R. Subramanian, J.

Challenge in this writ petition is to the order of punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings launched against the petitioner by the respondent bank.

2.(i) The petitioner joined the respondent bank as Scale I Agricultural Officer on 01.07.1978 and was promoted as a Scale II officer on 18.08.1990. He became a Scale III Officer/Senior Manager on 01.05.1995. On 14.08.2004, the petitioner was posted as a Senior Branch Manager at Tiruchirappalli Branch of the respondent bank. He worked in such capacity till he was transferred to Krishnagiri as Senior Branch Manager on 15.05.2007. On 12.11.2007, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice, calling for a written explanation making as many as eighteen charges against the petitioner.

(ii) The sum and substance of the charges is that the petitioner while granting housing loans to employees of Public Sector Undertakings, like Railways, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Ordinance Factory and Government Teachers, has not devoted proper care and as a result of which, many of the housing loans had became non-performing assets. It was also found that the petitioner has not obtained proper salary slips from those employees and in three accounts, the borrowers had defrauded the bank by showing buildings in a sites other than the mortgaged property. In so far as, those three accounts are concerned, criminal proceedings were launched against Mr. G. Elangovan, Senior Manager and Mr. M. Vaikunthamurthy, Manager (Credit). The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 13.12.2007 and the Disciplinary Authority placed the petitioner under suspension with effect from 16.07.2008. An Articles of charge was issued along with the statement of allegations on 02.03.2009. Then, the Deputy Regional Manager was appointed as an Enquiry Officer.

(iii) On completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his Report to the Disciplinary Authority on 05.10.2009. Some of the charges were held to be not proved, while the petitioner was found to be guilty of certain charges. Based on the Enquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority called for a further explanation from the petitioner and the same was submitted by the petitioner on 13.11.2009. By the order, dated 15.04.2010, the Disciplinary Authority, namely, the third respondent, imposed a punishment of reduction in rank by two stages, thereby the petitioner was reverted from Scale III to Scale I and his pay was also fixed at Rs. 10,000/-. The said order also states that the suspension period is treated as period not spent on duty. On 15.04.2010, the suspension was also revoked. The petitioner was asked to attend duty immediately in the junior level. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said punishment to the Executive Director, namely, the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority, on 25.08.2010. The petitioner also preferred a review to the Chairman cum Managing Director of the respondent bank, which also came to be dismissed by the respondent bank, by order dated 08.04.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.

3. The main grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the Rules for conduct of the disciplinary enquiry framed by the respondent bank contemplates examination of the delinquent officer by the Enquiry Officer, if the delinquent does not examine himself as a witness. A specific reference is made to Rule 6(17) of the Bank of Baroda Officer Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1976. Apart from the above, the petitioner has also contended that the quantum of punishment imposed on him, is highly unreasonable and the Co-delinquents, namely, Mr. G. Elangovan, Senior Manager (Credit) and Mr. M. Vaikunthamurthy, Manager (Credit) have been awarded punishments of stoppage of increment alone, whereas the petitioner has been awarded a major penalty of reduction in rank and he has been reverted to the ent