ORDER :

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

1. The Award dated 04.04.2017 passed in I.D. No. 32 of 2015 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner states that he was appointed in the first respondent Bank at Kattur ADB Branch, Lalgudi on 12.02.1979 and thereafter, transferred to Melsanakuppam Branch in 2004. During the period from 05.06.2004 to 30.09.2010, the petitioner was working as Special Assistant at Melsanakuppam Branch. Under the career progression, he was transferred to Karumbur Branch in 2010 as Senior Special Assistant. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide letter No. DIS/CON/250 dated 27.08.2011 and a charge sheet was issued on 14.02.2012. The Charges alleged against the petitioner are extracted hereunder:

"Charge No: 1

You did not exercise due diligence while verifying the address and identity of the gold loan borrowers, in respect of 77 gold loans (details given in the Annexure A)

Charge No: 2

You did not verify and satisfy yourself about the purity of the gold ornaments pledged for in respect of each of the 77 gold loans mentioned above before recommending them for sanction. (List of Accounts in Annexure B). The gold ornaments in respect of each of the 77 said gold loans are found to be spurious as tested and certified by an approved appraiser.

Charge No: 3

By the above said acts of omission and commission, the Bank is likely to incur an estimated loss of Rs. 48.08 lacs.

Charge No: 4

In all the 77 Agri. Gold loans, you did not verify and ensure that the loan amount arrived at for the weight of the gold ornaments pledged, is well within the eligible amount of loan arrived at based on the extent of acreage under cultivation, nature of crop and the applicable scale of finance.

Charge No: 5

When you are not authorized to sanction gold loans, you have sanctioned two Agricultural gold loans (A/c Nos. 3065794632 and 30700190819) and thereby violated the Bank's instructions (Annexure-C)

Charge No: 6

You failed to roll over simultaneously while closing the existing loan (closure done on the next day only) resulting in loans being without security for one day which is against the interest of the Bank. (List of Accounts furnished in Annexure D)

Charge No.: 7

You did not make entries and main-"In & Out Register" as per laid down instructions

Charge No: 8

You put through vouchers in the CBS system without authorization of the Branch Head."

3. A domestic enquiry was conducted and the writ petitioner participated in the process of enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Based on the enquiry proceedings the petitioner was dismissed from service on 28.03.2012. The writ petitioner preferred an internal appeal on 30.03.2012 and the Appellate Authority rejected the said appeal on 12.05.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner raised the Industrial Dispute in ID. No. 132 of 2015 and the Tribunal passed a preliminary order holding that the domestic enquiry conducted was not fair and proper and accordingly, examined documents and witnesses with reference to the charge memorandum issued to the writ petitioner. After adjudication, the Tribunal passed an award holding that non-employment of the petitioner is justified and dismissed the Industrial Dispute. The Tribunal held that the charges levelled against the writ petitioner are proved. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move this writ petition challenging the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner mainly contended that the Award passed by the Labour Court is perverse as the evidence produced by the writ petitioner are not appreciated properly. The Tribunal did not consider that the agricultural gold loan is extended only to those clients who have savings bank account in the bank and therefore, the verification of KYC norms would not arise at all. At the time of opening of savings bank account, KYC norms have to be verified and only after veri