1. Heard Mr.Balan Haridoss, learned counsel appearing for Mr.S.M.Hameed Mohideen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Rita Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. Challenging the proceedings of the first respondent herein, dated 21.03.2001 as confirmed by the order of the second respondent dated 18.11.2002, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the same and for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him into service with all benefits and privileges which he would have been entitled to but for the impugned orders.

3. The facts of the case as put forth by the petitioner in the affidavit would run thus :

(i) About a year and a half after the completion of his education, the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk in Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation (TIIC) Ltd. by the 1st respondent herein, by his order dated 20.03.1972. Subsequently, he was promoted as Senior Clerk and later as Staff Assistant Superintendent and thereafter as Officer-Finance. For about 10 years since 1977, the petitioner has been the Treasurer of the TIIC Employees' Association. In the year 1980, he became the Director of TIIC Employees' Co-operative Societies and its President sometime later.

(ii) While so, the Managing Director of TIIC, by his order dated 28.10.1998 placed the petitioner under suspension stated to be in contemplation of enquiry into grave charges purportedly under Rule 6.18 of the Service Rules of the Corporation. Nearly, nine months thereafter, the Managing Director served a Charge Memo dated 06.07.1999 on the petitioner running to several pages, calling upon him to offer his explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt thereof. On 27.12.1999, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the 24 charges. Almost, all the charges relate to a loan sanctioned and partly disbursed to a borrower of the TIIC by name 'Sri Sakthi Studio', a partnership firm. On 08.11.1995, the said firm made an application to TIIC asking for sanctioning of loan to the extent of Rs.60 lakhs for the purchase of machinery to be installed at its premises at No.3066, 13th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. According to the Charge Memo, Mr.D.Karunanidhi, Manager, the petitioner (Officer-Finance), Mr.D.Baskaran (Officer-Finance) and Mrs.B.Maragatham (Officer-Legal) were guilty of lapses.

(iii) According to the petitioner, the Charge Memo would show that he had no direct role to play in the processing and sanctioning of the loan. The loan was sanctioned to the said firm on it having placed as security its immovable properties. The properties were inspected by a qualified Civil Engineer, who was TIIC's Panel Valuer. The Civil Engineer assessed the value of the properties after taking into account the nature of the properties, the extent thereof and its location and submitted a report. The documents relating to the properties including the deeds of title were scrutinised by the legal department of TIIC and the opinion of the TIIC's legal adviser was obtained. After following all the formalities, the owner of the properties was called upon by the Legal Department of TIIC to execute a deed of mortgage in favour of TIIC. Until that stage, it was the Branch Office headed by the Bank Manager which had been directly dealing with matters relating to the documentation as a sequel to the sanctioning of the loan by the Head Office. The file relating to the loan transaction was passed on to the Branch Manager for disbursement of the amount already sanctioned by the Head Office to the borrower.

(iv) The Branch Manager of TIIC, on receipt of the file, passed it to the petitioner, who is the Disbursement Officer. Being the Disbursement Officer in the Branch Office, the petitioner was obliged to merely carry out the instructions of the Branch Manager. At a later stage, one of the properties was found to be measuring only 39 cents and not 10 acres 39 cents as it was believed to be. Another item was fo