K.S. Anilkumar vs Union of India and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 7TH MAGHA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.17581 OF 2016(W)** ## **PETITIONER:** **K.S.ANILKUMAR, AGED 54, S/O.LATE K.K.SREEDHARAN, SREESARAS, POOTHOTTA P.O., MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 307.** **SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SMT.SEENU SADIQUE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI.** - **2 STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA TRIVANDRUM 695 012, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** - **3 MANAGING DIRECTOR STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM - 695 012.** - **4 THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA TRIVANDRUM - 695 012.** - **5 THE GENERAL MANAGER (HR & SAMG) STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM 695 012.** - **6 THE GENERAL MANAGER (OPERATION) DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM - 695 012.** - **7 THE CHIEF MANAGER (ENQUIRY) STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM 695 012.** - **SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC SRI P M MANOJ SR GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.17581 OF 2016(W) 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 27th day of January 2021** The petitioner says that while he was working as a Middle Management Grade II Officer in the services of the second respondent - State Bank of Travancore (which subsequently has merged with State Bank of India), he was proceeded under a disciplinary enquiry, on the basis of an allegation that he was implicated in a criminal case. The petitioner says that the criminal case against him was registered before the Court of the Special Judge, (SPE/CBI) and that he was acquitted by the said Court, as is evident from Ext.P15. The petitioner says that he has, therefore, preferred a further review before the competent Authority of the Bank, seeking that his punishment be revisited , on account of the fact that he has been honourably acquitted by the Trial Court. 2. However, in response to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel, Sri.Varghese C.Kuriakose, the learned standing counsel for the Bank – Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, submitted that the petitioner cannot claim any locus to approach this Court in this manner because he was found guilty through a disciplinary enquiry and removed WP(C).No.17581 OF 2016(W) 3 from service, by imposing a punishment of compulsory retirement as early as in the year 2005. He submitted that, as is evident from the impugned orders, they were all considered by the competent and disciplinary Authorities and that all his contentions had been validly rejected, thus confirming the punishment against him. He submitted that since the petitioner has already invoked his remedy of review before the Authority earlier, a second review at this stage is not possible; adding to his submissions saying that, in any event of the matter, the impugned orders would show that the petitioner's punishment imposed by the Bank was not solely based on the criminal proceedings but on cogent and reliable evidence against him, that were gathered and proved during enquiry. 3. The learned standing counsel relied on **State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya** [(2011) 4 SCC 584] and **Deputy Inspector General of Police v. S.Samuthiram** [(2013) 1 SCC 598] in support of his contentions that the disciplinary enquiry is an independent proceeding from the criminal action and that even if a person is subsequently acquitted, it would not amount to the obliteration of the findings in the disciplinary enquiry. He, therefore, WP(C).No.17581 OF 2016(W) 4 prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 4. Even though I find substantial force in the submissions of Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, the fact remains that the petitioner was facing a criminal trial before the Court of the Special Judge, (SPE/CBI) at the time when the impugned orders were issued. There is no doubt that the Bank maintains that the petitioner was found guilty independently of the criminal charges against him and that he had been awarded the punishment of removal from service on the basis of evidence obtained and established during the disciplinary proceedings. 5. Moving on, it is also without doubt that it is a settled position of law that merely because a person is acquitted subsequently, he would not be entitled to challenge disciplinary action, if the same had proceeded following due procedure and had led to the punishment being imposed based on reliable evidence. 6. That said, however, one aspect that persuades my mind to offer some latitude to the petitioner is that his punishment and all the impugned orders were issued at the time when he was thought to be involved in a criminal offence and when the trial before the Court of the Special Judge, (SPE/CBI) was WP(C).No.17581 OF 2016(W) 5 pending. However, through Ext.P15, he says that he has been honourably acquitted and I am, therefore, of the view that the Bank must, at the least, show him the lenitude of reconsidering his matter based on this information, though I am not saying for a moment that merely because he has been acquitted, his disciplinary action would stand set aside. I am not saying so and it may not be construed as such, but I am persuaded to grant one opportunity to the petitioner, so that he can approach the Authority,, based on Ext.P15, for review of his punishment and nothing else. 7. I hasten to add that I am allowing this benefit to the petitioner only because of the afore reasons and therefore, that it will only be up to the competent Authority of the Bank to consider whether the punishment of the petitioner can be reduced to some extent, based on Ext.P15; but I leave it to the discretion of the said Authority to take a final decision based on all the precedents that are cited on either side. In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the competent Authority of the Bank to take up the representation of the petitioner and consider the same in the light of Ext.P15 judgment and take a decision as to whether the WP(C).No.17581 OF 2016(W) 6 petitioner's punishment, ordered through the impugned orders, would require to be reviewed or whether it deserves to be sustained, based on the relevant inputs. The afore exercise shall be completed by the competent Authority, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard – either physically or through video conferencing – thus leading to an appropriate decision thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I reiteratingly clarify that I have not gone into the merits of any of the rival contentions of the parties and that I leave it to the discretion of the competent Authority of the Bank to take a final decision in terms of this judgment. **Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** Stu **JUDGE** WP(C).No.17581 OF 2016(W) 7 ## **Spoken to on 05.02.2021** The judgment in this writ petition was dictated by me on on 27.01.2021. However, subsequently Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the Bank submitted that it was omitted to be brought to the notice of this Court that Ext.P17 order had been issued on 22.04.2016, informing the petitioner that second review is not permissible as per the provisions of the applicable regulations. He therefore, prayed that the judgment be vacated. 2. However, when I examine Ext.P17, it is clear that the Bank has refused to consider the petitioner's review, namely Ext.P16, saying that a second one is not maintainable because his earlier review petition, submitted before the order of acquittal had been issued stood rejected. Of course, Ext.P17 also says that an acquittal by a criminal court does not render a completed discriminatory proceedings void. 3. It is obvious that the petitioner's contentions based on acquittal has never been considered by the Bank properly since they have rejected Ext.P16 for want of provisions to consider a second revision petition as per the regulations. WP(C).No.17581 OF 2016(W) 8 4. That said, though an acquittal by a criminal court does not automatically obliterate the disciplinary proceedings, the fact remains that it will have some bearing on the findings and punishment imposed through such enquiry. 5. I, therefore, cannot see any reason why the Bank should not reconsider the petitioner's review, namely Ext.P16, on its merits, in terms of my directions above especially since I have directed it to be dealt with in any particular manner. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not think that any modification to my judgment is necessary. **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE** LEK WP(C).No.17581 OF 2016(W) 9 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST THAT WAS MADE BY M/S.TARGET OVERSEAS EXPORTS PVT. LTD TO KADUTHURUTHY BRANCH OF 2ND RESPONDENT WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY S.MUKHERJEE THE THEN MANAGER.** - **P2 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16/11/1998.** - **P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.RM3/K/33 DATED 17/6/1999.** - **P4 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.AGM 3K DATED 9/9/99** - **P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COVERING NOTE AGM II/CH/ DATED 15/9/1999.** - **P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SANCTION ORDER DATED 27/12/1999** - **P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTE PREPARED BY THE ASST. GENERAL MANAGER TO THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER RECOMMENDING SANCTION** - **P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE R.C.NO.20A/2003/CBI/KER FILED BY THE INSPECTOR CBI** - **P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED 19/11/2004 ISSUED BY GENERAL MANAGER (OPERATIONS)** - **P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 31/12/2004** - **P11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT DATED 7/9/2005 ISSUED BY 7TH RESPONDENT** - **P12 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/12/2005 PASSED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT** - **P13 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5/4/2006 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT** - **P14 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/12/2006 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT** WP(C).No.17581 OF 2016(W) 10 |**P15**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31/12/2015 IN**| |---|---| ||**C.C NO.33/2011 ON THE FILES OF SPECIAL JUDGE'S**| ||**COURT CBI/SPE TRIVANDRUM**| |**P16**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED**| ||**3/2/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD**| ||**RESPONDENT**| |**P17**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/4/2016**| ||**REJECTING EXT.P16 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT**|