Dismissal is warranted for gross negligence resulting in significant financial misconduct within banking operations.

ORDER :

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

It is pertinent to note that the sole writ petitioner is no longer alive. The present writ petition is, therefore, being prosecuted by the legal representatives of the deceased sole writ petitioner, who have been impleaded as petitioners 2 to 4.

2. The deceased first petitioner challenged the order dated 29.05.2017 passed by the second respondent, whereby the order of dismissal passed by the first respondent dismissing the deceased petitioner from service was confirmed.

3. The deceased petitioner, while serving as Branch Manager, was issued a charge memo dated 21.02.1998 alleging that he had discounted bills to the extent of Rs.4.92 crores in favour of M/s. Prithvi Exports, though the sanctioned limit was only Rs.50 lakhs. It was further alleged that the said transactions were carried out within a short span of 40 days; that bills aggregating to Rs.1.61 crores presented by M/s.Prithvi Exports were rejected due to discrepancies in the supporting documents; that the petitioner permitted the said firm to draw amounts without adequate stock backing; and that, as on the date of dismissal, the loss caused to the Bank was Rs.2.50 crores.

4. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice denying the charges, pursuant to which departmental proceedings were initiated. Before the Enquiry Officer, the Presenting Officer examined two witnesses, namely M.W.1 and M.W.2, and marked documents as Exs.M.E.1 to M.E.30.On the side of the petitioner, the Chief Manager, SBT, Tiruppur, was examined as D.W.1 and documents were marked as Exs.D.E.1 to D.E.11.

5. The Enquiry Officer, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, returned a finding that Charges 1, 5 and 6 were partly proved; Charges 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 were proved; and Charge No.4 was not proved. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the findings of the Enquiry Officer should not be accepted and appropriate punishment imposed. The petitioner submitted a further explanation dated 28.07.1999, challenging the findings of the Enquiry Officer.

6. The first respondent, after considering the enquiry report and the further explanation submitted by the petitioner, passed an order dated 14.05.2001 dismissing the petitioner from service. The said order of dismissal was confirmed by the Appellate Authority, namely the second respondent, by order dated 09.10.2002. The said order was challenged before this Court in W.P. No.5842 of 2003. By order dated 11.01.2017, this Court set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority on the ground that it was not a speaking order and directed the second respondent to dispose of the appeal afresh in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent passed the impugned order once again confirming the order of dismissal.

7. Ms. V. Srimathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is not a speaking order and is not in conformity with the directions issued by this Court to pass a fresh order. She further submitted that no satisfactory oral evidence was adduced to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner and that the respondent Bank failed to produce any cogent material to establish that the petitioner had caused a loss of approximately Rs.2.50 crores to the Bank. In the absence of proof of any actual monetary loss, the punishment of dismissal is grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

8. The learned counsel further contended that the case was treated as a “Vigilance” matter and was referred to the Central Vigilance Commission for consultation. It was submitted that though the Bank had recommended the imposition of a lesser penalty, the Centr