Madras High Court
N.Ratnakumar Raju vs / on 23 November, 2023
W.P.No.9279 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P. No.9279 of 2020
N.Ratnakumar Raju
S/o.A.Natarajan
New No.35, Old No.69
11th Street, Z Block, Anna Nagar
Chennai 600 040 ... Petitioner
/Vs/
1.Tamil Nadu Grama Bank
Rep. by its Chairman
Head Office, 6, Yercaud Road
Salem 636 007
2.Board of Directors
Tamil Nadu Grama Bank
Head Office, 6, Yercaud Road
Salem 636 007 ... Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the
files of the 1st and 2nd Respondents pertaining to their impugned order bearing
TNGB/HO/VIG/Appeal/01/2019-20 dated 27.12.2019 imposing the
punishment of “Removal from Service, which shall not be disqualification for
future employment” and the appellate authority's order bearing Board Note
No.01/2019 dated 06.12.2019 respectively and to quash the same and
consequently to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner in service
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
W.P.No.9279 of 2020
with continuity of service, with backwages and with all other attendant and
consequential benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Ramesh
Senior Counsel
for Mr.V.Subramani
For Respondents : Mr.N.Umasankar
for M/s.M.Jayakumar & Associates
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to call for the records from the files of the 1 st and 2nd Respondents
pertaining to their impugned order bearing TNGB/HO/VIG/Appeal/01/2019-20
dated 27.12.2019 imposing the punishment of “Removal from Service, which
shall not be disqualification for future employment” and the appellate
authority's order bearing Board Note No.01/2019 dated 06.12.2019 respectively
and to quash the same and consequently to direct the Respondents to reinstate
the Petitioner in service with continuity of service, backwages and all other
attendant and consequential benefits.
2.The Petitioner who was working as Branch Manager in the first
Respondent Bank have been found guilty for 17 charges, out of l9 charges
framed against him. After having found guilty by way of punishment, he was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
removed from service. The Petitioner aggrieved by the order of appointing
authority filed Appeal before the Appellate authority and the Appellate
authority also confirmed the punishment of removal.
3.Heard Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Subramani,
learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.N.Umasankar, learned counsel for
M/s.M.Jayakumar & Associates, learned counsel for the Respondents.
4.Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Subramani, learned
counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the enquiry proceedings has been
conducted in a mechanical manner. Even in the Enquiry Report, in charge
Nos.1(A) and 1(e ) there is a gross difference in the details mentioning about
the charges and the findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer. In the charge
memo, there is no such charge as 1(A). However, in the enquiry report at Page
No.165, there is some discussion with regard to Charge 1(A). With regard to
charge No.10, at Page No.165 some 19 accounts have been mentioned but at
Page No.189, regarding charge No.10 in the report of the Enquiry Officer with
regard to discharge 22 accounts have been mentioned. Despite the Enquiry
Officer has stated that 17 charges proved, except 8 & 10, the appointing
authority has not accepted the report, but the Disciplinary authority has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
considered that all the 19 charges were proved. But before taking such a stand,
no notice has been given to the delinquent for giving him an opportunity to
make his submission on the dissenting opinion of the appointing Authority.
5.Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and others Vs.
Kunji Behari Misra reported in (1998) 7 Supreme Court cases 84 and Yoginath
D.Bagde Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in (1999) 7 Supreme
Court Cases 739 and the Division Bench judgment of the this Court in
M.Mohandas Vs. State Bank of India in W.A.No.1699 of 2010, in support of his
contention that when the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of
the Enquiry Officer an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent and the
absence of such opportunity would amount to violation of principles of natural
justice.
6.The Petitioner filed a detailed Appeal taking several grounds.
However, the Appellate authority has passed a cryptic order without any
discussion on the ground of Appeal made by the Petitioner and arrived at a
conclusion confirming the punishment given by the appointing authority.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Chander Vs. Union of India and
others reported in (1986) 3 Supreme Court Cases 103, in support of his
submission that if the the appellate authority does not apply his mind and
passed an order without dealing with the contention raised in the Appeal, that is
illegal.
8.Mr.N.Umasankar, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that
the disciplinary authority before coming to any conclusion on Enquiry Officer's
report with regard to Charge No.8 & 10, had given an opportunity to the
Petitioner and only after hearing him, the disciplinary authority has proceeded
to record that the charges 8 & 10 also proved. The Petitioner earlier filed a
Writ Petition in W.P.No.9048 of 2010 to give him an audience with regard to
the dissenting view taken by the disciplinary authority. Only in compliance of
the order of the Court, the disciplinary authority has chosen to accept the
enquiry officer's report with regard to charge No.8 alone and dissented with the
findings in respect of charge No.10. The Appellate authority which consists of
Board of Directors had gone into the appeal grounds in details and a valid order
has been passed and hence, there is no need to revisit the orders of the
disciplinary authority or the orders of the appointing authority.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9.However, Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner
further submitted that one of the members in the Board of Directors is the one
who happened to be the disciplinary authority, who has passed the final orders.
Only on that ground some direction has been obtained from this Court in the
earlier W.P.No.9048 of 2010 and hence the cryptic order passed by the appellate
authority is illegal.
10.Mr.N.Umasankar, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that
the appellate authority had fully accepted the discharge report in respect of
charge No. 8 & 10 and hence the order passed by the appellate authority cannot
be said that it has been passed without application of mind.
11.However, the following discrepancies has been brought into notice in
the enquiry officer's report:
(i).Despite the Petitioner has raised his grounds before the appellate
authority, the order of appellate authority does not have any contention as
to how the appeal grounds were dealt point by point.
(ii).How the Board had completely agrees with the orders passed by the
disciplinary authority, on the basis of the enquiry report.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12.On perusal of the Appeal order, it is seen that it is a very short order,
which reproduces the charges and its appreciation is only on the following
aspect:
“Inquiry Authority findings, the reply in defence of
Mr.Rathnakumar Raju to the Inquiry Authority findings, the final
order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 27.10.2009 and
other relevant records and documents were called for any they
were gone through by the board of Directors. The Board of
Directors have gone through all the papers and materials with
the disciplinary proceedings and heard Mr.Ratnakumar Raju
giving full opportunity to express his views. The Board finds that
no fresh evidences or material is made available to disprove any
charges i.e., charge No.1 to 7, 9 and 11 to 19. The Board
therefore concurs with the order of the D.A. Awarding the
punishment of “Removal from service, which shall not be
disqualification for future employment” and the appeal of
Mr.Ratnakumar Raju is disposed of accordingly”
13.When the Petitioner has presented exhaustive grounds in the Appeal,
the Appellate authority ought to have dealt the same in a fair and proper manner
and explained why the Board was not convinced on those grounds. Since there
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
are some apparent omissions seem to be present, in the appreciation of the
Board, I feel it is appropriate to remand the matter to the appellate authority.
Hence the order of the Respondents bearing TNGB/HO/VIG/Appeal/01/2019-
20 dated 27.12.2019 is hereby setaside and the matter is remanded to the
Appellate authority for reconsidering the appeal grounds, by fully dealing those
grounds raised by the Petitioner and pass an order afresh, within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
14.With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
23.11.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
sai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.Tamil Nadu Grama Bank
Rep. by its Chairman
Head Office, 6, Yercaud Road
Salem 636 007
2.Board of Directors
Tamil Nadu Grama Bank
Head Office, 6, Yercaud Road
Salem 636 007
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.N.MANJULA, J.
sai
23.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
