Negligence in banking operations can warrant disciplinary action, but dismissal is excessive if it disproportionately impacts an employee with long service and minimal financial loss to the institution.

ORDER :

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the order dated 26.07.2011 passed by the second respondent confirming the order of dismissal passed by the third respondent. By order dated 01.07.2010, the third respondent dismissed the petitioner from service on the ground of misconduct.

2. The petitioner, while serving as Senior Branch Manager, was issued with Articles of Charge. The charge memo contained three charges in all. The first allegation against the petitioner was that Savings Bank (SB) accounts were opened in the Branch in the name of one Arul Selvan, an employee of the Chennai Port Trust, with zero balance, while in the account opening form, a sum of Rs.250/- was shown as the initial deposit. Several columns in the account opening form were left blank. The form was not signed by the depositor, indicating that he was not present in the Branch at the time of opening of the account and that the account had been opened without his knowledge. Further, the account opening form was not signed by any of the Branch officials.

3. The said SB account was opened on 05.03.2007 with proceeds of DL PBS amounting to Rs.2,32,000/- in the name of the account holder. The father of the account holder had lodged a complaint stating that the account in the name of his son, Arul Selvan, had been opened without his knowledge and without his presence in the Branch.

4. The second allegation is that an SB account was opened in the name of one Sri M. Padmaraj, an employee of the Chennai Port Trust, with zero balance, while in the account opening form, Rs.250/- was shown as the initial deposit. The account opening form was not signed by any of the Branch officials and photocopies of the address proof were not verified with the originals. The SB account was opened on 05.03.2007 with proceeds amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- in the name of the account holder.

5. The third allegation is that the Chennai Regional Office had issued a circular dated 13.12.2006 to all city Branches informing about the allocation of PBS loan portfolios amongst the Branches. As per the said circular, loans to employees of the Chennai Port Trust were to be sanctioned only by the Anna Nagar, Mogapair, Nungambakkam and Tondiarpet Branches. The George Town Branch, where the petitioner was functioning as Senior Branch Manager, was not authorised to extend loans to employees of the Chennai Port Trust. However, in violation of the said circular, the George Town Branch arranged 88 loans to employees of the Chennai Port Trust from 14.12.2006 onwards. The circular further stipulated that the Branch could arrange PBS loans only if salary credit was received through ECS or otherwise at the Branch consecutively for at least three months.

6. It is further alleged that the petitioner had caused the opening of SB accounts in the names of 22 persons, showing them as employees of the Chennai Port Trust, without their knowledge or information, without obtaining proper introductions, and by leaving several relevant columns in the account opening forms blank. Further, after opening the said SB accounts, he had sanctioned 17 loans based on fake salary certificates and without the knowledge of the borrowers and co-applicants, even though salaries were not credited to the SB accounts either at the time of sa