Madras High Court
M.Natarajan vs The Executive Director / on 25 August, 2021
WP NO.8930 OF 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25 / 08 / 2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
WP NO.8930 OF 2014
MP NO.1 OF 2014
M.Natarajan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Executive Director /
Review Authority
Indian Bank
Corporate Office
254-260, Avvaishanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014.
2.The General Manager / Appellate Authority
Indian Bank
Corporate Office
254-260, Avvaishanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014.
3.The Deputy General Manager /
Disciplinary Authority
Indian Bank
Corporate Office
254-260, Avvaishanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. ... Respondents
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.8930 OF 2014
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his
Proceedings No.VG:TRY:F1084/CS1438/4450/2011-12 dated 08.02.2012 as
confirmed by the 2nd respondent in his Proceedings
VG:TRY:F:1084/485/2012-13 dated 09.05.2012 and as confirmed by the 1st
respondent in his Proceedings VG:F-1084:4290:2013 dated 03.01.2013 and
quash the same and direct the respondents to confer all the consequential
benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Selvaraj
Senior Counsel for M/s.C.S.Associates
For Respondents : Mr.V.Kalyanaraman
for M/s.Aiyar & Dolia
ORDER
According to the petitioner while he was working as a Chief
Manager of the respondent Bank, was issued with a charge memo dated
06.07.2011 containing 9 charges. An enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry
Officer set him exparte on 21.04.2011 and enclosed the enquiry minutes and
called for written arguments within 10 days by his communication dated
06.07.2011. Though the petitioner sought for ten more days for preparing
written arguments, he submitted the same only on 23.01.2012. Against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.8930 OF 2014
report of the Enquiry Officer, explanation was called for and the petitioner
submitted his explanation on 01.02.2012 and the impugned order of dismissal
was passed on 08.02.2012 and the same was confirmed by the Appellate
Authority as well as the Revisional Authority. Challenging the same, the
petitioner has preferred the above writ petition on the grounds of violation of
principles of natural justice and non-application of mind and discrimination
in imposing the punishment.
2.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would
contend that the entire disciplinary proceedings are void ab initio, since it
was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice and not for giving
opportunity to the delinquent. The date of enquiry was fixed as 28.12.2010
and at the request of the petitioner, since he was under the custody of CBI, it
was adjourned to 21.02.2011. Since he was on conditional bail, the hearing
fixed on 21.02.2011 was adjourned to 10.03.2011 and at his request, due to
his wife's illness, the same was adjourned to 16.03.2011. On 16.03.2011, he
could not finalise his defence assistant and verify the compilation of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.8930 OF 2014
documents, therefore, it was adjourned to 07.04.2011. Again, citing illness,
the petitioner sought for adjournment on medical grounds. Therefore, he was
directed to appear before the Medical Board on 21.04.2011. But, he
contacted the Cantonment Medical Centre, through his Doctor, and it was
informed that the date and time will be intimated to him later. While he was
waiting for the information, the Medical Board informed the Head Office that
the petitioner did not appear for examination on 21.04.2011 till 10.45 am.
Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer informed the petitioner on 21.04.2011 that
the enquiry proceedings were conducted setting him exparte and he
continued the enquiry and have examined the witnesses. He called for written
arguments within 10 days in the communication dated 21.04.2011. The
petitioner requested for 10 more days, but it was refused. Therefore, the
conduct of the enquiry, without giving ample opportunity to the petitioner
and the cryptic order passed by the Appellate Autority as well as Revisional
Authority are violative of principles of natural justice. In so far as the proved
misconduct is concerned, he submitted that the findings of the Enquiry
Officer are arbitrary, illegal and for frivolous charges, he was penalised with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.8930 OF 2014
an vindictive attitude, whereas, the person who has committed the same
misconduct to the tune of Rs.600 Crores was permitted to retire and only in
the case of the petitioner, a harsh punishment of dismissal was imposed. The
discrimination of imposing punishment between the delinquents in respect of
the same offence is contrary to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
Bank would contend that the petitioner was given ample opportunity at every
point of time. He was allowed to examine and cross examine the witnesses.
The charge memo containing 9 charges are very serious in nature. The
petitioner, with fraudulent intention, released excess funds and transferred
funds from one account of the customer to the other account of the other
customer, which is fraudulent and serious. Out of the 9 charges, charge No.1
was not proved; charge Nos.2 and 6 are partly proved. Charge Nos.3, 4(a)(c)
ad (d), 7, 8 and 9 are proved, whereas charge No.4(b) was not proved.
Opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his comments on the
Enquiry Officer's finding and after giving ample opportunity and after getting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.8930 OF 2014
his explanation, the disciplinary authority, after thorough consideration of all
the records of the case and the enquiry proceedings, Enquiry Officer's
findings, comments of the petitioner and other evidences produced during the
enquiry process has passed the order of dismissal on 08.02.2012. Each and
every proved charge are of serious in nature and the Appellate Authority and
Revisional Authority, considering the petitioner's misuse of the Authority of
his office, fraudulent transfer of money and concealing and not declaring the
Non Performing Asset against the banking rules and on the basis of
admission made by the petitioner have confirmed the order of dismissal.
Therefore, the impugned order does not warrant any interference.
4.I have considered the submissions as well as the materials
placed before this Court.
5.The admitted facts are that there were certain irregularities in
the transactions of the Bank, while he was holding the office of the Branch
Manager, during his tenure between 24.07.2006 and 30.04.2010 at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.8930 OF 2014
Cantonment Branch, Trichy. The allegations were that he released excess
funds beyond his limit; failed to get pre-release audit; pre-release legal
opinion before releasing the loan sanction order; failure to get loan coverage,
equilateral mortgage deeds for the loans advanced and suppressed the facts to
the Head Office. Further, the fraudulent transfer of around Rs.41.85 Lakhs to
M/s.Nagi Enterprises from the account of M/s.Cethar Vessels Ltd, while the
total amount recoverable from the borrower was Rs.4.59 Lakhs with
insufficient securities. Likewise, several serious charges were framed against
the petitioner. The petitioner's defence is that the pre-legal audit and pre-
release audit were conducted and it was proved to be false by records. But it
was proved as post-audit ratification after sanctioning of the loan. For one
charge that he has released loans without obtaining the documents of
security, the reply of the petitioner was that it was the duty of the Desk
Officers and for their misconducts, he should not be penalised. But the fact
remains that the petitioner as Loan Sanctioning Officer, has the responsibility
to verify as to whether proper security has been obtained or not. All the
statements of the Presenting Officer, reply by the petitioner, and findings of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.8930 OF 2014
the Enquiry Officer goes to show that the explanation submitted by the
petitioner with regard to the proved charges does not appear to be
satisfactory. As contended by the petitioner, I do not find any violation of
principles of natural justice. The petitioner was accommodated at every stage,
during his custody in prison, during his conditional bail, his wife's illness and
during his illness also. When he was directed to appear before Medical
Board, the petitioner came out with a lame and unacceptable excuse for his
failure to appear. In between, opportunity was afforded to examine and cross
examine witnesses and even after his appearance before the Medical Board,
he was given opportunity to submit his written arguments.
6.To be elaborate, in so far as the conduct of enquiry is
concerned, as admitted by the petitioner, in his rejoinder, the enquiry was
fixed on 28.12.2010. He was under the custody of CBI and it was adjourned
to 21.02.2011. Prima facie, the custody of the petitioner, under CBI shows
that he has committed some grave criminal offence and was granted
conditional bail to be stationed at Chennai. Therefore, the enquiry was
adjourned to 10.03.2011. Even on that date, he has sought for 10 days time,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.8930 OF 2014
due to his wife's illness. On the next date of hearing on 16.03.2011, he was
further granted time for finalising the defence statement and verifying the
compilation of documents till 07.04.2011. Again on submission of medical
certificate due to his illness, he was referred to the Medical Board on
18.04.2011. Even though he was directed to appear before the Medical
Board, the petitioner has given lame excuses that he enquired through his
Doctor about the date and time of the medical examination by the Medical
Board and since it was not informed, he did not appear on 21.04.2011.
7.From the prompt responses sent by the respondents, I could
infer that the petitioner was informed of the dates then and there, but he was
in the habit of taking adjournments to avoid the enquiry proceedings. Since
he did not appear before Medical Board as well as before the Enquiry Officer
on 21.04.2011, he was set exparte. The enquiry was again conducted on
22.04.2011. There is no explanation from the petitioner for not submitting
any letter for participating in the enquiry after 22.04.2011. When he was
asked to submit his written argument, by the Enquiry Officer, he has sought
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.8930 OF 2014
for 10 more days. Even assuming that the 10 more days commenced from
22.04.2011, he could have submitted his explanation within a reasonable
period. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 23.01.2012 that is to say
that after a period of nine months from the date of exparte order. Therefore,
the complaint that the petitioner was denied of opportunity is not sustainable.
8.After submission of the enquiry report, the petitioner has not
asked for further opportunity to examine or cross examine the prosecution
witnesses nor sought for any opportunity to produce defence witnesses and
he has not expressed any prejudice over the same. In the absence of any
prejudice pleaded by the petitioner, it cannot be said that he was denied of
opportunity for effectively participating in the enquiry. Therefore, I do not
find any violation of principles of natural justice or irregularity or improper
conduct of enquiry with an vindictive attitude to penalise the petitioner.
9.It is also not the case of the petitioner that the authorities who
issued the charge memo and imposed the punishment are incompetent to do
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.8930 OF 2014
so or having no jurisdiction to take action against the petitioner. In the
absence of any jurisdictional error or competency or violation of principles of
natural justice or arbitrary and improper exercise of power, this Court cannot
interfere with the punishment. The petitioner also does not make out any case
for interfering with the same.
10.It is well settled that a Bank Officer having higher position
and responsibility is expected to very vigilant, honest and trustworthy while
dealing with public money. In the instant case, the petitioner himself admits
certain charges and disowns his responsibility putting the blame on his
inferiors and prays for lesser punishment or no punishment comparing him
with another wrong doer. There cannot be any negative equality in illegality.
Each and every case is based on the facts and circumstances of its own and
therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that the punishment shall be set aside
on the grounds that the other person was let off for more serious misconduct.
11.Therefore, considering the totality of the circumstances, this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.8930 OF 2014
Court finds no reason to interfere with the punishment imposed on the
petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
25 / 08 / 2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
TK
To
1.The Executive Director / Review Authority
Indian Bank, Corporate Office
254-260, Avvaishanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014.
2.The General Manager / Appellate Authority
Indian Bank, Corporate Office
254-260, Avvaishanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014.
3.The Deputy General Manager / Disciplinary Authority
Indian Bank, Corporate Office
254-260, Avvaishanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.8930 OF 2014
M. GOVINDARAJ, J.
TK
WP NO.8930 OF 2014
25 / 08 / 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
