Madras High Court
P.Ramanujam vs The Chairman And Managing Director on 29 September, 2022
Author: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
Bench: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
W.P.No.11015 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 08.08.2022
Pronounced on 29.09.2022
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.P.No.11015 of 2008
P.Ramanujam
...Petitioner
Versus
1.The Chairman and Managing Director,
Central Bank of India,
Head Office,
Chander Mukhi, Nariman Point,
Mumbai – 400 023.
2.The General Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Zonal Office,
Monteieth Road,
Chennai – 600 008.
3.The Deputy General Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Zonal Office,
48/49, Montieth Road,
Chennai – 600 008.
...Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records from the
1/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11015 of 2008
files of the respondents 3 and 2 in respect of the impugned proceedings
bearing ZO/HRD/DAD/06-07/439 dated 17.04.2006 of the third respondent
imposing on the petitioner the punishment of recovery of 1/3rd pension per
mensum for three years and impugned proceedings of the second
respondent bearing ZO/HRS/DAD/06-07/3813 dated 15.02.2007
confirming the order of the third respondent on appeal and quash the same
and to award costs.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Ramesh
For Respondents : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.,
ORDER
The relief sought in this writ petition is to call for the records from the files of the respondents 3 and 2 in respect of the impugned proceedings bearing ZO/HRD/DAD/06-07/439 dated 17.04.2006 of the third respondent imposing on the petitioner the punishment of recovery of 1/3rd pension per mensum for three years and impugned proceedings of the second respondent bearing ZO/HRS/DAD/06-07/3813 dated 15.02.2007 confirming the order of the third respondent on appeal and quash the same.
2. The case of the petitioner is that while he was working as Chief Manager, Central Bank of India, Chennai Main Branch, Chennai from 2/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11015 of 2008 24.09.1999 to 26.05.2001, he opted for Voluntary Retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme offered to the Staff and as per which, he was relieved from the service of respondent Bank on 26.05.2001. After the petitioner had retired from service, the respondent Bank vide order in ZO/PRS/DAD/2004-05/2879 dated 09.12.2004, informing him that they has decided to invoke the Regulations under Chapter IX of Central Bank of India (Employee's) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'CBI(E)P Regulations, 1995') and proceed with the departmental action in terms of the Central Bank of India Officers Employee's (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'CBIOE (C) Regulations, 1976') and Central Bank of India Officers Employee's (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'CBIOE (D&A) Regulations, 1976'). Thereafter, the third respondent has issued a Charge Memo bearing ZO:PRS:DAD:2004-05 : 3170 dated 07.01.2005, to the petitioner, alleging the following three charges:
Charge I – refers to the Declining of enhancement proposal by Zonal Office.
Charge II (a) – refers to Additional Collateral Security for Rs.50 Lakhs not obtained.3/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11015 of 2008 Charge II (b) – Fresh Recital of the existing EM not got done and Search in the Sub-Registrar Office not done.
Charge III – refers to Temporary Overdraft allowed to a tune of Rs.10 Lakhs on 30.04.2001.
3. To inquire the above charges, a department inquiry was commenced on 18.04.2005 and concluded on 14.06.2005. During the said inquiry, on the side of the respondent Bank, 48 documents were submitted and one Mr.P.Jagannathan was examined as witness and on the side of the petitioner, some documents were produced but no one was examined as witness.
4. The inquiry report was submitted on 09.07.2005. The Inquiring Authority has clearly stated in the inquiry report that except Charge 2(b), all other Charges which were framed against the petitioner have been proved.
Against such findings of the Inquiring Authority, on 26.07.2005, the petitioner has submitted his explanation before the third respondent/Disciplinary Authority, requesting to drop the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.
4/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11015 of 2008
5. While so, on the basis of the findings of Inquiring Authority, the third respondent had issued a letter No.ZO:HRD:DAD/06-07/441 dated 04.05.2006 with Administrative Order No.ZO/HRD/DAD/06-07/440 dated 17.04.2006 to the petitioner, in and by which, imposing a punishment of 'withdrawal of pension at the rate of 1/3rd of the pension per mensum for a period of three years' in terms of Regulation 48 of CBI(E)P Regulations, 1995, on the petitioner. Thereafter, Chennai Main Branch vide communication No.CHEN:PEN:2006:07 dated 07.10.2006, informed the petitioner that a sum of Rs.26,160/- was debited from his Savings Bank Account being the pension recovery of Rs.3,270/- per month from December 2005 to July 2006.
6. Aggrieved over the punishment order issued by the third respondent, the petitioner has preferred an Appeal under Regulations 17 of CBIOE (D&A) Regulations, 1976, before the second respondent on 10.06.2006, praying to set aside the said punishment order and drop the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and refund the recovered pension. But, the second respondent vide order No.ZO/HRD/DAD/06- 07/3813 dated 15.02.2007 has confirmed the punishment order. So, the 5/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11015 of 2008 petitioner has filed a Review Petition under Regulation 18 of CBIOE (D&A) Regulations, 1976 before the first respondent, seeking to set aside the punishment order issued by the third respondent and exonerate him from all charges and stop the recovery of 1/3 rd pension amount from his pension and refund the pension already recovered from him from December 2005 onwards, but, the first respondent has not disposed of the said Review Petition. Therefore, left with no other alternative, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court, for the reliefs stated supra.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had retired from the service of respondent Bank under Voluntary Retirement Scheme as early as in the year 2001, but, after his retirement, the respondent Bank intimated its decision to invoke Regulations under Chapter IX of CBI(E)P Regulations, 1995 and proceed a departmental action against him in terms of CBIOE (C) Regulations, 1976 and CBIOE (D&A) Regulations, 1976. That apart, the respondent Bank has issued him a Charge Memo dated 07.01.2005, stating the aforesaid three charges. During the inquiry, except Charge 2(b), all other charges framed against the petitioner were proved.
6/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11015 of 2008 7.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the account of a company viz., M/s.Tailor Fashions Ltd., was classified as 'Non Performing Asset' during March, 2004, which is three years after the retirement of the petitioner and the title deeds were accepted as collateral security in the year 1999, which is much before the petitioner took office as Chief Manager at Chennai Main Branch, Chennai, but, the fake nature of those title deeds was known only in June 2004 i.e., subsequent to the retirement of the petitioner.
7.2. He further submitted that Regulation 48 of CBI(E)P Regulations, 1995 attracts punishment of recovery of pension only when there is pecuniary loss to the Bank, but, in this case, there is no pecuniary loss to the respondent Bank due to the action of petitioner in M/s.Tailor Fashions Ltd., account. It is to be noted that in the inquiry report, the Inquiring Authority has clearly stated that if we apply the rule of Clayton's case, the total credits received in Packing Credit and CD accounts put together comes to Rs.88.49 lacs against the debit balance outstanding of Rs.124.17 lacs and if the ECGC claim of Rs.40.25 lacs is also taken into account, the entire 7/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11015 of 2008 outstanding balance as on the date of retirement of the petitioner is nullified. The punishment order issued by the third respondent is liable to be quashed since the same is illegal.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had indulged in certain misconducts while discharging his duties as Chief Manager of the Central Bank of India, Chennai Main Branch, for which, the respondent Bank has taken disciplinary action against him. After the retirement of petitioner, a Charge Memo dated 07.01.2005 was issued to him and departmental inquiry was also conducted for inquiring the charges framed against him. During the inquiry, except Charge 2(b), all other charges framed against the petitioner were proved. Based on the findings of the Inquiring Authority, the third respondent imposed a penalty of withdrawal of pension at the rate of 1/3rd of the pension per mensum for a period of three years. The second respondent has also confirmed the punishment order issued by the third respondent.
9. The learned counsel contended that the misconducts of the petitioner came to the knowledge of the Bank Authorities only after his 8/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11015 of 2008 retirement, if they found out the misconducts of the petitioner during his period of service, they would have dismissed the petitioner from service. He further contended that though the Zonal Office declined the proposal for enhancement of facilities to the constituent viz., M/s.Tailor Fashions Ltd., the petitioner has disregarded the mandate and rationale of the Zonal Office and acted on his own.
9.1. The learned counsel also contended that the petitioner has committed the misconduct on 31.01.2001, i.e., during his service period and the Charge Memo was issued to him on 07.01.2005, after his retirement. As per Regulation 48 of CBI(E)P Regulations, 1995, action can be taken against an employee even after his retirement to recover the pecuniary loss caused to the Bank not later than 4 years after the incident. So, the action taken against the petitioner is well within the period of limitation. If the petitioner had obtained the Encumbrance Certificate from the Registration Office, it would have come to light that the title deeds deposited by the beneficiary as collateral security were fake and not genuine. But, the petitioner failed to do so. The punishment order issued by the third respondent is consonance with the provisions of CBI(E)P Regulations, 1995 9/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11015 of 2008 and the same was also rightly confirmed by the second respondent. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that this writ petition may be dismissed as devoid of merits.
9.2. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments:
(i) In the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Ors. vs. P.C.Kakkar reported in (2003) 4 SCC 364, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“11. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the Court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in the Wednesbury case the Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision.
12. To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference.10/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11015 of 2008 Further, to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed.
13. In the case at hand the High Court did not record any reason as to how and why it found the punishment shockingly disproportionate. Even there is no discussion on this aspect. The only discernible reason was the punishment awarded in M.L. Keshwani's case. As was observed by this Court in Balbir Chand vs. Food Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors., even if a co-delinquent is given lesser punishment it cannot be a ground for interference. Even such a plea was not available to be given credence as the allegations were contextually different.
14. A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the Bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly 11/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11015 of 2008 a Bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court.
15. It needs no emphasis that when a Court feels that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, it must record reasons for coming to such a conclusion. Mere expression that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate would not meet the requirement of law. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union observed: (All ER p.1154h) "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The 12/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11015 of 2008 "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. But as noted above, the proceedings commenced in 1981. The employee was placed under suspension from 1983 to 1988 and has superannuated in 2002. Acquittal in the criminal case is not determinative of the commission of misconduct or otherwise, and it is open to the authorities to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings, notwithstanding acquittal in criminal case. It per se would not entitle the employee to claim immunity from the proceedings. At the most the factum of acquittal may be a circumstance to be considered while awarding punishment. It would depend upon facts of each case and even that cannot have universal application.
16. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to send the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The High Court shall only consider the punishment aspect, treating all other matters to be closed and to have become final. The appeal filed by the employer is accordingly disposed of while that filed by the employee is dismissed.”
(ii) Similarly, in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Ors. vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 4, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as hereinbelow:
“23. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional Courts under Article 226 or 13/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11015 of 2008 Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority which has been earlier examined by this Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. T.V. Venugopalan 3 and later in Government of T.N. and Another Vs. A. Rajapandian 4 and further examined by the three Judge Bench of this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Others 5 wherein it has been held as under:-
"13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary enquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 718] this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."
25. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decisionmaking process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of 14/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11015 of 2008 natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority if based on no evidence.
If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.
43. Before we conclude, we need to emphasize that in banking business absolute devotion, integrity and honesty is a sine qua non for every bank employee. It requires the employee to maintain good conduct and discipline and he deals with money of the depositors and the customers and if it is not observed, the confidence of the public/depositors would be impaired. It is for this additional reason, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed an apparent error in setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent dated 24th July, 1999 confirmed in departmental appeal by order dated 15th November, 1999.”
(iii) In the case of Boloram Bordoloi vs. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank and Ors. reported in (2021) 3 SCC 806, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
15/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11015 of 2008 “8. The appellant was working as a Manager of the respondent Bank. A perusal of the charges, which are held to be proved by the enquiry officer, revea that he has sanctioned and disbursed loans without following the due procedure contemplated under law and also, there are allegations of misappropriation, disbursing loans irregularly in some instances to (a) units without any shop/business; (b) more than one loan to members of same family, etc. The enquiry officer, after considering oral and documentary evidence on record, has held that all the charges are proved. Based on the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority has tentatively decided to impose punishment of compulsory retirement. The disciplinary authority has issued show-cause notice dated 30-07-2005 by enclosing a copy of the enquiry report.
13. The Manager of a bank plays a vital role in managing the affairs of the bank. A bank officer/employee deals with the public money. The nature of his work demands vigilance with the in-built requirement to act carefully. If an officer/employee of the bank is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the bank will disappear. When the procedural guidelines are issued for grant of loans, officers/employees are required to folow the same meticulously and any deviation will lead to erosion of public trust on the banks. If the Manager of a bank indulges in such misconduct, which is evident from the charge memo dated 18-06-2004 and the findings of the enquiry officer, it indicates that such charges are grave and serious. In spite of proved misconduct on such serious charges, disciplinary authority itself was liberal in imposing the 16/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11015 of 2008 punishment of compulsory retirement. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings on the appellant, is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. As such, this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant also cannot be accepted.”
10. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.
11. As far as this case is concerned, according to the respondent Bank, the charges framed against the petitioner are as follows:
(i) The petitioner has recommended enhancement of limits to Zonal Office, Chennai in the account M/s.Tailor Fashions Ltd., vide proposal dated 31.08.2000. Zonal Office has declined the proposal of enhancement and advised the Branch to review the account on merits, however, the petitioner has sanctioned enhanced limits though the account was out of order and was showing adverse features like packing credits were overdue.
(ii) The petitioner, while sanctioning the enhanced limits to the said company has stipulated certain conditions of which one is reaffirmation of existing EM of properties belonging to Mr.Ramamurthy to be done and another fresh additional collateral with value at a minimum of Rs.50 Lakhs 17/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11015 of 2008 to be furnished by the party along with the guarantee of owner of the property. However, he has not ensured compliance of the above two important conditions to secure Bank's funds. He also failed to ascertain the genuineness of the existing equitably mortgaged properties.
(iii) The petitioner has continued to confer undue favours on the said company, even after acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement.
12. During the departmental enquiry, the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. Therefore, based on the findings of the Inquiring Authority, the third respondent has imposed a punishment of withdrawal of pension at the rate of 1/3rd of the pension per mensum for a period of three years on the petitioner, which was also confirmed by the second respondent. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
13. It is to be noted that in the inquiry report, the Inquiring Authority has stated as follows:
(i) The petitioner alone cannot be blamed for the fake nature of documents and thus, Charge 2(a) stands proved, Charge 2(b) is not proved convincingly.18/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11015 of 2008
(ii) The total repayment in the accounts for the period during December 2000 to June 2003 is Rs.148.21 Lakhs.
(iii) A lenient view may be taken while awarding the punishment for the Charges proved.
14. It is also to be noted that M/s.Tailor Fashions Ltd., was classified as 'Non Performing Asset' only in the month of March 2004 and this classification was done after three years of the retirement of the petitioner. The fake nature of the title deeds offered as collateral security was arrived at during June 2004 as per the letter of M/s.Rangarajan & Prabhakaran, Advocates & Notaries. Only after the retirement of the petitioner, M/s.Tailor Fashions Ltd., was sanctioned further facilities on following four different occasions:
(i) 07.07.2001 for Rs.20 Lakhs
(ii) 28.08.2001 for Rs.20 Lakhs
(iii) 31.08.2001 for Rs.5 Lakhs
(iv) 28.04.2003 for Rs.8.29 Lakhs.19/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11015 of 2008 Thus, the above amount of Rs.53.29 Lakhs were extended and the balance outstanding in the Account was Rs.97.92 Lakhs only against the stocks of semi finished goods worth Rs.163.25 lakhs as on 31.02.2003.
15. The title deeds of M/s.Tailor Fashions Ltd., were obtained 10 years before, by the petitioner's predecessor and during the tenure of the petitioner, no fresh documents were received by him. Further, M/s.Tailor Fashions Ltd., became 'Non Performing Asset' only in the year 2004 and the punishment imposed by the third respondent on 17.04.2006. Since charges against the petitioner were proved, the third respondent has imposed the punishment of withdrawal of pension at the rate of 1/3 rd of the pension per mensum for a period of three years, on the petitioner as per the terms of Regulation 48 of CBI(E)P Regulations, 1995 and the second respondent has also confirmed the same.
16. Without issuing any Show Cause Notice to the petitioner, the third respondent has imposed the punishment on petitioner. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though he put unblemished service of 20/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11015 of 2008 more than 33 years in the respondent Bank, administrative action was initiated against him after 44 months of his retirement.
17. Out of the aforesaid three charges which were framed against the petitioner, Charge 2(a) & Charge 3 are serious. Charge 2(a) relates to the additional collateral security of Rs.50 Lakhs to be furnished along with guarantee of owner of the property and this condition was imposed by the petitioner himself and he did not ensure that the additional collateral security was brought by the company to create equitable mortgage. Charge 3 relates to allowing of Temporary Overdraft to a tune of Rs.10 Lakhs on 30.04.2001 by the petitioner, after he submitted the papers for his voluntary retirement.
18. The administrative action was taken against the petitioner by the respondent Bank after a delay of three years, but, the same is permissible as per Regulation 3 read with Regulation 24 of CBIOE (C) Regulations, 1976. In regrd to Charge 2(b), the petitioner failed to search the Registrar's Record and obtain Rest Encumbrance Certificates for the existing properties and it was also revealed that the title deeds of these existing properties are fake. 21/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11015 of 2008 In regard to the above charge, it is pertinent to note that the documents were not received by the petitioner and the same was received by the petitioner's predecessor for sanctioning of the loan and now, it is only for enhancement of limits and not for a fresh loan. The officers who initially sanctioned loan to the company viz., M/s.Tailor Fashions Ltd., ought to be held responsible for the fake documents submitted by the borrower to the Bank and the petitioner is no way connected with this.
19. No doubt, the petitioner was holding a responsible position of Chief Manager of Chennai Main Branch of the respondent Bank. If he would have acted in a more deligent manner, the Bank would have not suffered a loss and the Bank's fund would have been secured from serious risk.
20. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the respondent Bank is not disproportionate to the charges proved against him.
22/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11015 of 2008
21. In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
29.09.2022 mrr Index : Yes Speaking Order (or) Non-Speaking Order Copy To
1.The Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of India, Head Office, Chennai Mumbai – 400 023.
2.The General Manager, Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Hennaing Chennai – 600 008.
3.The Deputy General Manager, Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, 48/49, Twentieths Road, Chennai – 600 008.
23/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11015 of 2008 J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
mrr W.P.No.11015 of 2008 29.09.2022 24/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis