IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on the findings of the enquiry officer, the interpretation of the petitioner's role as a whistleblower, and the consideration of proportionality in imposing disciplinary action.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings dtd. 30/12/2009 issued by the 3rd respondent and subsequent proceedings dtd. 22/5/2010 issued by the 2nd respondent, whereby the petitioner is imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement. The petitioner seeks a prayer to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits.

2. The petitioner joined the service of the 1st respondent bank in the year 1976 as a Stenographer and he was promoted from time to time. As on the date of imposition of punishment the petitioner was working as Manager Scale - II. The petitioner while working at the Garladenne Branch, Ananthapur some of the rural borrowers of the branch produced fake pattadar passbooks for the purpose of obtaining loans. Apart from the pattadar passbooks the revenue records such as pahanis were also enclosed for obtaining loans from the bank.

3. The petitioner vide letter dtd. 5/11/2008 sent for verification to the MRO, some of the passbooks which were as a tampered or altered to the extent of land in the passbooks. The MRO responded to the query of the petitioner and opined that the passbooks were fake and not issued from the office of the MRO.

4. On 19/11/2008 the Assistant General Manager issued a notice stating that out of the nine loans sanctioned by the petitioner, the loan applicants had furnished fake passbooks. It was also stated that in four other loan cases the land particulars were altered in the pattadar passbooks. That apart two of the loan applicants who were sanctioned loan had submitted fake no due certificate. It was also alleged that heavy cash transactions were recorded in the savings bank account of the petitioner which exceeded Rs.10, 00, 000.00 and that non-reporting the same is against the Circular of the Head Office.

5. The petitioner submitted his explanation to all the concerns raised by the bank and it is also submitted that all borrowers had cleared the loans and the bank did not suffer any monitory loss.

6. The petitioner was served with another notice dtd. 22/12/2008 pointing out that some more transactions in the savings bank account and O.D.Account and call for explanation. The respondents have served with the charge sheet dtd. 6/4/2009 and the petitioner denied the charges vide letter dtd. 23/4/2009.

7. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. An enquiry officer and a presenting officer were appointed. After a detailed enquiry the petitioner was imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. The appeal preferred before the 2nd respondent was rejected on 22/5/2010.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was in fact a whistle blower who had initiated the enquiry with the MRO on some suspected pattadar passbooks and no objections certificates. It is also submitted that the proceedings against the whistle blower initiated by the bank are detrimental to the interest of the bank only. The petitioner has discharged his duty with highest integrity and it was on his letter dtd. 5/11/2008 to the MRO, the petitioner and the bank authorities came to know about the submission of fake, altered, non-genuine pattadar passbooks and other revenue records. It is also submitted that the petitioner being an employee of bank does not have the where with all to ascertain the genuinity of the revenue records by a mere glance at them. It is also pointed out that the Mandal Revenue Officer also cannot ascertain a mere glance at the pattadar passbooks without verifying the revenue records.

9. The enquiry officer has submitted his report dtd. 19/10/2009 holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved. On the strength of the findings of the enquiry officer the petitioner was imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement vide order dtd. 22/6/2010. As seen from the said order it was held that the charge of sanctioning loans on the basis of fake/forged/altered patt