Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58652
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.M.MANOJ, J
G. V. ANATHAKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/APPELLATE AUTHORITY INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 27961 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN, SMT.R.SHABANA
For the Respondents: SRI.SUNIL SHANKAR, SMT.VIDYA GANGADHARAN
Disciplinary actions must consider consistency and fairness, especially regarding similar employees' treatment to avoid discrimination.
Headnote:The petitioner, a retired employee of the respondent Bank, challenges the disciplinary proceedings and penalty imposed upon him as per Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, following an inquiry report detailing negligence in loan assessments. The court found inconsistencies in treatment relative to similar cases and directed the appellate authority to reconsider the appeal due to potential discrimination. The appropriate authority must reassess within three months as per findings, allowing for a hearing if necessary.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disciplinary actions follow inquiry findings. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. maintainability and review procedures are clarified. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. discrimination against similarly situated employees must be examined. (Para 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. the case is remanded for reconsideration. (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of November, 2025 This Writ Petition is preferred aggrieved by Ext.P9 order of punishment and Ext.P16 order confirming the punishment in appeal.
2. The petitioner is the retired employee of the respondent Bank. The petitioner retired from the post of Manager, 2nd line. The charges levelled against the petitioner as per Ext.P4 is on the basis of Ext. P1 enquiry report. The primary findings of the enquiry is as follows:
“ All the 85 loan accounts in the name of 29 borrowers stands closed as on date and there is no loss to the bank. The funds from various sources were observed credited to the SB account of the appraiser Mr.Palaniappan (SB No.1406) and were transferred for closure of all the accounts with due authorization of the account holder/appraiser.
As instructed by Regional Office, branch has dispensed with the services of Mr.R.Palaniappan as appraiser.
Conclusion:
1.The appraiser of the branch Mr.R.Palaniappan, in collusion with the customers of the branch had pledged suprious jewels on various occasions and gained wrongfully with the intention to defraud the bank.
2. The borrowers had pledged the jewels submitting false declaration to the bank for their own benefit/benefit of the appraiser.
3. Many loans were sanctioned in the name of the son/daughter of the appraiser and others, on same date and also on various dates.
4. The branch officials/joint custodians has not taken proper care in identifying the fineness/purity of jewels at the time of sanction of the loan.
5. Negligence on the part of the officials has been observed, eventhough it found difficult in identifying the spurious jewels in few cases.”
3. Going by the enquiry report itself it can be seen that the appraiser Mr.R.Palaniappan in collusion with other customers pledged certain spurious jewels on various occasions. The enquiry officer ultimately found that the Branch officials or joint custodians has not taken proper care in identifying the fineness or purity of the jewels at the time of sanctioning the loan and there is negligence on the part of the officials. But it is observed that even though it found difficulty in identifying the spurious jewels in few cases.
4. Whereas, relying on regulations 3(1) and 3(3)
of the Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, disciplinary proceedings were initiated on the basis of the aforementioned report. Regulations 3(1) and 3(3) stipulates that every officer employee shall, at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of an officer employee, and no officer employee shall in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgment. Accordingly, the articles of charges was framed as per Ext.P4 which was replied by the petitioner as evident in Ext.P5 and pertinently on the conclusion portion it was admitted by the petitioner that certain errors occurred on his part, which may be condoned. However, it was stated that he had 34 years of unblemished service and there was no history of any shortcoming.
5. Finding the reply given by the petitioner as evident in Ext.P5 not satisfactory, an enquiry officer was appointed and enquiry was conducted. Ext.P7 is the enquiry report. The enquiry report specifically states that on considering the statements and allegations and the arguments of the parties, the charges levelled against them were partly proved. Thereby Articles of Charge 1(b) and 1(c) were also held as partly proved and i
