IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 22.07.2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 01.08.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN W.A.No.717 of 2021 R.Veeraraghavan ... Appellant Vs.

1.State Bank Of India, Rep By Its Chief General Manager, Chennai Local Head Office, No.16, College Lane, Aparna Complex, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600006.

2.The General Manager (Net Work-1), (Disciplinary Authority) State Bank Of India, No. 16 College Lane, Chennai Local Head Office, Aparna Complex, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600006.

3.The Deputy General Manager (B And O), Network-I, Zone-I, State Bank Of India, 86 Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600001. ... Respondents Prayer :- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the impugned order passed in W.P. No. 16246/2014 dated 07/12/2020 and thereby allow the Writ Appeal.

For Appellant : Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravindran, Senior Counsel For Mr.S.Bazeer Ahamed

J U D G E M E N T

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

The intra Court appeal on hand has been instituted challenging the common order pronounced on 07.12.2020 in W.P.No.16246 of 2014.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

2. The writ petitioner is the appellant before us. The appellant joined the services of the State Bank of India in the Award Staff Cadre as Clerk- cum-Typist-cum-Cashier on 17.11.1988 at Thatchur Branch. He was promoted to the Officer's Cadre as JMG-I in 2004. He was posted to State Bank of India, Thiruvallur Branch.

3. A charge memorandum was issued on 13.10.2011 framing 19 charges. The nature of the charges are regarding sanctioning of loans en masse, without adhering to the procedures contemplated under the Banking Rules. Broadly, the allegations in the charge memorandum would reveal that the appellant's failure to cross check the estimates with Bank's approved valuer; failure to exercise due diligence and a track record of builder before recommending housing loan; failure to conduct pre-sanctioned survey in respect of 30 accounts; failure to verify salaries certificate/salary slips submitted by the borrowers before recommending 29 housing loans; failure to appraise/ assess housing loans proposals before recommending in respect of 17 accounts; failure to evaluate borrower's repaying capacity as the NMI (Net Monthly Income) of the borrowers were inflated to get higher quantum of loan, failure to adhere to EMI / NMI ratio, failure to verify correlation between agreement to sale and sale deed, as the amount mentioned in the sale agreement is more than the sale deed; failure to ensure submission of controlled return to Chief Manager in respect of five accounts; failure to get administrative clearance in respect of housing loans to Chief Manager Rajagopal's daughter; recommending 3 housing loans to borrowers residing in Chennai and projects also at Chennai.

4. The above acts are likely to cause loss of Rupees 4.20 Crores as 57 of 75 loans have become NPA (Non-Performing Assets). By way of an additional counter, the respondent / Bank, before the Writ Court has stated that at the time of issuance of charge sheet to the appellant, the estimated loss in respect of 75 loans disbursed in the Thiruvallur Branch, for which the petitioner was held responsible, was about Rs.4,20,00,000/-, as provided under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002, certain loans were taken over by assets reconstruction companies. Still, as on date, the loss / NPA (Non-Performing Assets) in respect of the above loan transactions is at Rs.2,57,493.60/-. It is unlikely that there will be any drastic reduction in the said outstanding amount in the forcible future.

5. With reference to the above charge sheet, served along with the statement of allegations, the appellant submitted his written defence statement and thereafter, an inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer conducted inquiry by affording an opportunity to the parties. Inquiry report