TMI Blog1999 (7) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sakhapatnam. In the year 1987, he was again considered for promotion. However, he was informed that though he was found fit for promotion with effect from 1.1.1986, the finding of the promotion committee was not being given effect to on account of the pendency of the criminal cases. The criminal cases ended on 17.8.1988 favourably to the respondent acquitting him of the offences charged. However, the order of promotion was not issued. 2. In the year 1990, CWP No. 17490/90 was filed by the respondent seeking relief of the order of promotion being issued and given effect to. By an interim order dated 3.4.1991, the High Court directed the respondent to be promoted on ad hoc basis with effect from 1.1.1986. There was a writ appeal wherein the Division Bench confirmed the interim order of the learned Single Judge but at the same time went on to add an observation in its order that the employer was at liberty to enquire into the matter departmentally though ad hoc promotion as ordered by the Single Judge had to be given. 3. On 3.12.1991 a charge-sheet was given to the respondent alleging commission of misconduct by him. The statement of allegations accompanying the charge-sheet ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n order by the Division Bench of the High Court. The order of the learned Single Judge has been upheld and both the appeals have been dismissed. The aggrieved Bank of India has come up to this Court seeking special leave to appeal which has been granted. 7. Before this Court the controversy has centered around the question whether the learned Single Judge of the High Court was justified in interfering with the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority in reversal of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. As already stated, the Disciplinary Authority has found the respondent guilty of the charge 1(b) and therefore the facts relevant to this charge alone are being briefly stated hereinafter. 8. One Degala Sri Ramulu (DS. for short) had savings bank account No. 14 at Kakinada Branch of the appellant Bank with a balance amount of ₹ 70.30 paise as on 28.6.1977. He issued a cheque in that account on that date for ₹ 14,000 and deposited the same in his own SB account No. 645 with anakapalle branch of the Bank where the respondent was working as a Branch Manager. On 1.7.1977, the respondent sanctioned two clean loans amounting to ₹ 14,000 to M. Peddaraj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of his involvement in the irregularity cited. More importantly the fundamental Articles of Charge No. I, stresses on misappropriation of funds by the CSO and securing by him of a pecuniary advantage. This aspect has not been touched upon by the Presenting Officer. Added to this fact, certain documentary evidences were not made available. In my opinion, the Presenting Officer has not brought out full details relating to the allegation. As such the allegation could not be substantiated. My finding is that the allegation is not proved. 9. The Disciplinary Authority reversing the abovesaid finding held as under: I find from the records of the Departmental Enquiry that the Investigation Officer of CBI who investigated into the allegation against Sri D. Suryanarayana was produced as witness before the Departmental Enquiry. Sri Saibaba, Investigating Officer of CBI (MW-3) in his deposition has stated that Sri M. Peddaraju and Sri v. Nageswara Rao both given the address as C/o S. Sundara Rao, Gandhinagaram, Anakapalle for the purpose of obtaining the loans. Similarly Sri Degala Kannayya Kapu and Sri D. Sriramulu also gave their address as C/o S. Sundara Rao, Gandhinagaram, An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they are close relatives of each other there is nexus between the above named persons in as much as every one had given the following address at Anakapalle: C/o S. Sundara Rao, Gandhinagar, Anakapalle. This would indicate that they are not ordinarily residents at Anakapalle and known to each other. The defence contended that the management could not prove that the balance in the SB account at Kakinada Branch was only ₹ 70.30. on 28.6.77. In this connection the investigating officer has categorically stated in his deposition that the balance in the SB account No. 14 of the Kakinada branch on 28.6.77 was only ₹ 70.30. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the statement of investigating officer. The Investigating Officer had gone through various records at the time of investigation and his deposition in connection with factual position of the matter can be accepted. I, therefore, hold that the allegation No. 1(b) as stated in the Statement of Allegations issued to Sri D. Suryanarayana in support of Article of Charge No. 1 is proved. 10. The law is well settled. The Disciplinary Authority on receiving the report of the Enquiry Officer may or may not agree with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of regulation 6 as far as may be, (2) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. (3) If the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in regulation 4 should be imposed on the officer employee it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in regulation 8, make an order imposing such penalty. (1) If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that no penalty is called for, it may pass an order exonerating the officer employee concerned. 13. In the case at hand a perusal of the order dated 5.1.1995 of the disciplinary Authority shows that it has taken into consideration the evidence, the finding and the reasons recorded by the Enquiry Officer and then assigned reasons for taking a view in departure from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n effect to which the respondent was found entitled as on 1.1.1986. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of punishment made in the year 1995 cannot deprive the respondent of the benefit of the promotion earned on 1.1.1986. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals stand partly allowed and it is directed that the Civil Writ Petition No. 17490/90 filed in the High Court by the respondent seeking a writ of mandamus giving effect to the promotion of the appellant with effect from 1.1.1986 shall stand allowed and the orders made by the learned Single Judge as also by the Division Bench in that regard are maintained. The Civil Writ Petition No. 12577/92 seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 3.12.1991, subsequently amended to seek the relief of setting aside the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage by the order dated 4.3.1995 of the Disciplinary Authority, is directed to be dismissed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge and of the Division Bench, to the extent to which order of the Disciplinary Authority and the punishment imposed by him have been interfered with by the High Court are set aside. The appeals be treated as disposed of accordingly. In vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
