2024:MHC:3863 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.10.2024 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN W.A.No.2260 of 2023 and C.M.P.Nos. 4370 of 2024 & 19440 of 2023

1.The Disciplinary Authority & The Deputy General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Officer, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

2.The Appellate Authority &

The General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Officer, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

3.The Reviewing Authority &

Executive Director, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Officer, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

4.The Chairman & Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Officer, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. .. Appellants vs J.Thomas Karunanithi .. Respondent Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against order dated 28.04.2023 made in W.P.No.9912 of 2014.

For Appellants : Mr.N.L.Rajah Senior Counsel For Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy For Respondent : Mr.T.Mohan Senior Counsel For Ms.P.Vasuky JUDGMENT (Delivered by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J)

We have heard Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy, learned counsel on record for the appellants/Indian Overseas Bank (in short ‘Bank’) and Mr.T.Mohan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ms.P.Vasuky, learned counsel for the respondent (in short ‘respondent’/’writ petitioner’).

2. The appellants challenge an order of the Writ Court dated

28.04.2023. What was impugned before the Writ Court was an order dated 23.03.2013 confirming appellate order dated 08.09.2012, which, in turn confirmed order dated 06.07.2012 dismissing the petitioner from service. Consequential directions were sought for payment of backwages from date of dismissal till due date of superannuation of the Writ Petitioner along with full retirement benefits.

3. The respondent was employed with the appellant Bank. While serving as a Branch Manager in the Hosur Town Branch, he had sanctioned a loan to one V.Murali (in short ‘borrower’). According to the respondent, all due diligence was effected prior to sanction of the loan including in regard to the guarantor who had offered the property at S.No.521 NGGO Colony, ad measuring 2180 sq.ft. (in short ‘collateral property’) as collateral for the loan.

4. While so, a complaint had been received from G.Muniyappa (in short ‘complainant’), who had been taken to be the guarantor, stating that he had never offered his property as mortgage and alleging impersonation. Memorandum of allegations and articles of charges dated 30.07.2011 were issued to the respondent and investigation was conducted by the enquiry officer appointed. The enquiry officer had submitted a detailed report holding that the allegations against the respondent were substantially proved in respect of charge 1 and fully proved in respect of charges 2 to 6.

5. He concluded that the proved articles of charge established beyond doubt that the respondent had failed to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and discharge duties with devotion and diligence. He had acted otherwise than in best judgment in the performance of official duties contravening Regulations 3(1), 3(3) as well as 15(iv) of Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (in short ‘1976 Regulations’), in all, constituting misconduct punishable under various provisions of the 1976 Regulations.

6. The disciplinary authority sought the respondent’s response to the findings of the enquiry officer by issuing notice dated 06.06.2012 to him. After consideration of the explanations tendered, the disciplinary authority passed order dated 06.07.2012 awarding punishment of dismissal, which also acted as a disqualification for future employment in terms of Regulation 4(j) of the 1976 Regulations.

7. The respondent filed an appeal on 31.07.2012 before the appellate authority, the General Manager of the Bank, who vide order dated 08.09.2012, being of the view that the punishment imposed was prop