The court ruled that disciplinary dismissals must adhere to natural justice and have sufficient evidence, particularly when severe penalties are imposed, as seen in cases of clerical errors.

ORDER:

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 16.12.2008 bearing Reference No.4130/06/2008/A1 passed by the third respondent, the order dated 26.02.2010 bearing Reference No.450/2009/C2 passed by the second respondent – the Revisional Authority under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, and G.O.Ms.No.117, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (CP1) Department, dated 10.07.2013 passed by the first respondent. By the order dated 16.12.2008, the petitioner was dismissed from service on account of the proved charges, which was subsequently confirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority.

2. The petitioner, while working as an Assistant in the Anna Salai Branch of the Central Cooperative Bank, Chennai, was issued with a charge memo. The charge memo dated 20.07.2007 framed against the petitioner reads as follows:

“Charge No.1: Thiru M.R. Mani, formerly Assistant, Anna Salai Branch, failed in his duty to timely reconcile the books of accounts of the Anna Salai Branch. On 30.05.2006, a salary amount of Rs.7,077/- was wrongly credited as Rs.7,707/-, resulting in an excess credit of Rs.630/-.

Charge No.2: The signatures of Syed Siraj and Syed Salim were forged by P. Shanmugavel, Branch Manager (In-charge), and a sum of Rs.70,000/- was misappropriated along with A. Rangarajan and M.R. Mani, Assistants of the Anna Salai Branch. Thus, Thiru A. Rangarajan and M.R. Mani, Assistants, colluded with the Branch Manager (In-charge) in the commission of misappropriation of funds of the Bank.

Charge No.3: Thiru M.R. Mani, Assistant, failed in his duty to return the clearing cheque for Rs.45,533/- belonging to P. Shanmugavel, Branch Manager (In-charge), received through the clearing house on 27.04.2006, even though there was only a balance of Rs.1,573.80 in SB Account No.3627 of P. Shanmugavel. The said cheque was retained by the Branch Manager and was entered in the day book and Special Cash Book. Bogus entries were made in the cash book and day book as follows

3. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory and, therefore, a departmental enquiry was initiated. Before the Enquiry Officer, the Presenting Officer examined himself, and the petitioner also filed a defence statement, and his statement was recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charges against the petitioner stood proved. The third respondent issued a second show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the Enquiry Report should not be accepted and why appropriate punishment should not be imposed. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges. Consequently, the third respondent, after considering the Enquiry Report as well as the petitioner’s explanation, passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service. The said order of dismissal was confirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

4. Mr. B. Arvind Srevatsa, learned counsel representing Mr. A. Aathimoolam, learned counsel on record for the petitioner, submitted that, in respect of Charge No.1, the petitioner had given a defence statement stating that it was a clerical mistake and not a case of misappropriation. He further submitted that Charge Nos.2 and 3 were not proved and that the sum and substance of the allegations is that the petitioner had allegedly connived with other officials and misa