The principles of natural justice must be upheld in disciplinary proceedings, and reliance on improper external influences can invalidate decisions made by disciplinary authorities.

ORDER :

A. The Writ Petition:

1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order of the 4^th respondent dated 23.01.2008 imposing the punishment of dismissal from service and the order of the 3^rd respondent dated 28.07.2008 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirming the punishment and to consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant benefits.

B. Brief Facts:

2. The brief facts relevant to the disposal of the Writ Petition are that the petitioner herein joined the services of the 1^st respondent-Bank in the year 1973 as a Clerk. Thereafter, he was elevated to the officer's cadre and was promoted to Scale - III in the year 1991. While so, he worked as Branch Manager at Tiruvattiswaranpet Branch, Chennai, between March 2002 and May 2005. During the said period, it is stated that he has granted about 450 housing loans and he was also granted an award for the said purpose. However, a charge memorandum was issued against the petitioner on 31.08.2006. The issuance of the charge memorandum is that there were many irregularities in respect of 127 housing loans that were granted by the petitioner as the Manager of the Branch. The allegations of misconduct are given in the article of charge, and the details concerning every loan were furnished in the statement of imputation of allegations. By a communication dated 09.10.2006, the petitioner requested perusal of certain documents as allegations were levelled about as many as 106 accounts. The petitioner was permitted to go through the documents. Thereafter, on 27.11.2006, the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation to the charges. The petitioner denied every misconduct in detail and submitted that he has taken every effort to safeguard the interests of the bank. The explanation was not accepted and enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer after holding an enquiry and after recording oral and documentary evidence submitted his report dated 13.10.2007 holding that the charge was proved. A further show cause notice was issued on 13.10.2007 enclosing the copy of the enquiry report and an opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his further explanation if any. The petitioner submitted his further explanation.

2.1. The disciplinary authority considered the same and found that there were several omissions and commissions on the part of the petitioner amounting to misconduct. The allegations against him were proved. The bank incurred loss even after auctioning certain assets. In view thereof, the Bank imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal, the 3^rd respondent being an appellate authority again considered the findings of the disciplinary authority and the grounds of appeal and rejected the appeal and confirmed the punishment. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court.

C. The Submissions:-

3. Heard, Mr.Sharath Chandran, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.Anand Gopalan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-Bank

3.1. Mr.Sharath Chandran, the learned counsel for the petitioner while trying to take this Court through the merits of the charges would first submit that the relevant period was a time where the banks competed to disburse more and more housing loans and targets were given to the branches and, when the petitioner sanctioned and disbursed so many loans, he was even given an award for the said purpose. Merely because some of the persons obtained loan and failed to repay the same in time, cannot be a ground for taking action against the petitioner. The statements made during the enquiry, in the discip