of recommending for sanction of crop loans without proper verification of identity of borrowers, the securities offered and whether the persons claiming loans were genuine or not and 5 CGR, J W.P. No.20482 of 2004 even some of them being non-existing agriculturists. Some of the charges also related to dereliction or negligence inasmuch as he alleged to have not conducted proper inspection of the land holdings on which the crop loans were claimed, and also the documents in relation thereto. In all, there were about 50 such loans either sanctioned or recommended for sanction, and ultimately majority of the loans offered became non-performing or bad debts, as such, the same could not be recovered by the bank due to lack of identification of the securities or the persons who actually borrowed the amounts. The enquiry officer, after conducting detailed enquiry and affording opportunity to the petitioner, has ultimately come to conclusion that all ten charges have been clearly established and proved. The disciplinary authority basing on the said enquiry report, after applying its mind to the contents of the enquiry report, objections raised by petitioner has independently come to conclusion that there was proven lapse and irregularities in sanction, conduct and advancing the loans, for which petitioner alone was responsible and ultimately, since the same has resulted in substantial loss to the bank, the disciplinary authority has come to conclusion that severe punishment of dismissal from service is required to be ordered in terms of Rule 6 CGR, J W.P. No.20482 of 2004 67(j) of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules. These findings of fact have been independently once again confirmed by appellate authority in the order dated 22.07.2004. 9. Even before this Court, though learned counsel for petitioner had tried to make submissions on the findings qua the charges, it has not been pointed out as to how the concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by appellate authority are perverse or patently erroneous. A general submission has been made that the findings have been rendered without appreciation of evidence on record and proper application of mind. 10. Having gone through the findings recorded in both these orders, this Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions arrived at by respondents are sufficiently supported by valid reasons upon appreciation of evidence on record, that too in a case of concurrent findings, unless it is demonstrably shown that findings recorded are patently erroneous and perverse, normally this Court exercising powers under Article 226 would not undertake judicial review. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the orders of disciplinary authority as confirmed by appellate authority. 7 CGR, J W.P. No.20482 of 2004 11. Accordingly, I see no reason to interfere with the same and the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 30.10.2025 SS