Telangana High Court
J. Moses vs Telangana Grameena Bank And Another on 3 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.4911 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.4913 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.13749 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.13991 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.17098 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.21759 OF 2020
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.22212 OF 2020
COMMON ORDER
In this batch of 7 Writ Petitions, the petitioners in 6 Writ
Petitions, i.e., W.P.Nos.4911, 4913, 13749, 13991, 21759 and 22212 of
2020 are challenging the respective orders of the 1st respondent bank
dismissing the petitioners from service and also the orders of the 2nd
respondent in rejecting the appeals filed by the respective petitioners as
illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to direct the 1st respondent
bank to pay the terminal benefits like gratuity, leave encashment and
pension to the petitioners along with interest; while the petitioner in
W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch
2 (Total 07 cases)
W.P.No.17089 of 2020 is challenging the order of the respondent bank
in refusing to release provisional pension to the petitioner therein as
illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same and to direct
the respondent bank to release the provisional pension and to pass such
other order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petitions are
that the 1st respondent is a Regional Rural Bank established under the
Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 and is sponsored by State Bank of
India and the 2nd respondent is the appellate authority constituted under
the Service Regulations of the Bank. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.4911,
4913, 17098 and 21759 of 2020 were working as Officers, Scale-II,
while the petitioners in W.P.Nos.13749 and 13991 of 2020 were
working as Officers, Scale-III and the petitioner in W.P.No.22212 of
2020 was working as Officer, Scale-I. All of them worked in Aziz Nagar
Branch.
3. All the petitioners were issued notices dt.17.05.2018 pointing out
that certain irregularities were committed by them in Aziz Nagar Branch
of the Bank and that the petitioners did not exercise supervisory
functions in a diligent manner enabling the Clerk-cum-Cashier of the
W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch
3 (Total 07 cases)
Bank, one Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy, in causing large scale misappropriation
of funds and loss to the Bank. The petitioners submitted their
explanations on various dates stating that for the period in which they
have worked in Aziz Nagar Branch, the accounts of the branch were
audited regularly by the internal audit as well as by the statutory audit
party and no irregularities were found/pointed out for the said period. It
was further stated that Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy was kept in the same branch
for more than 12 years and hence misappropriation of amounts by him
cannot be held against the petitioners and held that they failed to work in
a diligent manner. However, not being satisfied with the explanation of
the petitioners, the Bank has initiated departmental enquiry against all
the officers vide letter dt.06.11.2018 and the enquiry proceedings
commenced and during the course of the enquiry, the Presenting Officer
of the Bank has placed their documents on record and the enquiry
officer has marked them as Exs. ME 1 to ME 370. MW1, the officer of
the Bank was examined to produce the complainants as the witnesses.
MW2 who is also the officer of the Bank was asked to confirm the
contents of the documents and MW3 to MW5 were also examined. It is
submitted that no evidence was adduced from the side of the
Management to explain the contents of the exhibits and to correlate
W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch
4 (Total 07 cases)
them with reference to the misconduct alleged against the petitioners.
Thereafter, the Defence Representative was permitted to cross-examine
the Management Witnesses (MWs) and that it was also confined only to
the contents of the documents and the enquiry was accordingly closed
and the petitioners were asked to submit their brief within a period of 4
days and accordingly, the petitioners submitted their written briefs to the
enquiry officer and the enquiry officer submitted his report on
30.04.2019 to the disciplinary authority holding all the petitioners as
guilty of the alleged acts of misconduct. The enquiry report was
furnished to the petitioners asking them to submit their objections
against the findings of the enquiry officer and the petitioners submitted
their objections in a detailed manner. The petitioners have raised the
specific contention that the exhibits were only photocopies and the
originals of the same were not produced and hence the photocopies
could not have been marked. The objections submitted by the petitioners
were rejected by the disciplinary authority. In the mean time, when
some of the petitioners reached the age of superannuation, their services
were extended notionally for completion of the disciplinary proceedings.
Thereafter, the order imposing punishment of recovery of
Rs.25,00,000/- from the petitioner in W.P.No.4913 of 2020 was passed,
W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch
5 (Total 07 cases)
while the petitioners in W.P.Nos.4911 and 21759 of 2020 have been
imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service. The orders
imposing punishment of dismissal from service were also passed against
the petitioners in W.P.Nos.13749, 13991 and 22212 of 2020 while the
order rejecting the claim of provisional pension was passed against the
petitioner in W.P.No.17098 of 2020.
4. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.4911, 4913, 13749, 13991, 21759 and
22212 of 2020 filed appeals before the appellate authority, i.e., the 2nd
respondent, but they were all rejected and therefore, the present Writ
Petitions have been filed.
5. The common objections taken by the petitioners in all the above
Writ Petitions are as follows:
(a) Whether the photocopies of the Bank records can be marked as
exhibits and whether they constitute admissible evidence in the
enquiry?
(b) Whether, mere marking of the documents, without proving the
contents of the documents would satisfy the requirement of proof
of misconduct in the domestic enquiry?
W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch
6 (Total 07 cases)
(c) Whether the charges against the petitioners stood proved in the
domestic enquiry keeping in view the nature of the documents
filed in the enquiry and also the nature of oral evidence adduced?
(d) Whether the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India will be confined merely to see whether the
procedure of domestic enquiry was followed by the Bank, more
particularly when the charges themselves are not proved?
(e) In case the contentions of the petitioners are found valid, what is
the relief the petitioners are entitled to?
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted
that the photocopies of documents do not constitute admissible evidence
and failure of the Bank to get the certified copies from the CBI is not
explained with any valid reason. He relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs.
Assistant General Manager, Syndicate Bank Industrial Relations
Cell and others 1, wherein it was held that adducing Photostat copies as
evidence is not as per Section 63 of the Evidence Act. He also relied
upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of
1
MANU/UP/0669/2007
W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch
7 (Total 07 cases)
S.G.Nayak and others Vs. Canara Bank and others2, wherein similar
observation was made by the Karnataka High Court. He submitted that
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sait Tarajee
Khimchand and others Vs. Yelamarti Satyam and others 3, has held
that mere marking of an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of
documents.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners thus submitted that in this
case, the Management Witnesses, except for stating the nature of such
documents, did not mention anything about the contents of the
documents and as to how they were proof of misappropriation of funds
and therefore, the said marking of documents cannot be treated as proof
of documents. Thus, according to him, none of the charges leveled
against the petitioners have been proved by the Management Witnesses
and the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority have only
drawn inferences from the exhibits marked in the course of enquiry and
it will not amount to proof of misconduct against the petitioners. It is
further submitted that since misconduct is not proved in accordance with
the procedure and law, power of judicial review of this Court will not be
2
MANU/KA/0575/2004
3
AIR 1971 SC 1865
W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch
8 (Total 07 cases)
having any restrictions and the order of punishment is liable to be
declared as illegal and unsustainable. He placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meenglas Tea
Estate Vs. Its Workers 4 in support of his contention that a person who
is charged with an accusation must not only know about the accusation
but also should be made aware of the testimony by which the accusation
is supported. Therefore, he submitted that the petitioners should be
given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to
put such relevant questions by way of cross examination as he desires.
Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsel, since the respondents did
not follow the procedure for conduct of the enquiry in accordance with
law, the punishments based on such a faulty enquiry report cannot be
sustained. He therefore prayed for setting aside of the punishment
orders.
8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also filed a copy of
the charge sheet filed before the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases,
Gaganvihar, Hyderabad in Charge Sheet No.21 of 2018 dt.03.04.2019 in
support of his contention that the petitioners, though were initially
included as accused in the FIR, since there were no allegations against
4
AIR 1963 SC 1719
W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch
9 (Total 07 cases)
the petitioners in the charge sheet, the charges against the petitioners
were also held as not proved in the criminal case. He further submitted
that the respondent appellate authority has not addressed the grounds
raised by the petitioners herein and has summarily rejected their appeals
and therefore, the appellate orders are liable to be set aside. He further
submitted that though there is an allegation that Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy is
the king pin and he has committed misappropriation of funds, he was
not examined by the disciplinary authority during the course of enquiry
and therefore, according to him, for this reason also, the orders of
dismissal have to be set aside.
9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent bank,
however, relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and
submitted that the petitioners have been charged with gross negligence
in exercising their supervisory powers in the Bank and accordingly,
show-cause notices were issued to them and they were given fair
opportunity to make their submissions and also to participate in the
enquiry. It is submitted that Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy, Office Assistant was
working in the said Branch and the petitioners have allowed him to issue
pass books with entries recorded manually in the passbooks with his
handwriting though the branch was provided with passbook printers and
W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch
10 (Total 07 cases)
thus facilitated commission of fraud by him and the petitioners
authenticated such entries with their initials which is contrary to the
circular guidelines and that they did not verify the same with the entries
available in the branch books since they differed. He submitted that such
entries were not accounted for and led to misappropriation of funds by
Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy. As regards the allegations that the bank continued
the Clerk-cum-Cashier at the Branch without transferring him for long
period of 12 years, it is submitted that the Head Office transferred the
said person to Chevalla branch on completion of 5 years term vide letter
No.DGB/RO/927/2012-13 dt.13.09.2012, but since the said order was
not implemented by the incharge Branch Manager, Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy
continued to overstay in Aziz Nagar Branch and further the said Branch
Manager also did not inform about non-compliance of the transfer
orders and therefore, the said Branch Manager was also subjected to
disciplinary enquiry and vide proceedings dt.04.02.2020, Mr. M.Jaipal
Reddy was dismissed from service. As regards the argument of the
petitioners that only Xerox copies of the documents were produced and
marked and therefore there is no proof of the charges leveled against
them, it is submitted that there was a gigantic fraud tuning to the amount
of Rs.8.45 crores committed in the Branch and therefore, the original
W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch
11 (Total 07 cases)
records of the Branch were seized and held by the CBI as part of the
ongoing investigation and for this purpose, all attested extracts along
with SB passbooks and term deposit receipts were duly verified with the
originals held in the custody of the CBI and the same were submitted
during the departmental enquiry and other proceedings. He submitted
that the Xerox copies are duly certified by the Branch officials affixing
the branch seal and therefore, there was no violation of any law and the
petitioners cannot dispute their authenticity. It is further submitted that
only the Bank officers are authorized to certify the photocopies of the
bank records prior to handing them over to the CBI officers and
therefore, the objections of the petitioners are not sustainable. It is stated
that sufficient opportunity of going through the evidence produced by
the Management was given to the petitioners and therefore, there was no
violation of principles of natural justice or procedure and hence there
was no cause for interference with the punishment orders. It is submitted
that the negligence of the petitioners in performing their duties and
allowing Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy to make entries in the passbooks in spite
of there being passbook printers available in the Bank has been proved
and therefore, there was no cause for interference. The learned Standing
Counsel has also pointed out to various acts of negligence which have
W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch
12 (Total 07 cases)
caused misconduct by Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy and huge loss to the 1st
respondent bank. Those acts are:
(i) Not checking the passbooks by the petitioners and allowing the
Office Assistant Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy to make manual entries
in the passbooks,
(ii) Not checking as to how the term deposit receipts which are in
the custody of the petitioners in the strong room were being
issued and for what amounts the TDRs were issued,
(iii) Not verifying that the Office Assistant has fraudulently issued
TDRs without opening savings account with zero balance in
the name of the customer and without remitting the actual
amount deposited by the customer in the bank and the
fraudulent encashment of TDRs,
(iv) Failing to cross check the vouchers, FDRs and other
transactions with reference to the VVRs (Voucher Verification
Reports) and not submitting the Manager Monthly Certificate
about the position of the Branch every month and even in
issuing such certificates not pointing out the fraud.
W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch
13 (Total 07 cases)
He has drawn the attention of the entries passed by Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy
even before and after office hours of the Bank and the complacency of
the petitioners in not preventing him from such activity. It is submitted
that the petitioners have obviously disclosed their passwords to him, due
to which the said Office Assistant utilized the same and has committed
fraud and therefore, the petitioners as well as the Office Assistant are all
responsible for the fraudulent acts of Mr. M.Jaipal Reddy.
10. He also placed reliance upon the following judgments in support
of his contentions.
(1) State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Bhupendra Singh 5
(2) Union of India and others Vs. Subrata Nath 6
(3) Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others
Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava 7
(4) M.L.Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank and others 8
(5) Canara Bank Vs. V.K.Awasthy 9
5
2024 LawSuit(SC) 678
6
Civil Appeals No.7939 – 7940 of 2022 of Supreme Court dt.23.11.2022
7
(2021) 2 SCC 612 : AIRONLINE 2021 SC 38
8
(2018) 18 SCC 21 : AIR 2018 SC 4668
9
(2005) 6 SCC 321
W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch
14 (Total 07 cases)
(6) Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank
and others Vs. P.C.Kakkar 10
11. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,
this Court finds that the foremost question to be decided is whether the
photocopies of the Bank records can be marked as exhibits and whether
they constitute admissible evidence in the enquiry.
12. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs.
Assistant General Manager, Syndicate Bank Industrial Relations
Cell and others (1 supra) has observed that the photostat copies of the
documents relied upon by the enquiry officer would be admissible in
evidence and could be taken into consideration by the enquiry officer
and the disciplinary authority provided that the copies are made from
original by mechanical process which in themselves insure the accuracy
of the copy, and copies compared with such copies, copies made from or
compared with the original and counterparts of documents as against the
parties who did not execute them and oral accounts of the contents of a
document given by some person who has himself seen it. The High
Court has observed that Section 63 of the Evidence Act makes it clear
10
(2003) 4 SCC 364
W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch
15 (Total 07 cases)
that mere filing of photostat copy of the document unless it is proved by
other evidence showing that the same is copied or prepared from
original documents, the same cannot be treated as secondary evidence
and accordingly is not admissible as such in evidence. Similar view was
expressed by the Karnataka High Court in the case of S.G.Nayak and
others Vs. Canara Bank and others (2 supra) and by the Madras High
Court in the case of M. Shahul Hameed Vs. The Managing Director
and The Chairman, Board of Directors, The Tamil Nadu Industrial
Investment Corporation Ltd. 11. The Madras High Court has observed
that the legal principles are settled that when serious charges are framed
and it is required to be proved to the guilt, as it brings civil and criminal
consequences on the employer concerned, he would be liable to be
prosecuted and therefore, it cannot be proved on mere probabilities
without taking evidence. Therefore, it is clear that the photocopies of the
Bank records unless specified to be so by the authority under whose
possession the original documents are there, cannot be considered as
admissible evidence. In this case, admittedly, the original documents are
in the custody of CBI.
11
MANU/TN/2137/2011
W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch
16 (Total 07 cases)
13. As regards the second question, i.e., whether, mere marking of the
documents would satisfy the requirement of proof of misconduct in the
domestic enquiry, this Court finds that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Sait Tarajee Khimchand and others Vs. Yelamarti
Satyam and others (3 supra) observed that mere marking of an exhibit
does not dispense with the proof of documents. Further, in the case of
Life Insurance Corporation of India and another Vs. Ram Pal Singh
Bisen 12, it was observed that mere marking of exhibit on a document
does not dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in
accordance with law.
14. From the enquiry report filed along with the Writ Petitions, it is
noticed that the Management witness has only referred to the contents of
the documents which are marked, but has failed to state as to how the
said documents prove the misconduct of the concerned employee or as
to how the said documents prove the misappropriation of funds by the
Clerk-cum-Cashier Mr. M. Jaipal Reddy and the role of the petitioners
herein in the said misappropriation of funds. Therefore, this question is
also answered in favour of the petitioners.
12
(2010) 4 SCC 491
W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch
17 (Total 07 cases)
15. In view of the reply to these questions (a) and (b), the answer to
question No.(c) is also in the negative and this view is also supported by
the following decisions.
(i) In the case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Rajendra Ram 13, the
High Court of Patna has observed in paras 33 and 34 as under:
“33. The reason behind this principle is that not only the
Delinquent Officer should know about the charges made against him
but should also know the evidence against him so that he is able to
submit his reply. In absence of any witness being examined and/or any
record being exhibited, the proceeding cannot be said to be a proper
one.
34. It is important to note that the statement of all the
witnesses should be recorded in the presence of the Delinquent
Officer unless there are reasons to act otherwise. If it is examined in
the absence of the Delinquent Officer and materials not supplied to
him again the procedure is illegal.”
(ii) Similar proposition has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Saroj
Kumar Sinha 14 and in the case of Chamoli District Cooperative Bank
13
MANU/BH/0890/2022
14
(2010) 2 SCC 772
W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch
18 (Total 07 cases)
Limited through its Secretary/Mahaprabandhak and another Vs.
Raghunath Singh and others 15.
(iii) In the case of Meenglas Tea Estate Vs. Its Workers (4 supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para 4 as under:
“4. The Tribunal held that the enquiry was vitiated because it
was not held in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It is
contended that this conclusion was erroneous. But we have no doubt
about its correctness. The enquiry consisted of putting questions to
each workman in turn. No witness was examined in support of the
charge before the workman was questioned. It is an elementary
principle that a person who is required to answer a charge must know
not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation
is supported. He must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in
support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of
cross-examination as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to
rebut the evidence led against him. This is the barest requirement of
an enquiry of this character and this requirement must be
substantially fulfilled before the result of the enquiry can be accepted.
A departure from this requirement in effect throws the burden upon
the person charged to repel the charge without first making it out
against him. In the present case neither was any witness examined nor
was any statements made by any witness tendered in evidence. The
enquiry such as it was, made by Mr. Marshal or Mr. Nichols who
were not only in the position of judges but also of prosecutors and
witnesses. There was no opportunity to the persons charged to cross-
examine them and indeed they drew upon their own knowledge of the15
(2016) 12 SCC 204
W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch
19 (Total 07 cases)
incident and instead cross-examined the persons charged. This was
such a travesty of the principles of natural justice that the Tribunal
was justified in rejecting the findings and asking the Company to
prove the allegation against each workmen de novo before it.”
16. As regards Question No.(d), whether this Court can interfere in
the domestic enquiry under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank and others Vs.
Krishna Narayan Tewari16 held that where the disciplinary authority
records a finding that is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever or a
finding which no reasonable person could have arrived at, the writ court
would be justified if not duty-bound to examine the matter and grant
relief in appropriate cases. It was observed that the writ court will
certainly interfere with disciplinary enquiry or the resultant orders
passed by the competent authority on that basis if the enquiry itself was
vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice, as
alleged in the said case. Non-application of mind by the enquiry officer
or disciplinary authority, non-recording of reasons in support of the
conclusion arrived at by them are also grounds on which the writ courts
are justified in interfering with the orders of punishment. In the case of
16
(2017) 2 SCC 308
W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch
20 (Total 07 cases)
Commissioner of Police, Delhi and others Vs. Jai Bhagwan 17, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that non-examination of
complainant during departmental proceedings and denial of opportunity
of cross-examination to delinquent amounts to violation of service rules
and also principles of natural justice.
17. In this case, admittedly, the co-delinquent Mr. M. Jaipal Reddy
was never examined by the authorities and the petitioners were also not
given any opportunity to cross-examine him. Whether some of the
employees have been saddled with harsher punishment while some were
let off with a lenient view, it has been held time and again that where
there is parity among co-delinquents, punishment should not be
disproportionate while comparing involvement in co-delinquents who
are parties to the transaction or incident. On this ground also, the
punishments of dismissal from service have to be set aside.
18. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the
respondent bank are on the principle of jurisdiction of this Court to
interfere with the disciplinary proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. There is no quarrel with the principle that this
17
(2011) 6 SCC 376
W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch
21 (Total 07 cases)
Court should not interfere with the disciplinary proceedings while
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
except in certain circumstances which have already been culled out in
the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The
said principles have been taken into consideration while holding that
there has been violation of principles of natural justice and the
procedure has not been properly followed. Therefore, there is no quarrel
about the judgments relied upon by the respondents. In the cases on
hand, this Court is not acting as an appellate authority by directing
reinstatement of the petitioners but has directed the respondents to re-
conduct the enquiry, if necessary from the stage of recording of
evidence. Since all the petitioners have attained the age of
superannuation and sufficient time has lapsed and therefore to
reconsider imposing lesser punishment than the punishment of dismissal
from service, this Court is of the opinion that the other judgments relied
upon by the learned counsel for the respondent bank are not applicable
ipso facto to the facts of these cases.
W.P.No.4911 of 2020 & Batch
22 (Total 07 cases)
Question No.(e):
19. In view of the above, the impugned orders of dismissal from
service are set aside and the respondent authorities are directed to
reconsider imposing lesser punishment than dismissal from service or
for re-initiating action against the employees by following the due
process of law. The respondent authorities are therefore directed to
release provisional pension to all the petitioners till a decision is taken as
to whether the enquiry is to be re-conducted in accordance with law or if
lesser punishment than dismissal from service is to be imposed.
20. With the above directions, all these Writ Petitions are disposed of.
No order as to costs.
21. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in these Writ Petitions
shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 03.03.2025
Svv
