The main legal point established is that termination without a proper enquiry and imposition of shockingly disproportionate penalties is not sustainable under the applicable rules.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent dated 08.09.2011 and quash the same and for a consequential direction, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with attendant service benefits.)

1. The relief sought by the petitioner in this writ petition is to call for the records calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent dated 08.09.2011 and quash the same and for a consequential direction, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with attendant service benefits.

2. The facts of the case in a nutshell:

The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Administrative Officer in the respondent corporation on 29.01.1992 and posted at Hyderabad. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred to a newly opened branch Visakhapatnam in the year 1995 as Branch Head. Being the newly opened branch, the petitioner worked hard by way of marketing and developed the business of the branch to Rs.40 crores. Later in the year 1997, the petitioner was promoted a Senior Executive and subsequently in the year 1997, the petitioner was posted as Branch head at Hyderabad. The petitioner developed the business of the branch by good marketing strategy from Rs.40 crores to 80 crores. While working at Hyderabad branch, the petitioner received consolation prize for the period 2002-2003 for customer service on all India Basis. Even since his appointment, the petitioner has had an unblemished record of service with devotion to duty and discharged his duties sincerely and honestly to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors and gave no room for anybody to complain.

2.1. The petitioner was transferred to Chennai on 10.05.2005 as Area Manager. While transferring the petitioner as Area Manager (Branch Head), one Mr.S.Ravi, who was functioning as Branch Head in Chennai was asked to look after the recovery of NPA accounts in the branch. Further, the Branch was facing serious problems such as high Non-Performing Assets to the tune of Rs.25.59 crores. This being so, the petitioner, during the year 2009, sought for transfer on health grounds to Hyderabad but the respondents transferred the Recovery Department Head Mr.S.Ravi to Trichy. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 10.05.2010, stating that the petitioner committed certain irregularities, manipulated and falsified the accounts and the account entries were made in violation of the rules and regulations of the General Insurance Corporation Housing Finance Ltd., (hereinafter referred as “GICHFL”) during his tenure as Branch Manager. The suspesnion was made under Rule 20 of the GICHFL conduct, Disciplines and Appeal Rules, 2009.

2.2. The petitioner was paid only 50% of the Subsistence Allowance on the old pay scale for fifteen months only. The petitioner was not paid salary for the month of April 2010 and he was not paid subsistence allowance for the month of August 2010 and September 2011. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with memorandum of charges on 20.07.2010, asking the petitioner to submit his explanation within 15 days for holding the enquiry. The petitioner was surprised to receive another memorandum dated 22.10.2010 with additional charges and he has submitted his explanation dated 09.11.2010, denying all the charges as baseless. Moreover, the petitioner was not served with any documents mentioned in the memorandum of charges and without considering the explanation properly and without even conducting any enquiry, the first respondent issued the impugned order dated 08.09.2011, terminating the service of the petitioner. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of termination has been pass