IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the limited scope of its interference in disciplinary proceedings and the importance of integrity in handling bank funds.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS to call for the records from the 1st Respondent relating to the order dt. 16.03.2020 bearing Reference No. A & R/261 read with the order of the 2nd Respondent dt. 2.8.2019 bearing reference No. VIG/ESR/152, and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, perverse, without jurisdiction and to consequently direct the Respondent Bank to reinstate the Petitioner back in service together with back wages including increments, revisions, promotion etc., which the Petitioner would have got had he not been dismissed from service with interest.)

1. Heard, Mr.K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Ravindran, learned Senior counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on records.

2. A Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus has been filed by the petitioner to challenge the impugned order passed by the first respondent regarding the order dated 16.03.2020 with Reference No.A&R/261 read with the order of the second respondent dated 2.8.2019 with Reference No. VIG/ESR/152 and to quash the same as unlawful, arbitrary, perverse, and without jurisdiction and to direct the respondent bank to reinstate the petitioner back into service along with back wages, including promotions, increments, and other benefits that he would have received had he not been dismissed from service with interest.

3. The petitioner was working as a Rural Marketing and Recovery Officer [RMRO] which post was later designated as Officer, JMGS I. Lastly, he was working at Kallakurichi Branch of the respondents/State Bank of India. On 04.06.2012, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo for two counts. The first charge was that the petitioner had unauthorizedly transferred funds from one customer by name M.Neelakandan's bank account to the account of a temporary staff of the Bank by name K.Vijayan by forging the signature of the customer. The second charge is remitting back the amount later to the customer's account after misappropriating the amount so drawing through K.Vijayan.

4. Prior to the issuance of the charge memo, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 22.11.2011. Enquiry proceedings were initiated and the Enquiry Officer had filed the report that the charges against the petitioner were proved. Hence, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service.

5. An appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the 1st respondent. The petitioner challenged the same by way of filing a Writ Petition in WP.No.31375 of 2016 and the same was disposed through an order dated 17.07.2018 by setting aside the order of dismissal and with a direction to examine the material witnesses like the Branch Manager and the customer. But at the end of the enquiry, the charges against the petitioner were held to be proved and he was imposed with the very same punishment of dismissal from service on 02.08.2019 by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal challenging the same and the same was also rejected on 16.03.2022. Aggrieved over that the petitioner has filed this petition.

6. Mr.K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the bank was given with an opportunity to cross examine the material witnesses, they did not opt to do so. But the petitioner examined the customer by name M.Neelakandan and he has stated that the messenger K.Vijayan was his son's friend and he only requested a withdrawal slip for Rs.1,90,000/- on 11.11.2011 for the financial assistance requested by K.Vijayan. He further stated that he did not give any complaint to the bank or to the police by alleging that the petitioner had misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- by forging his signature. He has further stated that the Branch Manager obtained customer's signature on a blank sheet by stating that the signed paper is required for processing the tractor loan application of the customer. So accord