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.

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, Chennai, in DO:CDAC:CM(RP):DA:Vig:F-8472:2014-15 4503, dated 30.01.2014. Four charges were framed against the petitioner.

(ii) Alleged Irregularities:

The petitioner, while working as Shroff/Godown Keeper at the Kothagiri Branch, was accused of the following irregularities:

(iii) Misappropriation of Loan Proceeds:

The petitioner misappropriated loan proceeds disbursed to Mrs. P.K. Lakshmi (Rs.8.00 Lakhs), Mr. B. Muthan (Rs.3.00 Lakhs), and Mr. G.R. Krishnan (Rs.2.00 Lakhs), diverting the funds for personal benefits instead of making payments to the borrowers. The petitioner also allegedly demanded and accepted bribes from Mr. B. Muthan (Rs.2.50 Lakhs) and Mr. G.R. Krishnan (Rs.0.59 Lakhs) for facilitating the sanction of credit facilities to them.

(iv) Failure to Obtain Permission for Loans:

The petitioner availed loans in the names of his wife and son from the State Bank of India by extending his personal guarantee, without prior permission from the Bank. Additionally, he failed to disclose his employment when availing the loans or offering his guarantee.

(v) Misappropriation of Bank Funds:

The petitioner misappropriated the bank's funds by failing to account for excess cash found in the cash counter, crediting the excess amount to his Savings Bank account (SB A/C No. 1152/9009) on multiple occasions.

(vi) Disciplinary Proceedings:

• On 17.06.2013, the petitioner was suspended from the Bank's service, and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. The charge sheet was issued on 30.01.2014, citing the petitioner’s actions as "Gross Misconduct" under Clause 5(d) and 5(j), and "Minor Misconduct" under Clause 7(d) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002 between the Bank and its workmen.

• An enquiry was conducted on 28.05.2014, with the petitioner attending the enquiry with his defense representative. The Enquiry Officer submitted the findings on 28.07.2014.

• On 07.10.2014, the Disciplinary Authority granted the petitioner a personal hearing regarding the proposed punishment of dismissal. After considering the case, the Disciplinary Authority concluded that the charges were serious and warranted a deterrent punishment. Consequently, on 28.10.2014, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal under Clause 6(a) of the Memorandum of Settlement.

• The petitioner filed an appeal on 18.12.2014 against the dismissal order. The Appellate Authority conducted a personal hearing on 16.02.2015, reviewed the records, and on 10.03.2015, confirmed the dismissal order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Consequently, the petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking relief as mentioned above.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Enquiry Officer had submitted various reports, which were relied upon by the second respondent in passing the impugned order. Th