Negligence by a Branch Manager resulting in financial loss justifies disciplinary action, including compulsory retirement, irrespective of quantified loss.

ORDER

The petitioner herein was appointed as an officer in the 'Pallavan Grama Bank', in the year 1989. While the petitioner was working as a 'Branch Manager' in the M.Kunnathur Branch, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under the provisions of the Pallavan Grama Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations , 2007, by issuing Articles of Charges dated 28.06.2010, containing nine charges. In response to the said Articles of Charges, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 28.07.2010 and thereafter, an Inquiry Authority was appointed. The said Inquiry Authority viz., Mr.L.Thangarajan, Senior Manager/ Regional Manager, after having conducted a detailed enquiry into charges, submitted his report dated 09.02.2011 to the Respondent No.1/ Disciplinary Authority holding that the charges 1 to 5 and 9 as proved and the charges 6 to 8 as not proved. On receipt of the report of the Inquiry Authority, the Respondent No.1/ Disciplinary Authority, while communicating the report of the Inquiry Authority, also furnished the disagreement statement in respect of the charges 6 to 8 to the petitioner through letter dated 17.02.2011, requiring him to submit his comments on the report of the Inquiry Authority, as well as on the reasons for the disagreement. The Disciplinary Authority, while recording the disagreement with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Authority on charges 6 to 8 held the said charges as proved. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his comments on the findings of the Inquiry Authority by submitting a representation dated 11.03.2011, seriously objecting for the disagreement statement of the Respondent No.1/ Disciplinary Authority in respect of the charges 6 to 8.

2. It was thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority viz., the Chairman of the Pallavan Grama Bank, passed an order dated 29.04.2011, imposing the punishment of “ Compulsory Retirement ” under the Regulation 39(1)(b)(iii) of Pallavan Grama Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 , while treating the period of suspension as 'suspension'. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Board of Directors on 03.06.2011. The said appeal was considered by the Board of Directors and by an order dated 29.08.2011, the original order of punishment dated 29.04.2011 was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. It is aggrieved by the said orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, dated 29.04.2011 and 29.08.2011 respectively, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

3. During the pendancy of the writ petition, the Pallavan Grama Bank was merged with the Tamil Nadu Grama Bank and in view of the same, the original respondents 1 and 2 were substituted by the present respondents 1 and 2.

4. Heard Mr.D.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Pradeep, learned counsel for the respondents and also perused the entire material on record.

5.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the sum and substance of all the charges that are levelled against the petitioner is of negligence and also of causing loss to the Bank. According to him, all the allegations against the petitioner are pertaining to the procedural lapses only and there are no substantial allegation of misconduct against the petitioner. As such, the imposition of punishment of “Compulsory Retirement” is shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “ S.R.Tewari -vs- Union of India and others ” reported in (2013) 6 SCC 602 and in the case of “ Union of India and others -vs- P.Balasubrahmanayam ” reported in (2021) 5 SCC 662 . He also further contended that the alleged loss caused to the Bank was never quantified nor there was any material that wa