Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
K.Viswanathan – Appellant
Versus
Deputy General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
The petitioner filed the writ petition seeking to quash the order of dismissal from service passed by the first respondent, which was confirmed by the second respondent, and for reinstatement with attendant benefits.
2. The service details of the petitioner are as follows:
(i) Appointment and Suspension:
The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk-cum-Cashier-cum-Godown Keeper at the Indian Overseas Bank on 30.06.1982. In 2013, while working as Shroff/Godown Keeper at the Kothagiri Branch, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 17.06.2013 due to allegations of committing acts of omission and commission prejudicial to the interests of the bank. Disciplinary proceedings were contemplated, and a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 30.01.2014 by the Senior Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Chen
The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner for gross misconduct involving misappropriation and breach of trust, validating the disciplinary process and confirming proportionality of the penalty....
The admission of charges by an employee at multiple stages of disciplinary proceedings renders the enquiry unnecessary, and the punishment imposed may not be considered disproportionate.
The seriousness of misappropriation of public money and the fiduciary duty of a Bank employee require a strict approach, and the refund of misappropriated amount after a considerable time does not ab....
The court ruled that punishment for misconduct must be proportional to the offense, particularly when the alleged wrongful acts are minor and inadvertently committed.
The court emphasized the limited scope of its interference in disciplinary proceedings and the importance of integrity in handling bank funds.
The court upheld the principle that the imposition of dismissal from service as a penalty for misconduct, particularly in the context of financial institutions dealing with customer funds, may be jus....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of fairness in treatment and the limits of correcting errors of law, procedural errors leading to manifest injustice, or violation o....
Bank officials accused of serious financial misconduct are expected to discharge their duties with utmost integrity and honesty, and the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be sub....
Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to assessing procedural fairness; evidence must meet the preponderance of probabilities standard in administrative contexts, not beyond a reason....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article