BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.11.2023 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN W.P(MD)No.5213 of 2016 Mayakrishnan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Executive Director, Punjab National Bank, Head Office, No.7, Bhikhaji Cama Place, New Delhi.

2.The General Manager, Punjab National Bank, Head Office, No.7, Bhikhaji Cama Place, New Delhi.

3.The Disciplinary Authority / Deputy General Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Indl Area Kailasapuram, Trichy. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 1^st respondent herein in his proceedings in PAD/DAC/17795, dated 11.09.2015 and to quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Chandrasekar For Respondents :Mr.S.Rengasamy, Standing Counsel

ORDER

The petitioner joined as clerk in the Punjab National Bank in the year

1980. By virtue of his service, he attained the post of Branch Manager and after serving 25 years, he retired on 28.02.2015. While in service as Branch Manager, he was served with the charge memo on 08.04.2011. The charges against the petitioner are as follows:-

“Article I He did not discharge his duties diligently / prudently in as much as he failed to adhere to the terms of sanction in the loan account. Article II He failed to ensure that proper pre-sanction and post sanction safeguards are complied with in the loan account.

As a result of the above, Banks fund is proving difficult of recovery.”

2.The gist of these two charges is that while granting loans to Self Help Groups (SHG), he did not obtain the recommendations of the 'second man'. The loans had been disbursed during the period of August 2006 to June 2008. Soon after the response to the charge sheet on 29.07.2011, supplementary charge sheet was issued on 23.11.2011. The fresh charge arose thus:- loans had been disbursed to one Balaji Mahalir SHG to the tune of Rs.1 Lakh. The authorization had been given to one T.S.Amutha. She denied that the loan had been availed by the said SHG. The petitioner was charged stating that he did not ensure the identity of Amutha. Supplementary charge sheet had been issued. The petitioner submitted a detailed response to the supplementary charge sheet.

3.On 20.01.2012, an enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer conducted enquiry and submitted a report on 18.06.2012. A copy of the enquiry report was placed before the 3^rd respondent disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report and imposed a major penalty in terms of Punjab National Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline &

Appeal) Regulation, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulation'). 4.The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of reduction to

13 stages in time scale of pay ie., at basic pay of Rs.21,700/- till retirement ie., on 28.02.2015 with further direction that the petitioner will earn increments during the period of reduction and such reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increment in terms of Clause 4(f) of the Regulation.

5.A perusal of the said order shows that the 3^rd respondent did not discuss the case at all. He merely extracted the facts of the case and had not given any reasons for the same. Further, while imposing a major penalty, the petitioner was not given a show cause notice. The relevant portion reads as hereunder:

“In the light of the above, I have gone through the records of the case and the final submission dated 19.06.2012 of Shri R Mayakrishnan. I find that the issues raised by Shri R Mayakrishnan vide his letter dated 19.06.2012, on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, are similar to the ones he had raised during the course of the enquiry, in his written brief and that these observations have been responded by the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 06.06.2012. I am convinced with the reasons ascribed by the Enquiry Officer in giving his findings with regard to the various imputations and ar