IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.SURENDER W.P.No. 7267 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.7922 of 2017 Mr.S.Balasubramaniam .. Petitioner versus

1. Assistant General Manager/

Disciplinary Authority, Indian Bank, Circle Office, Salem-646305.

2. Assistant General Manager/

Concurrent Disciplinary Authority, Indian Bank, Head Office, Chennai-600 001.

3. Deputy General Manager/

Appellate Authority, Indian Bank, Head Office, Chennai-600 001. .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the order of the 3^rd respondent in his proceedings Ref.F428:SAL:VIG:2010- 11:3629, dated 01.02.2011 and the order of the 2^nd respondent in his Ref.CO:SAL:VG:96: 2010-11 dated 05.10.2010 and to quash the same and consequently, provide the petitioner with the service benefits and other emolouments.

For Petitioner : Mr.Shoaib Fazil S.

for M/s.Vandana Parasuram For Respondent(s): Mrs.Rita Chandrasekar

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the order of the 3^rd respondent in his proceedings Ref.F428:SAL:VIG:2010-11:3629, dated 01.02.2011 and the order of the 2^nd respondent in his Ref.CO:SAL:VG:96: 2010-11 dated 05.10.2010 and to quash the same and consequently, provide the petitioner with the service benefits and other emoluments.

2. Briefly stated facts, in this case, are that the petitioner, while working as a Branch Manager of Veerapandi Branch, Indian Bank, was alleged to have committed certain lapses in the matter of granting and disbursing the agricultural loans to the Agriculturists. The Bank found that the petitioner indulged in sanctioning and disbursing the loans without following the guidelines and due procedure and that such lending was irregular. An inspection was conducted and based on the inspection report, a show cause notice, dated 27.05.2009 was issued. The petitioner denied his involvement in any kind of illegality. Later, a charge memo, dated 29.12.2009 was issued whereby, as many as 20 charges were framed. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and an opportunity was given to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry. After conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer vide his report, dated 07.08.2010 held that 14 charges were proved. Based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Assistant General Manager, who is the Disciplinary Authority, the 2^nd respondent herein, vide order dated 05.10.2010 imposed major penalty of dismissal from service on the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Appellate Authority, viz., Deputy General Manager, the 3^rd respondent herein. The Appellate Authority also found favour with the Disciplinary Authority and thereby, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 01.02.2011. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had suffered ill health and undergone mental trauma since he was imposed with the extreme punishment of dismissal from service and in such circumstances, he could not file the Writ Petition before this Court and there occurred delay, which is not intentional.

4. The learned counsel would further submit that even according to the respondents, the petitioner was allegedly involved in irregular disbursal of the agricultural loans without following guidelines. As such, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is harsh and not proportionate to the charges levelled against him. The learned counsel submits that he does not intend to get into the facts of the case, but only urges this Court to show indulgence with regard to the quantum of punishment imposed on the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in ‘Syndicate Bank versus B.S.N.Prasad’ repo