IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. ASHA, J.
K.Venkittu - Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Registrar / Administrator Periya Kancheepuram Co-op Town Bank Ltd. – Respondent
W.P.No. 27414 of 2024 & W.M.P.No. 29921 of 2024
Decided On : 04-03-2026
ORDER :
P.T. ASHA, J.
This writ petition is filed for the following relief:
“To call for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with the impugned order passed in Proc.No.3/2019 M.D dated 27.02.2019 and confirmed by the 2nd respondent in his Na.Ka.No.2944/2019/SR dated 14.01.2020 and quash the same.”
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had entered the service of the 1st respondent bank on 09.06.1993. The petitioner at that point in time is qualified to hold the said post. It is the petitioner’s case that one Harikrishnan, senior to the petitioner who was serving as Assistant was appointed to the service on 23.02.1983. The petitioner is now serving as Assistant in-charge of the post of Branch Manager, Periya Kancheepuram Town, Co-operative Bank, Orikki Branch.
3. The petitioner would submit that as early as in the year 2017, he had attained sufficient seniority for being considered for promotion to the post of Manager. However, overlooking him his junior one A.Sriraman was promoted and he was further promoted as Assistant General Manager on 01.12.2021. The petitioner’s claim was deferred on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case registered in Cr.No.2 of 2017 on the file of CCIW CID, Kancheepuram, on an allegation that he along with Chief Cashier and General Manager and others had purchased certain articles for the bank and misappropriated funds in collusion with the others.
4. Pending the criminal case, a disciplinary proceedings has been initiated against the petitioner on the ground that he had caused financial loss to the bank with reference to the purchase of rexine gift bags to the tune of Rs.2,74,750/-. He was proceeded for an enquiry under Section 81 of the Cooperative Societies Act and thereafter only a charge memo came to be issued containing three charges. The petitioner denied the charges and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer conducted an oral enquiry and held that the charges against the petitioner stood proved.
5. The petitioner would submit that while he was working as a Branch Manager of Gangaikondan Mandabam Branch of Cooperative Bank, on 03.03.2016 at about 12 pm, sub staff Srinivasan had handed over a transfer order transferring the petitioner to the Head Office as a Chief Cashier. The petitioner thereafter handed over charge to the Branch Manager, A.Sriraman and took charge as Chief Cashier from S.Velumani. Velumani intrun took charge of the post of General Manager of the Bank.
6. The petitioner was informed by the said Velumani that they had purchased 6000 rexine bags to be given to the shareholders of the bank and requested him to sign the papers. The petitioner had enquired as to whether the 6000 bags had received and he was assured by the General Manager that the 6000 bags were received and the same was brought to the knowledge of the President of the bank. The President of the bank had also admitted receipt of the said bags. Thereafter, believing the above submissions, the petitioner had signed the file on 03.03.2016. During the Section 81 enquiry, a retired employee of the bank A.Venkatesan had admitted that the bank had received 6000 rexine bags and the same was signed by the President of the Bank on 03.03.2012.
7. The petitioner would submit that the purchase had taken place even before he had taken charge as Chief Cashier and it appears to be a planned conspiracy between the President and the General Manager.
8. The second charge against the petitioner was that he had issued a cheque for a value of 2000 rexine backs without even receiving the same and this has caused a loss to the bank. The petitioner would submit that the cheque was signed only on the assurance of the General Manager and the President. The petitioner would submit that he was not even aware of the purchase of the bags and he has only signed the cheques on the instruction of the General Manager and the President.
9. The Enquiry Officer had held against the petitioner and the petitioner was thereaft
The main legal point established is that 'Censure' punishment does not warrant the imposition of check periods for promotion, and surcharge proceedings should not automatically disqualify an individu....
The civil liability under the Co-operative Societies Act persists independently from criminal proceedings, emphasizing that bail does not exempt financial obligations.
Disciplinary proceedings for employee misconduct can be maintained irrespective of delays from earlier actions, emphasizing the right to investigate allegations of financial irregularities.
Disciplinary action against employees in banking must balance serious misconduct with fair treatment principles, allowing for reconsideration of penalties based on prior service and comparative cases....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.