Disciplinary proceedings require strict adherence to procedural regulations, and serious lapses by bank officers justify dismissal, irrespective of the absence of financial loss.

JUDGMENT :

Anita Sumanth, J.

Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against order dated 28.04.2023 made in W.P.No.9912 of 2014.

We have heard Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy, learned counsel on record for the appellants/Indian Overseas Bank (in short ‘Bank’) and Mr.T.Mohan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ms.P.Vasuky, learned counsel for the respondent (in short ‘respondent’/’writ petitioner’).

2. The appellants challenge an order of the Writ Court dated 28.04.2023. What was impugned before the Writ Court was an order dated 23.03.2013 confirming appellate order dated 08.09.2012, which, in turn confirmed order dated 06.07.2012 dismissing the petitioner from service. Consequential directions were sought for payment of backwages from date of dismissal till due date of superannuation of the Writ Petitioner along with full retirement benefits.

3. The respondent was employed with the appellant Bank. While serving as a Branch Manager in the Hosur Town Branch, he had sanctioned a loan to one V.Murali (in short ‘borrower’). According to the respondent, all due diligence was effected prior to sanction of the loan including in regard to the guarantor who had offered the property at S.No.521 NGGO Colony, ad measuring 2180 sq.ft. (in short ‘collateral property’) as collateral for the loan.

4. While so, a complaint had been received from G.Muniyappa (in short ‘complainant’), who had been taken to be the guarantor, stating that he had never offered his property as mortgage and alleging impersonation. Memorandum of allegations and articles of charges dated 30.07.2011 were issued to the respondent and investigation was conducted by the enquiry officer appointed. The enquiry officer had submitted a detailed report holding that the allegations against the respondent were substantially proved in respect of charge 1 and fully proved in respect of charges 2 to 6.

5. He concluded that the proved articles of charge established beyond doubt that the respondent had failed to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and discharge duties with devotion and diligence. He had acted otherwise than in best judgment in the performance of official duties contravening Regulations 3(1), 3(3) as well as 15(iv) of Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (in short ‘1976 Regulations’), in all, constituting misconduct punishable under various provisions of the 1976 Regulations.

6. The disciplinary authority sought the respondent’s response to the findings of the enquiry officer by issuing notice dated 06.06.2012 to him. After consideration of the explanations tendered, the disciplinary authority passed order dated 06.07.2012 awarding punishment of dismissal, which also acted as a disqualification for future employment in terms of Regulation 4(j) of the 1976 Regulations.

7. The respondent filed an appeal on 31.07.2012 before the appellate authority, the General Manager of the Bank, who vide order dated 08.09.2012, being of the view that the punishment imposed was proportionate, confirmed the order of dismissal.

8. A review was filed on 03.11.2012 which also met the same fate under order dated 23.03.2013 passed by the Executive Director, who was the reviewing authority. It is as against those concurrent orders that the Writ Petition had been filed.

9. After the completion of pleadings, the Writ Court heard the parties and allowed the Writ Petition. What appears to have weighed with the Writ Court was the order passed by Judicial Magistrate No.2, Krishnagiri in C.C.No.134 of 2016. That case followed the registration of an FIR as against the Writ Petitioner and the persons who had impersonated the complainant, G.Muniyappa. The borrower, V. Murali and one Venkatesh had been arrayed as A1 and A2. The Writ Petitioner had been arrayed as A3.

10. The Judicial Magistrate held that the investigating authorities had failed to send the forged documents for forensic analysis, thus