The court emphasized the importance of upholding integrity and diligence in discharging duties, as per the RHFL Regulations, and limited the scope of judicial review in service matters.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the proceedings on the file of the first respondent in Ref.No.20/Emp.No.88/2013/HR/R1 dated 04.12.2013 which confirmed the second respondent''s order vide Ref.No.1/Emp.No.88/2012/HR/AA3 dated 27.08.2012 rejecting the petitioner''s appeal against the third respondent''s order of dismissal vide Ref.No.1/Emp.No.88/2012/HR/DA2 dated 04.04.2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant service and monetary benefits.)

A. Petition:

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 04.12.2013 thereby confirmed the order passed by the second respondent dated 27.08.2012 thereby rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order of dismissal passed by the third respondent dated 04.04.2012.

B. The Brief Facts:

2. The petitioner joined in the services of Repatriates Cooperative and Finance and Development (REPCO) Home Finance Limited in the month of July 2004. He had worked in various branches upto 04.04.2012. While he was holding the post of Chief Manager in Adyar Branch between 26.05.2008 and 20.11.2010, one, Mr.George Fernandez and Mrs.Vennila Fernandez approached for housing loan for construction of building in Anbalagan Nagar, Perambur and Dharma Nagar, Ayyapakkam. After having been satisfied with the viability of the loan applications and after following all the norms and guidelines, the petitioner had recommended for sanction of loan aggregating Rs.1.60 crores. On the basis of his recommendation, the Head Office had sanctioned loan to them to the tune of Rs.63,00,000/- for the property located at Anbalagan Nagar, Perambur, Chennai and to the tune of Rs.68,00,000/- for the property located at Dharma Nagar, Ayyapakkam, Chennai. Further, in order to purchase a flat by one Kumar, sanctioned loan to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/-. They committed default and as such, the third respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings and framed charges against the petitioner under Regulation 7 of Repco Home Finance Limited Employees'' (Conduct) Regulations, 2011 (hereinafter called as RHFL Regulations. The charge sheet dated 10.10.2011 was served on the petitioner and the charges are as follows:

"That you were functioning as Chief Manager at our Adyar Branch during the period between 26.05.2008 and 20.11.2010 and while functioning in your position as such you showed undue official favour to Mr. George Femandes and his wife Mrs. Venila Fernandes by sanctioning four different loans in their names for construction purposes and also an accommodation loan in the name of the V. Kumar for Purchase of Flat by committing various irregularities more fully described in the Statement Imputation of Misconduct here below:

"In the process you disbursed RHFL Funds to the tune of Rs. 1.60 crores to Mr. George Fernandes and his wife Mrs. Venila Fernandes exceeding the security value by Rs. 40 lakhs and thus exposed the fund to the risk of Financial Loss

"Thus by your above acts you failed to discharge your duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and protect the interest of RHFL and thus acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of the RHFL and thereby deemed to have contravened Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation No. 24 of the RHFL Employees'' (Conduct) Regulations, 2011.”

3. On receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation. However without satisfying with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the third respondent appointed an enquiry officer to conduct enquiry. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was suspended from service. The enquiry officer conducted enquiry and concluded as follows:

"Findings:

"By weighing the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by b