O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide proceeding No.214/PD-IRD/DA-6, dated 30.06.2016 and the consequential impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent vide proceeding No.092/PD- IRD/DA--7 dated 23.12.2016 and also sought for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to revoke the punishment imposed upon the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

2. The brief facts as stated in the affidavit is that the petitioner has been rated as the best performer throughout his career. He was recruited as Probationary Officer in Syndicate Bank through BSRB, Southern Region, Bangalore and has joined duty on 03.12.1984 and completed 32 years of service in the Syndicate Bank and faced 22 transfers within 32 years. The petitioner has submitted a representation to retain the petitioner in Tamil Nadu, since the same was not considered, the petitioner has approached the National Commission for SC/ST, New Delhi and Tamilnadu Unit. After considering the said representation, the Management has transferred the petitioner to Madurai.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that one Mr.Manivannan, who has joined as an Agricultural Officer and Junior to the petitioner in service, has been conferred with frequent promotions. He was not transferred to anywhere except, Madurai. He was not allowed to continue as Scale-I, Scale-III, Scale-V and on elevation to Scale-VI and he was retained in the same place. The petitioner has established the discrimination and victimization. Since the petitioner has approached the National Commission for SC/ST, the respondents in order to wreck vengeance, an investigation was conducted with oblique motive to tarnish the petitioner's reputation. The 5th respondent has deliberately instructed to find the fault against the petitioner to level charges and to impose punishment.

4. Heard Mr.R.Murugan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Pala.Ramasamy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the material documents available on record.

5. The respondents have issued a charge memo consisting of five charges against the petitioner, dated 25.04.2015. The petitioner has submitted a reply on 13.07.2015, denied all the charges framed against him. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and enquiry was conducted. The findings of the Enquiry Officer, dated 23.02.2016 held that the charges A, B and D are proved and C is partially proved and E is not proved.

6. As far as the Charge A is concerned, the claim of the petitioner is that, he was the disbursing authority for the transaction held on 10.06.2013 and 06.07.2013. Thereafter, one Mr.Kanagaraj is the disbursing authority on 31.07.2013, 29.08.2013, 24.09.2013, 28.06.2013 and 29.10.2013, but the Mr.Kanagaraj was not issued with charge memo at all. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has not raised such plea before the Enquiry Officer. If at all any issue was raised that would have been replied suitably. However, this Court is not inclined to accept the said plea, since from the records as well the Enquiry it is seen that the petitioner has involved not only two transactions whereby the petitioner has disbursed Rs.30 to Rs.60 Lakhs. The said Kanagaraj has disbursed more than five times and he has also disbursed Rs.60 lakhs. It is incumbent on the employee to initiate proceedings against all the erring officials. The plea of the respondents is not acceptable. The petitioner is in advantageous position, as far as the Charge A is concerned.

7. As far as the Charge B is concerned, it is an allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner has not taken introduction for already existing customer to open a new account for one Mrs.P.Thangam. The claim of the petitioner is that the said P.Thangam is an existing customer and therefore, there is no necessity for taking introduction for subsequent period