Madras High Court
T.Ganeshan vs The Deputy General Manager (Dad)
Author: S.Srimathy
Bench: S.Srimathy
W.P(MD)No.2244 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
Order Reserved On Order Pronounced On
17.04.2025 25.08.2025
W.P.(MD).No.2244 of 2017
T.Ganeshan ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The Deputy General Manager (DAD),
Disciplinary Authority,
Oriental Bank of Commerce,
HRD Department,
Head Office: No.5, Institutional Area,
Sector-32, Gurgaon-122 001,
Haryana State.
2. The Deputy General Manager,
Oriental Bank of Commerce,
Regional Office,
Spencer Plaza, 2nd Floor,
769, Annasalai,
Chennai-600 002. ...Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
on the file of the 1st respondent in his proceedings in HO/DAD/1800/ dated
25.09.2015 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the
respondents to disburse the arrears of subsistence allowance to the tune of Rs.
2,19,930/- to the petitioner, for the suspension period, within a time frame fixed
1/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm )
W.P(MD)No.2244 of 2017
by this Court.
For Petitioner :Mr.J.Jeyakumar
For Respondents : Mr.S.Balasubramanian
*****
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned proceedings dated 25.09.2015 in HO/DAD/1800/ and consequently, to direct the respondents to disburse the arrears of subsistence allowance to the tune of Rs.2,19,930/- to the petitioner, for the suspension period, within a time frame fixed by this Court.
2.1. The brief facts as stated in the affidavit are that the petitioner had joined the service in Oriental Bank of Commerce on 25.06.1980 as Clerk-cum- Cashier at Secundrabad, Andra Pradesh, then promoted to various post and finally promoted as Chief Manager on 31.03.2008. The petitioner was transferred to various places and on 19.05.2011 transferred to the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Madurai as Branch Manager, then on 25.02.2014, the petitioner was transferred to Tirupur Branch. The petitioner served in the Oriental Bank of Commerce for nearly 35 years without any blemish.
2/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm ) W.P(MD)No.2244 of 2017 2.2. While, the petitioner was serving at Madurai, on 05.06.2014 was suspended for alleged irregularities for sanctioning loan to the customers and issued charge memo dated 26.02.2015 in Ho:DAD:1800:7636 under Regulation 6 of Oriental Bank of Commerce Officer Employee (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982 containing 4 charges as stated below:
Charge 1: Allegedly sanctioned loan beyond the discretionary power Charge 2: Allegedly committed irregularities related to creation of charge and securities in loan account Charge 3: Allegedly failed to obtain Encumbrance Certificate from the office of Sub Registrar Office after registration of memorandum of deposits of title deeds.
Charge 4: Allegedly failed to sign in the capacity in document encumbering.
Based on the above charges it was alleged that the petitioner failed to discharge duties and violated regulations 3(1) of Oriental Bank of Commerce Officer Employee (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982.
2.3. As far as the Charge No.1 is concerned, the petitioner had replied that the loan was disbursed within the discretionary power and within the limit and had not violated the power. The petitioner had sanctioned loan to the various firms, namely KKR stones and Kayamboo Heavy Equipment Rental Services, 3/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm ) W.P(MD)No.2244 of 2017 K.K.Flats Pvt Ltd, K.K. & Co, Sri Meenakshi & Co, Shivas Traders and P.Murugeswari and Varsha Construction. As far as the above said companies are concerned, they are different proprietors and there is no property charge in more than one account. All the accounts are standard at that time and there are no over dues in the accounts and all the above accounts are standard accounts.
2.4. As far as Charge No.2 is concerned, the petitioner submitted that he had not committed any irregularities related to creation of charge and securities in loan accounts. As far as the securities are concerned the petitioner have scrutinized the properties and registered the memorandum of title deeds before the Sub Registrar Office, in respect of all the properties and the properties are having more value than that of bank loan. Most of the accounts are standard assets as on date.
2.5. As far as the Charges No.3 and 4 are concerned, it is only clerical error and it was found out and rectified immediately. Hence absolutely the Charges No.3 and 4 does not made out against the petitioner.
2.6. The petitioner denied the entire charges and submitted detailed explanation on 07.03.2015. On 18.03.2015 the respondents had appointed 4/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm ) W.P(MD)No.2244 of 2017 Enquiry Officer and the petitioner had participated in the enquiry and denied the allegations. In the mean while, the respondents had preferred a complaint to the CBI, Chennai and a case was registered in RC MA1 2015 A 0050 and the petitioner was charged for an offence punishable under section 120(b) read with 420, 409, 468 and 471 of I.P.C and section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Now the case was charge sheeted and trial is pending before the II Additional District & Sessions Judge (CBI cases), Madurai in C.C.No.3/2016.
2.7. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents have not given sufficient opportunity in the domestic enquiry. The official witness statements were recorded by the respondents and that statement was not served on the petitioner and the petitioner was not permitted to cross examine the official witness. The respondent was in a state of pre determination mind set and was intended to terminate the petitioner without conducting proper enquiry. On, 15.07.2015 in HO/DAD/1800/9483 the respondents issued final show cause notice along with the enquiry report. On 28.07.2015, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the respondents and requested to drop the enquiry proceedings.
In the mean, while the respondents have not properly paid the subsistence allowance during the suspension period. They ought to have paid Rs.2,19,930/ as 5/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm ) W.P(MD)No.2244 of 2017 subsistence allowance to the petitioner. The petitioner sent several representations through mail and through post to pay the remaining subsistence allowance to petitioner, but the respondents failed to consider the same. In the mean while, the respondents have passed the impugned order in proceedings dated 25.09.2015 in HO/DAD/ 1800, thereby the petitioner was dismissed from service.
3.1 The averments stated by the respondents are that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier on 25.06.1980 and after posted on various designation and have finally transferred to Madurai North Veli Street Branch as Branch Manager on 19.05.2011 and further transferred to Thirupur Branch on 25.02.2014 as last destination. While he was in service at the Madurai North Veli Street Branch, during the period from 19.05.211 to 25.02.2014 as Branch Manager, had committed some irregularities while sanctioning loans, wherein the petitioner had made acts of omission/commission in violation of bank's guidelines in processing, sanctioning and disbursing 20 loans and out of the said loan accounts 14 accounts were irregular and classified as NPA resulting the loss of 12.50 crores. Failure of this Accounts is at the instance of the petitioner who have sanctioned the loan by the Act of Omission / Commission, by violating the Bank's Guidelines. The Respondent Bank issued memorandum of imputation under Regulations 3(1) and 24 of Oriental Bank of Commerce Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1982 which constitute misconduct punishable under 6/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm ) W.P(MD)No.2244 of 2017 Oriental Bank of Commerce Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1982.
3.2. The Memo of Charges dated 26.02.2015 was issued calling for written statement either admitting or denying the charges within 7 days from receipt of charge memo and it was informed that the inquiry will be held in respect of Article of Charges other than the charges admitted by the petitioner. The Articles of Charges was furnished as Annexure 1 to IV along with charge memo. The petitioner submitted written statement on 07.03.2015 denying the charges. Hence Enquiry Officer was appointed, wherein notice of enquiry dated 18.03.2015 was served upon him and enquiry was held on 26.03.2015, 28.04.2015, 05.05.2015, 14.05.2015 and 26.05.2015 and the petitioner reiterated the written submission dated 07.03.2015 before the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry was held after granting sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. The respondent bank presented 38 documents and all were marked as Exhibits but the petitioner neither produced any documents nor any witness and failed to cross examine the management witness and enquiry was concluded on 26.05.2015. Thus, the petitioner was granted sufficient opportunity to defend the charges. Hence the grounds of (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) are not tenable. Further the writ petition would not lie against the respondent. Due to the commission and 7/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm ) W.P(MD)No.2244 of 2017 omission of the petitioner the respondent bank had incurred heavy loss to the tune of Rs.12.50 Crores and suits are filed except in two accounts and recovery is remote in the suits.
3.3. The enquiry report dated 29.06.2015 held all the charges are proved and the copy of the report was issued to the petitioner vide letter dated 15.07.2015 calling for objections within 7 days, which was received by the petitioner on 27.07.2015. The petitioner submitted his objections belatedly on 28.07.2015 and reiterated the same submission. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority had passed the final order dated 25.09.2015 removing the petitioner from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment by giving immediate effect. Further held that the period of suspension shall not be treated as period spent on duty for all the purposes and the petitioner will not be entitled for any benefits for the period of suspension except subsistence allowance already paid to the petitioner. The petitioner ought to have preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. General Manager who is the Appellate Authority. When alternative statutory remedy is available the present writ petition is vexatious. Further belatedly filed on 08.02.2017 by challenging the order of removal dated 25.09.2015 and the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 29.06.2015 for the charge memo dated 26.02.2015. Furthermore, the petitioner is 8/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm ) W.P(MD)No.2244 of 2017 seeking directions to disburse Rs.2,19,930/- subsistence allowance and the same is prayed without filing either working sheet or calculation memo and without indicating for the period for which he claimed the arrears of subsistence allowance. Infact already the petitioner was paid the gross subsistence allowance of Rs.5,67,722.30/- for the period which the petitioner was placed under suspension as on 05.06.2014 to till the date of removal from service on 25.09.2015 and no arrears is payable. The petitioner had made representation to the Respondents dated on 07.09.2015 in written and as well as online in respect of the salary computations and arrears of salary only about the wrong calculation of arrears of salary and not particularly in respect of the alleged arrears of subsistence allowance to the tune of Rs.2,19,930/-. Therefore, the petitioner without making any representation before the respondent bank in respect of the alleged arrears of the subsistence allowance, the petitioner cannot invoke this writ jurisdiction for claim of the arrears of subsistence allowance from the respondent as claimed in the petition.
3.4. In the meanwhile, the respondent bank has filed a criminal complainant before CBI, Chennai and a case has been registered in their proceedings in RCMAI 2015 A 0050 charged for the offences punishable under section 120(b) r/w 420,409,468 and 471 of IPC and u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of 9/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm ) W.P(MD)No.2244 of 2017 prevention of corruption Act, 1988. Now the case has been charge-sheeted and charges were framed against the petitioners and 11 others and pending before the Honorable II Additional District and Sessions Judge CBI Cases, Madurai in C.C.No.3/2016. Hence the respondents pray to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard Mr.J.Jeyakumaran, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Balasubramanian, the Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials on records.
5. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the respondent failed to grant opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that on 15.07.2015 the enquiry report was served to the petitioner, wherein the report alleges that the petitioner had not presented any defense document and not cross examined the management witness. Therein it came to the knowledge that the enquiry officer misled the petitioner. Since the fact being the enquiry officer advised the petitioner not to file defense document during enquiry and directed to file along with the written submissions. Infact on receipt of the enquiry report, the petitioner had submitted written objections on 28.07.2015 to the report, wherein it is specifically alleged that the enquiry officer advised the petitioner not to file defense document and directed to file along with the written submissions and also 10/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm ) W.P(MD)No.2244 of 2017 not permitted the petitioner to cross examine the witness.
6. On perusing the enquiry report it is seen the enquiry officer has stated that the CO (charge sheeted officer) i.e. the petitioner had not submitted any defense document and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“The CO did not present any defense document. CO also did not engage any Defense Assistant.
The PO presented Shr. B.Rasheed, Chief Manager B/O Madurai as Management Witness who was examined by him and opportunity was given to CO for cross examination but DO did not cross examined the witness and the inquiry concluded on 26.05.2015. Both the PO and the CO were advised to submit their written brief to the undersigned. The PO submitted his written brief vide his letter dated 01.06.2015 and the CO submitted his written brief vide his letter dated 28.05.2015.” On perusing the objections dated 28.07.2015 filed for enquiry report (dated 29.06.2015), it is seen that petitioner has stated that he was carrying all documents at the time of conducting enquiry and the enquiry officer did not allow to file the same and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“Secondly Mr. Narang mentioned in his report (page 2) that CO did not present and defense document. Right from the second date of inquiry i.e. 28.04.2015 I was carrying all the documents which I enclosed with my written statement dated 28.05.2015 to the inquiry and had shown to Mr.Narang all these documents 11/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm ) W.P(MD)No.2244 of 2017 copies (WHICH I HAVE ALSO MAILED THE SOFT COPY ON 12.06.2015 AND HARD COPY ON 13.06.2015 TO BOTH R/O AND DISCIPLINARY ACTION DEPARTMENT). He after going through some of them told me casually that I must submit these documents as annexure to my written brief after conclusion of inquiry. He assured me that he will take them into consideration while he submits his report to HO. He never told me to submit these documents as defense documents otherwise I would have submitted the same on 28.04.2015 itself as defense documents. As I mentioned earlier, being a person not knowing the technicality of inquiry proceedings of the bank, also undergoing mental agony and tension for almost a after suspension, I have relied on his words and not submitted these documents on 28.04.2015, instead submitted these documents on 28.05.2015 as told by Mr.Narang. But citing the above reason Mr.Narang mentioned in many places that CO did not make it as defense exhibit in the inquiry nor the CO cross examined the MW and hence the charges proved. It is totally misleading and prejudiced.”
7. The petitioner statement may be correct. In fact for the Charge No. 1, while dealing with the accounts of “True Value Promoters & True Value Promoters P Limited” under the heading “Gist of defense case” the enquiry officer had recorded the petitioner case. In that it is stated that the petitioner had submitted a reply stating that the petitioner had produced five documents of ROC (Registrar of Companies) to prove that the Mrs. Tamil Selvi is the promoter of M/s. True Value Promoters and she is not a director of the other company. Only Mr. R. Velmurugan and Mrs. R. Rajammal are the Directors of M/s. True Value Promoters P Limited. In order to prove that Mrs. Tamil Selvi is not the Director of 12/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm ) W.P(MD)No.2244 of 2017 the Company the petitioner had produced five documents of ROC. But the enquiry officer has recorded the above statement, but failed to grant an opportunity to mark the said document. Therefore, there is serious lapse in granting opportunity to the petitioner.
8. On perusing the above this Court is of the considered opinion that the enquiry officer has misled the petitioner. The enquiry officer ought to have accepted the documents when the same was produced during the enquiry and allowed the petitioner to mark the same. Further it is seen that the petitioner had sent soft copy and hard copy of the documents through email to the RO and Disciplinary Department, the same ought to have been handed over / place before the enquiry officer as documents filed by the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner had enclosed the documents along the written submission, at least the enquiry officer ought to have taken the same while passing the orders. When the enquiry officer had recorded the petitioner statement under the heading “Gist of Defense Case” that the petitioner had produced five ROC documents, but the enquiry officer had failed to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to mark the documents. Failing to take into consideration by the enquiry officer as stated supra, is serious violation of principles of natural justice. Further the delinquent may adopt any (may be appropriate) strategies and tactics, but the employer must 13/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm ) W.P(MD)No.2244 of 2017 play a fair game, the enquiry officer is obliged to guide the charge sheeted officer (CO), the petitioner herein. The enquiry officer is bound to act neutral and without prejudice. The enquiry officer is bound to mark all the documents produced by the petitioner. In the present case, the enquiry officer had failed in all aspects, thereby there is serious violation of principles of natural justice.
9. The next contention of the petitioner is that the 1 st respondent had passed the impugned order and the 1st respondent being Deputy General Manager is not the appropriate authority to pass the punishment order, hence the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction. The Learned Counsel had relied on the “Oriental Bank of Commerce Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982”. In the said regulation definition clause is given under Regulation 3. Under sub clause (b), (g) and (n) it is read as under:
“(b) “Appellate authority” means the authority specified in the Schedule to dispose of appeal.
…
(g) “Disciplinary authority” means the authority specified in the Schedule which is competent to impose on an officer employee any of the penalties specified in Regulation 4 …
(n) “Reviewing authority” means the authority specified in the Schedule.14/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm ) W.P(MD)No.2244 of 2017 Under schedule it is stated as under:
S. No. Name/Category Disciplinary Appellate Reviewing of post authority authority authority 1 Officer in Asst. General General Executive JMGS-I, MMGS Manager at Manager Director or in
- II under Regional Officer (HRD) at his absence respective RO looking after HRD Head Officer Chairman & Dept. or in his Managing absence Dy. General Director Manager at Regional Office 2 Officer in Asst. General General Executive JMGS-I, MMGS Manager (HRD) or Manager Director or in
- II under in his absence Dy. (HRD) at his absence respective RO General Manager Head Officer Chairman & (HRD) at Head Managing Office. Director 3 Officers in Asst. General General Executive MMGS -III Manager (HRD) or Manager Director or in in his absence Dy. (HRD) his absence General Manager Chairman & (HRD) at Head Managing Office. Director 4 Scale – IV & V General Manager Executive Chairman & (HRD) Director or in Managing his absence Director or in Chairman & his absence /in Managing case he has Director acted as Appellate Authority, the Committee of the Board 15/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm ) W.P(MD)No.2244 of 2017 5 Scale VI Executive Director Chairman & Board or in his absence Managing Chairman & Director or in Managing Director his absence /in case he has acted as Disciplinary Authority, the Committee of the Board 6 Scale VII Chairman & Committee of Board Managing Director the Board or in his absence Executive Director The petitioner falls under Serial No.4 under “Scale – IV & V”, then the Disciplinary Authority is General Manager (HRD). But in the present case the Deputy General Manager (DRD) has passed the impugned order. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction.
10. The contention of the respondents is that the petitioner is having alternative remedy of statutory appeal to the appellate authority and then to the reviewing authority. However, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted since the impugned order is not passed by the jurisdictional authority, he could not file an appeal before the jurisdictional appellate authority and hence he preferred 16/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm ) W.P(MD)No.2244 of 2017 the present writ petition. This Court is of the considered opinion since the petitioner has raised the plea of violation of principles of natural justice and the question of jurisdiction, the writ petition is maintainable. And alternative statutory remedy is not a bar to invoke writ jurisdiction when there is violation of principles of natural justice and jurisdiction issue is raised.
11. Having held so, the case ought to be remitted back to the respondents for conducting fresh enquiry in order to grant opportunity to the petitioner. Further to consider the case by the jurisdictional disciplinary authority. At this juncture it is seen that the petitioner is aged about 68 years as on date. Even if the case is remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration, the same will not serve fruitful purpose. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to remit the case back to the respondents for re-enquiry / reconsideration. Hence the Court proceeds to consider the case on merits.
12. The first charge against the petitioner is that the petitioner sanctioned loan beyond the discretionary power granted to the Branch Manager. In order to consider this charge as a sample, this Court had taken a group account namely K.K.Flats P Ltd, K.K. & Co., and Sri Meenakshi & Co., which was discussed in the enquiry report. The petitioner had submitted a reply stating that the Circular dated 05.03.2010 is followed while sanctioning the loan. The relevant 17/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm ) W.P(MD)No.2244 of 2017 portion of the reply is extracted hereunder:
“K.K. Flats P Ltd, K.K. &Co and Sri Meenakshi &Co:
Sanctioned cash credit limit of Rs.1.50 crores to M/s. K.K. Flats Pvt Limited (Directors (Mr.)D.Muthukumar and Mr.R.Thamliselvan) on 14.12.2011 which is renewed at existing level on 02.01.2013 under branch powers. I have sanctioned cash credit limit of Rs.80.00 lacs to K.K. & Co (prop- Mrs. M.Devakavitha) on 08.01.2013. Both the above loans are sanctioned under conventional loan schemes. I have sanctioned mortgage loan to Sree Meenakshi & Co amounting Rs.1.00 crores under OTLS scheme (Prop D.Thirumaran) on 15.02.2012.
Under OTLS scheme as per circular dated 05.03.2010, there is no stipulation that whether loans sanctioned under OTLS falls under maximum group exposure. There is no stricture in the above circular, that "advances sanctioned under OLS are covered the Group Exposure Norms and hence loans under OTLS scheme cannot be sanctioned to borrowers (either single or group) beyond stipulated maximum group exposure". The Mortgage loan to Sri Meenakshi & Co is reported in STM 41 -Feb 2012' during March 2012 to RO, Chennai with all the details like scheme name, name of borrower, guarantor, details & value of primary securities etc. But RO has never raised any query/objection till my transfer from the branch on above grounds, probably due to the reason that RO also might have interpreted the circular in the same way I have interpreted. Branch has not sanctioned loans aggregating Rs.370.00 lacs to group concerns as mentioned in the Chargesheet.” 18/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm ) W.P(MD)No.2244 of 2017
13. Further the petitioner replied that in other accounts namely Ms.Shivas Traders, P Murugeswari (2 accounts), Varsha Construction, all the above loan accounts are sanctioned under OMLS scheme and there is no stipulation of only 3 accounts under group in the OMLS circular. When the petitioner had relied on the Circular and had granted the loan, then there is no question of violating the bank’s norms. Interestingly the petitioner had stated that the Regional Office has not objected for granting such loan until the petitioner was transferred from the said branch and the Regional Office also had interpreted the said Circular the same way the petitioner had interpreted the Circular, that is why the Regional Office has not objected to the said loan. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion when the petitioner had followed the bank’s circular while considering the loan there is no question of any violation of banking norms. Further when there is a room for interpretation of the circular, more so when the same interpretation was also applied by the Regional Office, then the petitioner had acted as per the Circular. It is settled law that for initiating disciplinary proceedings there should be an element of deliberate intention to defraud the bank, to defame the bank and for personal gain. When there is no such element then the respondents cannot initiate disciplinary action at all.
14. In another account namely M/s. True Value Promoters and M/s. 19/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm ) W.P(MD)No.2244 of 2017 True Value Promoters P Ltd, the allegation stated by the respondents is that Mrs. Tamilselvi is the proprietor of the M/s. True Value Promoters and also one of the Director of M/s. True Value Promoters P Ltd. Hence the petitioner had sanctioned loan for the same person more than the sanctioned limit. But the contention of the petitioner is that the said Mrs. Tamil Selvi is not the Director of the M/s. True Value Promoters P Ltd, for which the petitioner had relied on ROC documents and had submitted written objection for the same and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“Mrs. Tamilselvi, proprietor of former firm is one of the Director of latter Company mentioned in the Chargesheet.
Reply: Mrs. Tamilselvi is the proprietor of M/s. True Value Promoters and Mr. R Velmurugan and Mrs. R. Rajammal are the (only) Directors of M/s. True Value Promoters Pvt Limited. She was never Director of the later company (please refer page No 3 of the process note enclosed with this letter which clearly stated that Mr. Vel Murugan and R. Rajammal are the Directors of the company). It is totally wrong statement of the Management witness that Mrs. Tamilselvi is one of the Directors of the later Company. I am producing five documents of ROC (Registrar of Companies) {Encl-1} which clearly states that only Mr. R. Vel Murugan and Mrs. R Rajammal are the (only) Directors of True Value Promoters since August 2011-much before the sanction of CC limit to later by the bank, and also confirms that only these two are in the list of signatories of the company. These documents also confirms that there is no change in directors ever filed by the company with ROC since inception, and hence the above two or the 20/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm ) W.P(MD)No.2244 of 2017 only directors of the company since incorporation as per the evidence submitted.” It is seen the enquiry officer, as held supra, refused to permit the petitioner to submit the ROC documents, but directed to annex along with the written submissions and the petitioner had submitted along with the written submissions, however the enquiry officer failed to consider the same. When the fact being that the said Mrs. Tamilselvi was not a “Director” of the later company, as per ROC documents, then the contention of the respondents is totally against the ROC records. Hence in this account also the respondent erred in holding that the charged is proved.
15. The second charge is that the petitioner had committed irregularities related to creation of charge and securities in loan account, thereby caused loss to the bank. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner failed to execute the registration of memorandum of deposit of title deeds after the loan was sanctioned. But the petitioner had specifically stated that the MOD was created & registered and that he remembers affixing digital signature in Form 8. Further had stated that RBI inspection was carried out, even though the report commented on this account, but it never reported the absence of charge with ROC 21/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm ) W.P(MD)No.2244 of 2017 in the report. The said reply clearly indicates that there are documents to prove the case of the petitioner. Had the respondents produce the said documents before the enquiry officer, the same would prove the case of the petitioner. As held supra the employer must play a fair game and produce the documents. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the second charge is also not proved by producing the relevant documents.
16. As far as the charges 3 and 4 are concerned, the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner failed to obtain Encumbrance Certificate from the Office of Sub Registrar Office after registration of memorandum of deposits of title deeds and also failed to sign in the capacity in document encumbering. This Court is of the considered opinion that the said two allegations are not serious offence warranting major punishment of dismissal from service. Whenever such defects are pointed out, the same would be rectified by the concerned branch office. Infact, such defects would be pointed out by auditing team while the bank under goes the statutory audit, concurrent audit, monthly audit, RBI audit etc. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said allegations are added for the sake of issuing charge memo and the same is liable to be interfered with.
17. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner had 22/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm ) W.P(MD)No.2244 of 2017 served as Branch Manager for more than six years and had handled several accounts. Inspite of less staff and over work the petitioner had handled the bank. As a manager in the banking business the petitioner had taken risk. In any business there will always be a risk factor. The petitioner was in the position to take the risk which is permissible as per law while taking business decision. In the banking business any bank cannot be in the market without lending loans. The petitioner had followed the circulars while considering the loans under the relevant schemes. However, there may be some mistakes. But for such mistakes the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate. Even such mistakes are rectifiable on the basis of the reports of statutory audits, concurrent audits, monthly audits, RBI audits etc. And it is does warrant disciplinary proceedings.
18. Therefore, this Court is inclined to setting aside the impugned punishment order and accordingly set aside the impugned punishment orders. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to the all benefits and the same shall be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
19. As far as the issue of subsistence allowance the same is left open, the petitioner is at liberty to submit the details for which period the subsistence 23/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm ) W.P(MD)No.2244 of 2017 allowance was left out. On such submission, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance to law.
20. With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
25.08.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
TMG
24/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm )
W.P(MD)No.2244 of 2017
S.SRIMATHY, J.
TMG
ORDER MADE IN
W.P(MD)No.2244 of 2017
DATED : 25.08.2025
25/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm )