2024:MHC:1985 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.02.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA W.P. Nos.11107, 1113, 11661, 11110, 9850, 11658, 11663, 11666 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.16935, 17077, 17632, 16909, 16931, 16908, 16906 of 2022 and 11754, 11759, 10481, 11762, 12403, 12405, 12408, 12409, 12411, 12412, 12416, 12417, 13417 of 2021 W.P.No.11107/2021 A.Lakshminarayanan ... Petitioner /vs/

1. The Chief Manager – HRM/Disciplinary Authority, Tamil Nadu Grama Bank, Head Office, No.6, Yercaud Road, Hasthampatti, Salem – 636 007.

2. The Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Grama Bank, Regional Office, 7H/33, Palayamkottai Road, 3rd mile, Pudukudi, Thoothukudi – 628 008. ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the UNDATED entry marking Loss of pay on 01.03.2021 against the petitioner's name in the Attendant Register of Arumuganeri Branch of Tamil Nadu Grama Bank and proceedings No.TNGB/VIG/CS/41/2020-21 dated 30.03.2021 issued by the first respondent, quash the same and consequentially direct the second respondent to pay one day salary deducted for 01.03.2021.

For Petitioners ... Ms.D.Geetha (in all W.P's.)

For Respondents ... Mrs.Rita Chandrasekaran (in all W.P's.) for M/s.Aiyar & Dolia

COMMON ORDER

Heard Ms.D.Geetha, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs.Rita Chandrasekaran, the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. W.P.Nos.9850, 11107, 11110, 11661 & 11113 of 2021 have been filed challenging the order cancelling the leave already granted by treating it as “Leave on loss of pay” and the charge memo issued to them.

W.P.Nos.11666, 11663 & 11658 of 2021 they have been filed challenging the order of transfer stating that the order is punitive and it is liable to be quashed.

3. To sum up, the petitioners have challenged the legality of the following orders:

i) Cancelling the leave already granted to them by treating as “leave on loss of pay”;

ii) The legality of the charge sheet issued to them; and iii) The legality of the transfer orders.

4. The petitioners are the employees of the respondent bank in various capacities. On 01.03.2021, ‘Dharna’ was organised by the retired employees of the bank in front of the bank by raising several demands including their pensionary benefits. Those retired employees who are protesting outside the bank sought an appointment with the Chairman of the Bank. They have also given invitation to other unions to participate in the Dharna. These petitioners being the office bearers of Tamil Nadu Grama Bank Officers’s Association and Tamil Nadu Grama Bank Worker’s Union have applied for leave on the said day and extended their solidarity with the retired employees who were demonstrating Dharna. When the protestors wanted to give a memorandum to Chairman of the bank, he refused to meet them and went away. Subsequently the petitioners have been slapped with charge memo by alleging that they have falsely availed leave on personal reasons but participated in the Dharna and that would amount to misconduct. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging the charge memo.

5. Ms.D.Geetha, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the above orders have been issued with mala fide intention out of bias and arbitrary exercise of power; the petitioners have submitted leave application stating the reasons of 'personal work' and it has been granted; subsequently the Regional Manager of the respondent bank has cancelled the leave and considered the leave as “leave on loss of pay” and he is not competent to do so; the petitioners did not remain in any unauthorized absence and they had availed the leave by getting it granted.

5.1 He further submitted that the leave has been revoked without complying the Regulations 23 and 57 of the Tamil Nadu Grama Bank (Officers and Employees) and without notice to the petitioners; the petitioners’ have got the fundamental right t