The admission of charges by an employee at multiple stages of disciplinary proceedings renders the enquiry unnecessary, and the punishment imposed may not be considered disproportionate.

ORDER :

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the rerecords in connection with the charge sheet No.DO.Vig: AGM(SP): DA:2010 dated 05.04.2010 issued by the 4th respondent herein and the order of dismissal from service No.DO:VIG:AGM(SP)DA:6142:2010-2011 dated 28.01.2011 passed by the 4th Respondent herein and the order of rejection on appeal No.DO:VIG:GM(RMR):AA:F-7244:2508:2011 dated 28.07.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent herein and the order of rejection on mercy petition No.DO:VIG/C&DAC:DGM(RKG):F-7244-2013-14 dated 22.07.2013 passed by the 3rd respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all service and monetary benefits.

The punishment of dismissal from service of the writ petitioner and confirmed by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority are under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner joined as a Clerk in the respondent / Bank in the year 1989. A charge sheet was issued in proceedings dated 05.04.2010, framing 9 charges against the writ petitioner. The alleged incident occurred between the years 2007 and 2008 at Pattukkotai Branch of Indian Overseas Bank. The main allegation against the writ petitioner was that the Bank’s money kept in Sundry Accounts were misappropriated by way of transferring the same to the SB Accounts of various persons.

3. The petitioner on receipt of the charge sheet, submitted his reply on 17.05.2010. In his reply, the petitioner states that he was shouldering of all the works in the branch during his tenure at Pattukkottai Branch and further stated that he had remitted back the entire amount to the Bank to ensure that there is no financial loss to the respondent / Bank. Accordingly, the petitioner made a request to pardon him by considering his family background.

4. An Enquiry Officer was appointed in proceedings dated 19.07.2010. Summons were issued to the writ petitioner and the Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted his final report and the petitioner was provided with an opportunity to file his objections, if any on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his reply on 02.12.2010 and thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed final orders on 28.01.2011, imposing the penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner preferred an Appeal against the order of dismissal on 24.02.2011 and the Appellate Authority provided an opportunity to the writ petitioner for personal hearing. After hearing the parties, the Appellate Authority also rejected the Appeal on 28.07.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Mercy Petition before the Board of Directors and the said petition was also rejected.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the allegations are absolutely false. The petitioner had conceded the charges on forced circumstances and on account of mental pressure. The circumstances made him to concede the charges and in this regard, the evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer are also to be considered.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the findings of the Enquiry Officer by stating that it may not be possible for the petitioner alone to commit such a misappropriation in the Indian Overseas Bank. The allegation was that he has misused the Code Number allotted to the other officials of the Bank and transferred the money. If it is one officer, one can understand, but it may not be possible for the petitioner to misuse the code of four officials of the Bank, which is beyond truth and thus, the petitioner was made as a scapegoat in respect of the misappropriation committed by some other persons in the Bank.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the cheques were passed by the other officials. However, no action was taken against none of th