Disciplinary proceedings are vitiated when charge memos are vague and lack specific statements of allegations. Administrative authorities must not engage in selective, discriminatory penalization of one employee for procedural lapses when others similarly involved remain unpunished, as this violates the fundamental principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness.

JUDGMENT :

1. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, who was working as a Senior Manager with the 1st respondent, leading to his ultimate termination from service as confirmed by the appellate authority, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner, as stated earlier, was working as the Senior Manager of Kodumon Branch of the 1st respondent. On the basis of an internal audit as regards the loans sanctioned from Kodumon Branch, the disciplinary proceedings were recommended to be initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 report against the petitioner. Ext.P2 memo of charges was also issued on that basis. A similar audit was conducted as regards the Oachira and Chavara Branches, where the petitioner had earlier worked, leading to Ext.P4 report, on the basis of which, Ext.P5 memo of charges was issued to the petitioner. He was also, in the meantime, suspended from service pursuant to Ext.P3 memo dated 14.01.2019. A domestic enquiry is also constituted by appointing an enquiry officer, to whom the petitioner filed Exts.P7 and P7(a) written statements. The enquiry officer submitted Ext.P8 report. The petitioner provided Ext.P9 reply as regards the alleged findings in the enquiry report. However, Ext.P10 memo was issued proposing to remove the petitioner from service, as well as to recover the alleged loss. Though the petitioner submitted Ext.P11 reply, by Ext.P12 memo dated 27.10.2021, he was removed from the service of the 1st respondent with effect from 14.01.2019, on which date he was suspended. The appeal against the afore was rejected, as informed to the petitioner by Ext.P15 communication. The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge the domestic enquiry initiated against him, the memo of charges, enquiry report, the memo of removal from service at Ext.P12, and the appellate order at Ext.P15.

3. I have heard Sri.S.Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt.Pooja Menon, the learned counsel for the respondents herein.

4. Sri.Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel, would contend that:

i. The entire proceedings were initiated, solely on the basis of the ill will of the Chairman of the respondent Corporation.

ii. The memo of charges was issued solely on the basis of the audit reports prepared as demanded by the Chairman. There was no statement of imputation of allegations/list of documents/list of witnesses so as to establish the charges against the petitioner. Therefore, the memo of charges was not “specific” on account of which, the entire proceedings have to be set aside.

iii. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply/written statement contending that even the recommendation in the audit reports was to simultaneously proceed against the other officers who were also negligent, including the panel lawyer, who scrutinized the documents on the basis of which advances were given. However, disciplinary proceedings were initiated only against the petitioner.

iv. He relied on the additional affidavit dated 31.03.2026 filed by the petitioner to contend that in spite of the specific recommendations, no proceedings whatsoever were taken against the other employees, in total violation of the mandate under the Circular dated 06.01.2018 of the 1st respondent.

v. Even as regards the 28 charges, the majority have been settled as highlighted in paragraph 5 of the affidavit dated 31.03.2026. Therefore, there is no basis for the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, especially when in the impugned