The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proportionality in disciplinary actions and the need for adherence to principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent relating to TNSE No.3/2010, quash the order dated 22.05.2012, passed thereon as well as the order of the 2nd respondent dated 17.06.2009 dismissing the petitioner from service was unwarranted and unsustainable by every means, consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with backwages with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits arose thereon, with cost.)

1. This Writ Petition is filed to quash the impugned orders passed by the respondents dated 22.05.2012 and 17.06.2009 and consequently, to direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with backwages with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner was appointed in the second respondent bank on 01.02.1990 as Salesman through employment exchange and his service was regularized. Then, he was promoted as Clerk on 01.12.1995, then promoted as Secretary on 30.11.2002 by a specific order to that effect, but without fixing the scale of pay as applicable to the post of Secretary. Even after 7 years, the scale of pay was not fixed for the post of Secretary and he has not received any salary from February 2003. But believing the words of the respondent bank, the petitioner continued in the said post.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that one set of keys was entrusted with the petitioner and other key was kept under the custody of the Special Officer of the 2nd respondent Bank and the bank is functioning in two blocks with four chambers and a go-down. The petitioner will open the office with the keys entrusted with him and commences the business daily. Sometime back, due to default of payment of subscription to the Provident Fund, the bank accounts were frozen and the Employees' Provident Fund Organization was proposing to attach safety locker containing jewels that were under pledged. Under these circumstances, whenever the petitioner was absent from duty or unable to attend office due to other work or for any reason, nobody in the office was prepared to get the office key, apprehending the risk of attachment. Therefore, the Special Officer has strictly instructed the petitioner not to leave the records in open, whenever the petitioner was leaving from the office. Due to freezing of account of the respondent bank, the bank cannot operate cash credit account with the Madurai District Central Cooperative Bank, in which the accounts are being maintained. Under this circumstance, due to freezing of bank account, no outward transaction was permissible for any purpose. The Tamil Nadu Co-operative Marketing Federation (hereinafter referred to as “TANFED”) / the supplier of fertilizer used to deliver goods on payment of amount and refused to supply fertilizers on credit basis.

4. To meet such exigencies, it was advised by the Joint Registrar to adopt a strategy of getting manure, through Madurai Taluk Agricultural Producers' Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Gnanaolivupuram, Madurai, (hereinafter referred to as “MTAPCMS”) on an understanding that the amount would be paid on the sale of the fertilizers. On 17.06.2008, the Regional Manager, TANFED, gave delivery note addressed to the Special Officer, MTAPCMS to deliver fertilizers to the respondent bank. On 18.06.2008, the slash of price for fertilizer was flashed in the newspapers. Therefore, the Special Officer MTAPCMS withheld further process. After one week, when it was confirmed that no reduction of prices, once again, on the advice of the Special Officer, the petitioner approached the Regional Manager, TANFED at Madurai in turn gave delivery note to the Special Officer MTAPCMS to deliver fertilizers to the respondent bank. The Special Officer of the respondent Bank contacted the petitioner through phone and advised