Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; courts cannot interfere unless there are gross violations of procedure or principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

R.N.Manjula, J.

The petitioner has filed a petition seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the order dated 10.03.2016 in L.R.No.666/20/V/T-1590/829 on the file of the first respondent and also the second respondent's order dated 12.09.2017 and to quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, and not sustainable in law and direct the respondents bank to pay the petitioner with all his consequential entire service benefits till his superannuation dated 31.03.2017 including pension payable to the petitioner by the respondents bank.

2. Heard Mr. B.Kumarasamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Rita Chandrasekar, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner, who was removed from service due to proven charges of irregularities, has filed this writ petition challenging the order of dismissal dated 10.03.2016 and the order of the appellate authority confirming the punishment, dated 12.05.2017. The petitioner has been given a charge memo dated 08.05.2015, on the allegations that,

"(i) The petitioner had sanctioned 51 house loans during the period from 15.10.2011 to 31.01.2014 without following the extant guidelines, and the disbursement of loans was carried out without ensuring the stage-wise completion of construction;

(ii) He disbursed loans directly to the credit of vendors, contrary to the accepted procedure of making payments through demand drafts at the time of registration, with payment particulars duly incorporated in the sale deeds. This resulted in sellers denying payment and borrowers refusing to repay the bank loans.

(iii) Some of the loans, listed as 1 to 35, were released without collecting the borrowers' margin money, in violation of the extant guidelines;

(iv) In 41 cases, the petitioner released loan instalments for housing loans based on the estimated value upon completion of construction rather than on a stage-wise report approved by the engineer;

(v) The transactions found in some cases in respect of the disbursed and undisbursed portion of the loan, just by adjusting it in the same loan account, as though it is a recovery. But in reality, no actual recovery has been made;

(vi) 21 house loans were sanctioned without conducting due diligence. Sale deeds were not registered in favour of the purchasers, possession was not handed over along with title deeds, and disbursements were made to one of the six vendors without due authorization;

(vii) The loans were disbursed through RTGS and NEFT instead of issuing demand drafts at the time of registration, with the details duly incorporated in the sale deeds and several other charges, totalling 21 charges."

4. After having been found guilty and on the observation that the acts of the petitioner had exposed the bank to huge financial loss, the petitioner has been imposed with a major penalty of dismissal from service. The appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging the above order was also dismissed by confirming the orders of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of punishment has been filed arbitrarily without any application of mind. He further submitted that sufficient opportunity was not given to the petitioner and there is a violation of principles of natural justice. The charges proved are trivial in nature, for which the major penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the powers of judicial review against the orders of the appointment imposed by the authorities in disciplinary proceedings cannot be expected to be exercised as those of the powers of the appellate authority. Unless there is any unfair treatment while conducting the enquiry, the findings are patently perverse and no interference can be done. The petitioner has been charged for various allegations of sanctioning loans and disbursing the same in a very shortsighted manner and violati