Madras High Court
P.Matheswaran vs State Bank Of India on 13 March, 2025
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: S.S.Sundar, C.Saravanan
W.A.No.1406 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 13.03.2025
Coram:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.A.No.1406 of 2022
and C.M.P.Nos.9027 & 9030 of 2022
P.Matheswaran
...Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India
Rep. by its Regional Manager (Region IV)
(Disciplinary Authority)
Regional II, Network 2
Kurinji Complex,
State Bank Road,
Coimbatore – 641 018.
...Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying to
set aside the order dated 11.04.2022 in W.P.No.8155 of 2015 as illegal,
arbitrary and contrary to law.
For Appellant : Mr.Balan Haridas
For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravindran,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.Chandrasekaran
1/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
W.A.No.1406 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.SARAVANAN, J.)
This Intra Court Appeal is preferred against the order dated
11.04.2022 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.8155 of 2015.
2. The Appellant/Writ Petitioner filed the above Writ Petition for the
following relief:-
“To call for the concerned records from the respondent, quash the
charge sheet dated 13.04.2013 bearing DIS/CON/05 issued by the
respondent issued under the memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002
and the second show cause issued by the Respondent dated 10.03.2015
bearing RM-II/P&C-71, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the
memorandum of settlement dated 10.04.2002.”
3. By the impugned order dated 11.04.2022, the Writ Court
dismissed W.P.No.8155 of 2015 with the following observation:-
“15. From the sequence of the events, it is seen that show cause
notice was issued and his explanation was called for and not being
satisfied with his explanation, the charge memo was issued and the
enquiry proceedings were conducted. The petitioner was given
opportunity to appear and defend in conformity with the principles of
natural justice. In the order passed in W.P.No.29172 of 2013, this Court
has given a direction to dispose of his representation dated 19.09.2013
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
seeking relevant vouchers and documents. Accordingly, on 29.11.2013,
the documents were furnished. Again he approached this Court by way of
a writ petition in W.P.No.34052 of 2013, for furnishing of documents,
wherein this Court has passed the following order:
“5.The only ground raised by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner is that the vouchers and documents
sought for by the petitioner on his representations, which are
required to defend himself in the enquiry were not furnished by
the respondents. Therefore, a direction has to be given to the
respondents to furnish those documents. But, I find that
pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.29172 of
2013 dated 30.10.2013, the respondent Bank has furnished what
are all documents available with them. So far as the other
documents are concerned, the respondent Bank has clearly
stated in their impugned order that the documents are not
available with them. When the respondent Bank has stated that
the documents are not available with them, this Court cannot
give any mandamus directing the respondents to furnish the said
documents. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent Bank, this writ petition has been filed only to
protract the proceedings under some pretext or other. Except a
bald statement in the affidavit, the petitioner has not pointed out
in the affidavit that as to how the non-supply of certain
documents would cause prejudice to him. Moreover, when the
respondents say that the said documents are not available with
them, this Court cannot compel them to furnish those
documents. Therefore, I do not find any merits in this writ
petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.”
16. It is observed by this Court that the petitioner has not raised
any point due to non supply of certain documents and it was also observed
that the writ petition was filed with an ulterior motive to protract the
proceedings. Against the order in W.P.No.34052 of 2013 dated
07.02.2014, the petitioner has preferred the writ appeal and the same was
withdrawn on 05.08.2014. It is contended by the respondent that the
petitioner had failed to cooperate in the enquiry proceedings and refused
to cross examine the departmental witnesses and therefore, the enquiry
was closed and he was directed to submit his defense brief. After
submitting the defense brief, it was found that charge Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6
were proved and charge nos.4 and 5 were not proved. At this stage, a
second show cause notice was issued proposing the punishment of
dismissal from service and personal hearing was also provided.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
17. The petitioner has challenged the second show cause notice by
way of writ petition in W.P.No.18163 of 2014 on the ground of denial of
opportunity and to conduct the enquiry afresh. When that matter was
taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
he is not pressing the prayer with regard to cross examination of four
witnesses of the Management side, but sought permission to examine
himself and two other witnesses on his side and to produce certain
documents. Recording his submissions, the second show cause notice was
set aside and the petitioner was permitted to examine three witnesses
namely, the delinquent - the petitioner herein, V.Neelambal, his wife and
R.G.Deivasigamani, his sister-in-law's son, the borrower within a period
of four weeks from 21.07.2014 and he was permitted to pursue the
documents, which were available in the respondent Bank.
18. Again, an enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer
on 20.08.2014 and it was forwarded to the petitioner on 21.08.2014,
wherein charge nos.1 to 4 and 6 were held proved and charge no.5 was
not proved. On 05.09.2014, the petitioner submitted his objections and on
10.03.2015, the impugned second show cause notice was issued proposing
the punishment of dismissal from service and a personal hearing on
14.03.2015 was also fixed.
19. Now that from the sequence of events, it can be seen that the
procedure contemplated for conducting the domestic enquiry has been
properly followed. In BOLORAM BORDOLOI VS. LAKHIMI GAOLIA
BANK AND OTHERS [2021 SCC ONLINE SC 65] the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as under:
“7.........Merely because a show cause notice is issued
by indicating the proposed punishment it cannot be said that
disciplinary authority has taken a decision. A perusal of the
show cause notice dated 30.07.2005 itself makes it clear that
along with the show cause notice itself enquiry report was also
enclosed. As such, it cannot be said that the procedure
prescribed under the rules was not followed by respondent
bank. We are of the view that the judgment of this Court in the
case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra) is not
helpful to the case of the appellant. Further, it is well settled
that if the disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded
by the Enquiry Officer and passes an order, no detailed reasons
are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment.
The punishment is imposed based on the findings recorded in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
the enquiry report, as such, no further C.A.No.4394 of 2010
elaborate reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary
authority. As the departmental appeal was considered by the
Board of Directors in the meeting held on 10.12.2005, the
Board?s decision is communicated vide order dated 21.12.2005
in Ref.No.LGB/I&V/Appeal/31/02/2005-06. In that view of the
matter, we do not find any merit in the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant that orders impugned are devoid of
reasons.”
20. From a perusal of the impugned second show cause notice, it
is noted that the disciplinary authority after applying its mind
independently and dispassionately and considering the gravity of charges,
proposed to impose the punishment of dismissal from service in terms of
Clause 6(a) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002. As per
Clause 6(a) of the Memorandum of Settlement, an employee found guilty
of gross misconduct may be dismissed from service without notice.
21. In the instant case, the gravity of misconduct is that while he
was working in Erode Branch of the respondent Bank between 2008 and
2010, a loan account was opened in the name of his wife, for the housing
loan availed by his sister-in-law's son and a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs was
disbursed and credited in his wife's account. From the loan account of his
wife, it was transferred to the Savings Bank account of his wife. The
money was withdrawn and spent towards construction of the house. The
petitioner cannot feign ignorance of the fact that the money was disbursed
to the loan account of his wife and it was transferred to her Savings Bank
account and that money was withdrawn by the petitioner or his wife or
any other family member.
22. The fact remains that admittedly, his sister-in-law's son
R.G.Deivasigamani was a Non-Resident Indian. The further charge is that
accounts were opened and operated and handled without mandate of the
customer and that the petitioner had active role or atleast knowledge of
the irregularities. This allegation whether falls under the expression
“gross misconduct” is correct or not ? is to be analysed.
23. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely
on a judgment of this Court in S.GUNASEKAR VS. STATE BANK OF
INDIA AND OTHERS [W.P.NOS.13601 AND 23060 OF 2014 DATED
25.11.2014]. In that case, the employee, who was an Office Bearer of the
Welfare Association as well as Trade Union went out of the Branch after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
signing the attendance and without getting prior permission personally
distributed hand bills to the general public and several members. For
that, the charge under Clause 5(j) of the Memorandum of Settlement was
issued. Clause 5(j) of the Memorandum of Settlement reads as under:
“5.(j) doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the
bank or gross negligence involving or likely to involve the bank
in serious loss.”
24. This Court found that the misconduct committed by the
petitioner therein will not fall within the expression made in Clause 5(j) of
the Memorandum of Settlement and therefore, set aside the charge memo
under that provision and permitted the respondent / Bank to proceed with
the other charges framed under appropriate Clauses of the Memorandum
of Settlement dated 10.04.2002.
25. In the instant case, as observed in the previous paragraphs,
opening of loan account in the name of the petitioner's wife and
transferring the money to another Savings Bank account using Letter of
Authority given by his sister-in-law's son, cannot be taken lightly, more
particularly, when the borrower is a Non-Resident Indian and submitted
application online as averred by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in
support of the writ petitioner. In such cases, the judgment relied on by the
learned counsel for the petitioner in S.GUNASEKAR VS. STATE BANK
OF INDIA AND OTHERS [W.P.NOS.13601 AND 23060 OF 2014
DATED 25.11.2014] will not apply to the case on hand. The misconduct
will fall within Clause 5(j) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated
10.04.2002.
26. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also rely on a
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GLAXO LABORATORIES (I)
LIMITED VS. LABOUR COURT, MEERUT AND OTHERS [CIVIL
APPEAL NO.2911 (NL) OF 1981 DATED 06.10.1983] wherein Their
Lordships' have observed that some misconduct neither defined nor
enumerated which may be believed by the employer to be misconduct ex
post facto would expose the workman to a penalty. Any condition of
service if inconsistent with certified standing orders, the same would not
prevail and the certified standing orders would have precedence over all
such agreements.
27. As such, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the charge memo will not amount to gross misconduct and that the loan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
account was known to more than 70 staff members during the period from
2008-2010 and therefore, for the suppression of misconduct committed by
others and for want of action against the other officials shall not be
construed as gross misconduct. But the charge memo for the minor
penalty should have been imposed. I am unable to accept the contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner.
28. As discussed above, the charge reveals serious misconduct
and as such, the respondent Bank has rightly initiated proceedings under
Clause 5(j) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002. In view of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in BOLORAM's case (cited
supra) the second show cause notice cannot be considered as pre-
determination and that issuance of charge memo for major penalty
proceedings cannot be construed as illegal. Hence, I do not find any
merits in this writ petition.”
4. The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant/Writ Petitioner
joined the Respondent Bank as a 'Clerk' on 11.11.1982. In the year 2001,
the Appellant/Writ Petitioner was upgraded as a 'Senior Assistant' in the
Respondent Bank. From the year 2008 till December 2010, the
Appellant/Writ Petitioner was working as a 'Special Assistant' in the
Respondent Bank at its Erode Branch.
5. While the Appellant/Writ Petitioner was working in the Erode
Branch of the Respondent Bank from the year 2008 to 2010, the
Appellant's/Writ Petitioner's nephew Mr.R.G.Deivasigamani, a Non-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
Resident of India had applied for a Housing Loan at the Erode Branch of the
Respondent Bank for a sum of Rs.35 Lakhs. The said R.G.Deivasigamani
had also sent a Letter of Authority to the Erode Branch of Respondent Bank
in this regard.
6. One Mr.Vasudevan, Field Officer opened a Loan Account bearing
Account No.30460266666 in the name of Appellant's/Writ Petitioner's wife
Mrs.V.Neelambal instead of opening the Loan Account in the name of the
said R.G.Deivasigamani who applied for the loan. Hence, a sum of Rs.35
Lakhs was credited as Housing Loan to the Appellant's/Writ Petitioner's
wife's Loan Account No.30460266666 on 20.08.2008.
7. On the very same day, the said amount of Rs.35 Lakhs was also
transferred to the Appellant's/Writ Petitioner's wife's Savings Bank Account
No.11063543034. It being so, the Appellant's/Writ Petitioner's nephew
R.G.Deivasigamani withdrew most of the amount from the Savings Bank
Account of Appellant's/Writ Petitioner's wife and used the same for
construction work of the house.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
8. On 02.09.2008, another Loan Account bearing Account
No.30481879022 was opened in the name of R.G.Deivasigamani. The
aforesaid Housing Loan of Rs.35 Lakhs was also fully repaid by the
R.G.Deivasigamani. Thereafter, the Respondent Bank closed the Loan
Account that stood in the name of Appellant's/Writ Petitioner's wife. The
balance amount lying in the Appellant's/Writ Petitioner's wife's Loan
Account bearing Account No.30460266666 was transferred to the
R.G.Devasigamani's Loan Account bearing Account No.30481879022.
9. While so, the Respondent Bank issued a Charge Memo dated
13.04.2013 to the Appellant/Writ Petitioner. The Charges framed against
the Appellant/Writ Petitioner in the Charge Memo dated 13.04.2013 read as
under:
“Charge 1:
You were aware that the Account No.30460266666 to be opened in the
name of Shri.R.G.Deivasigamani was opened in the name of your spouse,
Smt.V.Neelambal. You failed to bring the matter to the notice of the
official concerned for rectification through “Cheques referred and
returned register”. You have suppressed the information and acted
prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. This is evident from the following:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
1. A Housing Term Loan was sanctioned to Shri.R.G.Deivasigamani, a
NRI for Rs.35.00 lacs on 20.08.2008 at Erode Branch. The loan Account
was opened by the Deputy Manager (Advances) inadvertently in the name
of your spouse, Smt.V.Neelambal, with A/c.No.30460266666. All the
disbursement vouchers for the housing loan had been prepared by you in
the name of R.G.Deivsigamani for the credit of SB A/c.No.11063543034,
in the name of Smt.V.Neelambal, your spouse.
2. On 13.02.2009, the housing loan debit voucher for Rs.1,00,000/- was
prepared by you in the name of Smt.Neelambal, your spouse, for the credit
of her above SB Account.
Charge 2:
You have passed entries in the system without mandate from customer as
evident from the following and breached the Bank's instructions:
1. On 02.12.2008, you have prepared and posted a voucher for
Rs.40,000/- by debiting the NRE SB A/c.No.30386852850 in the name of
Shri.R.G.Deivasigamani and credited HTL account No.30460266666 in
the name of your spouse, Smt.V.Neelambal.
2. On 18.03.2009, you have debited the same NRE account for
Rs.15,000/- and transferred the amount to your own OD
A/c.No.10482643164.
Your above actions of debiting customers account without any mandate
are in violation of Bank's instructions. Thus, you have acted prejudicial
and detrimental to the interest of the Bank.
Charge 3:
You have entered into financial dealings with Bank's customer contrary to
Banks' instructions. This is evident from the following transactions made
by cash/transfer from your account, your spouse and daughter's accounts
for the credit of the housing loan account of Shri.R.G.Deivasigamani
(No.30460266666):
No. Date a/c No. Name Dr Cr a/c No.
Sri/Smt Amount Amount
1 01.10.2009 11063543034 V.Neelambal 47000 30000 30460266666
12000 30336534427
5000 10482643164
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
No. Date a/c No. Name Dr Cr a/c No.
Sri/Smt Amount Amount
2 07.10.2009 11063543034 V.Neelambal 3500 50000 30460266666
10482644191 P.Matheswaran 20000
30743385844 M.Manesa – 26500
Minor
3 23.10.2009 10482643164 P.Matheswaran 60000 50000 30460266666
10000 30743385844
4 10.11.2009 10482644191 P.Matheswaran 40000 40000 30460266666
5 11.01.2010 10482643164 P.Matheswaran 45000 45000 30460266666
6 13.03.2010 10482644191 P.Matheswaran 30000 30000 30460266666
7 28.05.2010 30743385844 M.Manesa – 18000 40000 30460266666
10482644191 Minor 22000
P.Matheswaran
8 07.06.2010 10482644191 P.Matheswaran 100000 100000 30460266666
9 16.07.2010 10482644191 P.Matheswaran 35000 35000 30460266666
10 19.07.2010 10482643164 P.Matheswaran 15000 15000 30460266666
11 06.08.2010 10482644191 P.Matheswaran 40000 40000 30460266666
12 09.09.2010 10482644191 P.Matheswaran 44000 44000 30460266666
13 13.10.2010 10482643164 P.Matheswaran 30000 30000 30460266666
14 04.11.2010 10482644191 P.Matheswaran 35000 35000 30460266666
15 12.01.2011 10482644191 P.Matheswaran 10000 10000 30460266666
16 10.02.2011 10482644191 P.Matheswaran 20000 20000 30460266666
17 22.04.2010 Cash Txn. Voucher signed by P.Matheswaran 25000 30460266666
18 18.06.2010 Cash Txn. Voucher signed by P.Matheswaran 100000 30460266666
19 18.06.2010 Cash Txn. Voucher signed by P.Matheswaran 35000 30460266666
20 09.09.2010 Cash Txn. Voucher signed by P.Matheswaran 20000 30460266666
21 22.09.2010 Cash Txn. Voucher signed by P.Matheswaran 20000 30460266666
22 08.12.2010 Cash Txn. Voucher signed by P.Matheswaran 40000 30460266666
Thus, you have acted prejudicial and detrimental to the interest of the
Bank.
Charge 4:
You have violated the Bank's instructions relating to CBS wherein
withdrawal slips are not allowed for non-home transactions and the
transactions of NRIs are not exempted from the instructions. This is
evident from the fact that you have prepared withdrawal slips for large
amounts on seven occasions during the period 20th August 2008 to 28th
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
February 2009 at Erode Branch for withdrawal of cash from your spouse
Smt.V.Neelambal S.B.A/c.No.11063543034 maintained at Erode Town
Branch (Non home) and facilitated to get the vouchers passed for
payment. The Non Home transactions thus made were also observed as
not recorded in the “Cheques referred and returned register” as required,
for obtaining the approval from the Authorized official.
No. Date DR a/c no. Name of the a/c Dr amount Non-Home
holder (cash)
1 20.08.2008 11063543034 Smt.V.Neelambal 9,00,000 Dr-Non home - WS
2 20.08.2008 11063543034 Smt.V.Neelambal 8,00,000 Dr-Non home - WS
3 20.08.2008 11063543034 Smt.V.Neelambal 8,00,000 Dr-Non home - WS
4 02.09.2008 11063543034 Smt.V.Neelambal 5,00,000 Dr-Non home - WS
5 24.10.2008 11063543034 Smt.V.Neelambal 2,05,000 Dr-Non home - WS*
6 14.02.2009 11063543034 Smt.V.Neelambal 1,00,000 Dr-Non home - WS**
7 28.02.2009 11063543034 Smt.V.Neelambal 50,000 Dr-Non home – WS**
*Rs.2,05,000/- was posted by you in the system on 24.10.2008 in your ID.
**Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- posted authorized in the system on
14.02.2009 and 28.02.2009 respectively in your ID & cash disbursed by
you.
Thus, you have acted prejudicial and detrimental to the interest of the
Bank.
Charge 5:
Contrary to Bank's instructions you are maintained Staff Savings Bank
A/c at two different Branches without approval from Appropriate
Authority as evident from the following:
Account No.11023519756 at Erode Branch and another Staff SB Account
No.10482644191 at Bhavani Sagar Branch are standing in your name. In
addition, you have two other Current Accounts at Bhavani Sagar Branch,
in your name and in the name of your minor daughter Ms.Manesa as F &
NG. The aggregate credit summations in those accounts for the years
2008, 2009 and 2010 were 39,42,740,44,21,722 and 56,82,141/-
respectively which are disproportionate to your known sources of income.
Thus, you have acted prejudicial and detrimental to the interest of the
Bank.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
Charge 6:
You have availed the following Housing Loans from Commercial Branch
Erode in your name and Home Plus loan in the name of your Spouse
without Administrative clearance from the controllers and thus acted
prejudicial and detrimental to the interest of the Bank:
1. HTL (Staff) (A/c No: 31449206660) and public HTL (A/c No:
31707629742) in your name at Commercial Branch Erode.
2. Home Plus loan in the name of your spouse Smt.V.Neelambal at Erode
Branch (A/c No.31193108582).”
10. After the receipt of the aforesaid Charge Memo, the
Appellant/Writ Petitioner vide Letter dated 30.04.2013, requested the
Respondent Bank to permit him to peruse the records and vouchers relating
to the allegations levelled against him in the Charge Memo dated
13.04.2013. However, the request of the Appellant/Writ Petitioner was
rejected by the Respondent Bank and the Appellant/Writ Petitioner was not
permitted to peruse the said records and vouchers. Thereafter, the
Respondent Bank vide Notice dated 24.05.2013, ordered for an enquiry
against the Appellant/Writ Petitioner.
11. Meanwhile, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner made a Representation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
dated 19.09.2013 to the Respondent Bank requesting for the vouchers and
documents required to submit his defense statement in the enquiry
proceedings, but, the request of the Appellant/Writ Petitioner was not
considered by the Respondent Bank.
12. The Appellant/Writ Petitioner thus approached this Court by filing
a Writ Petition in W.P.No.29172 of 2013 to direct the Respondent Bank and
the Enquiry Officer to furnish the vouchers and documents more fully
described in Representation dated 19.09.2013 and to forbear the Respondent
Bank and Enquiry Officer from conducting the enquiry in respect of the
Charge Memo dated 13.04.2013 till the receipt of said vouchers &
documents by the Appellant/Writ Petitioner.
13. This Court vide Order dated 30.10.2013 disposed of the aforesaid
W.P.No.29172 of 2013 and directed the Enquiry Officer and the
Respondent Bank to consider and pass appropriate orders on the
Representation dated 19.09.2013 of the Appellant/Writ Petitioner within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
further directed the Enquiry Officer not to proceed with the enquiry in terms
of the Charge Memo dated 13.04.2013 till the disposal of Representation
dated 19.09.2013 of the Appellant/Writ Petitioner by the Respondent Bank.
14. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 30.10.2013 in
W.P.No.29172 of 2013, the Enquiry Officer vide Letter dated 29.11.2013
supplied copies of the documents sought by the Appellant/Petitioner with
regard to the charges framed against him in the Charge Memo dated
13.04.2012 that were available except certain confidential internal
correspondence within the Respondent Bank which could not be furnished
as they were considered to be privileged documents.
15. Thereafter, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner filed another Writ
Petition in W.P.No.34052 of 2013 praying to quash the Letter dated
29.11.2013 of the Enquiry Officer and consequently, directed the
Respondent Bank and the Enquiry Officer to furnish the vouchers and
documents which were declined to be furnished vide Letter dated
29.11.2013 and to forbear the Respondent Bank and the Enquiry Officer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
from conducting the enquiry in respect of the Charge Memo dated
13.04.2013 till all the vouchers and documents were furnished to the
Appellant/Writ Petitioner. However, the said writ petition came to be
dismissed by the Court vide Order dated 07.02.2014.
16. In this background, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the
enquiry proceedings against the Appellant/Writ Petitioner and submitted the
Enquiry Report on 05.05.2014. Thereafter, the Respondent Bank vide Show
Cause Notice dated 14.06.2014, called upon the Appellant/Writ Petitioner to
appear for personal hearing regarding the proposal to impose punishment of
“Be discharged from service with superannuation benefits” on the
Appellant/Writ Petitioner in terms of Clause 6(d) of the Memorandum of
Settlement dated 10.04.2002 entered between the Appellant/Writ Petitioner
and the Respondent Bank.
17. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Show Cause Notice, the
Appellant/Writ Petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.18163 of 2014
praying to quash the Show Cause Notice dated 14.06.2014 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
consequently, to direct the Respondent Bank to conduct the domestic
enquiry afresh in respect of the Charge Memo dated 13.04.2013 after
furnishing the Appellant/Writ Petitioner due opportunity. The Court vide
order dated 11.07.2014, set aside the Show Cause Notice dated 14.06.2014
issued to the Appellant/Writ Petitioner and allowed the aforesaid Writ
Petition. Operative portion of the Order dated 11.07.2014 in W.P.No.18163
of 2014 reads as under:
“7. Considering the said submissions made by the learned
counsel on either side and also considering the fact that the writ petition
has been filed only on the ground that the impugned order has been
passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to examine the
witnesses, without going into the merits of the case, I am inclined to set
aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside.
The respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to examine three
witnesses only, namely, the delinquent (petitioner herein), V.Neelambal
and R.G.Deivasigamani (borrowers). The petitioner is directed to appear
before the enquiry officer concerned on 21.07.2014 and to co-operate
with the enquiry. The enquiry officer concerned is directed to proceed
with the enquiry on day to day basis and complete the entire proceedings
and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of
four weeks from 21.07.2014. It is made clear that the petitioner will be
permitted to peruse the documents available with the respondent as per
the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the respondents. To this
extent, this consent order is passed.”
18. Pursuant to the aforesaid Order dated 11.07.2014, the enquiry in
respect of the Charge Memo dated 13.04.2013 was re-opened by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
Enquiry Officer. After the completion of enquiry of charges framed against
the Appellant/Writ Petitioner, the Enquiry Officer submitted the Enquiry
Report on 20.08.2014 before the Respondent Bank. The Respondent Bank
vide Letter dated 21.08.2014, forwarded the said Enquiry Report dated
20.08.2014 to the Appellant/Writ Petitioner. In the Enquiry Report, the
Enquiry Officer held that except Charge No.5, all other charges viz., Charge
Nos.1 to 4 & 6 framed against the Appellant/Writ Petitioner were proved.
19. Thereafter, the Respondent Bank vide another Show Cause
Notice dated 10.03.2015, called upon the Appellant/Writ Petitioner to
appear for personal hearing on 14.03.2015 proposing to impose punishment
of “Dismissal from service” on the Appellant/Writ Petitioner in terms of
Clause 6(a) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002 entered
between the Appellant/Writ Petitioner and the Respondent Bank.
20. Challenging the Charge Memo dated 13.04.2013 and Show
Cause Notice dated 10.03.2015, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner filed the Writ
Petition in W.P.No.8155 of 2015. When W.P.No.8155 of 2015 was pending
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
before the Writ Court, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner attained the age of
superannuation. Hence, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner was allowed to retire
from service by the Respondent Bank on 30.04.2021. Thereafter, the Writ
Court dismissed the W.P.No.8155 of 2015 vide impugned order dated
11.04.2022. Hence, the aggrieved over the Order dated 11.04.2022 of the
Writ Court, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner preferred the present Writ Appeal.
21. Assailing the impugned order of the Writ Court and the enquiry
proceedings, the learned counsel for the Appellant/Writ Petitioner submitted
that the Housing Loan of Rs.35 Lakhs availed by the Appellant's/Writ
Petitioner's nephew R.G.Deivasigamani was fully repaid without inflicting
any pecuniary loss to the Respondent Bank. However, it is stated that the
Respondent Bank issued the Charge Memo dated 13.04.2013 to the
Appellant/Writ Petitioner to harass the Appellant/Writ Petitioner.
22. The learned counsel further submitted that since the
Appellant/Writ Petitioner attained the age of superannuation and had retired
from the service of Respondent Bank on 30.04.2021, the disciplinary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
proceedings initiated against the Appellant/Writ Petitioner by the
Respondent Bank pursuant to the Charge Memo dated 13.04.2013 cannot be
continued further.
23. That apart, the learned counsel for the Appellant/Writ Petitioner
submitted that in the Charge Memo dated 13.04.2013 issued to the
Appellant/Writ Petitioner, it has been stated that the charges levelled against
the Appellant/Writ Petitioner amount to 'Gross Misconduct' in terms of
Clause 5(j) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002 entered
between the Appellant/Writ Petitioner and the Respondent Bank. However,
it is stated that the charges levelled against the Appellant/Writ Petitioner
will not amount to any serious misconduct under Clause 5(j) of the aforesaid
Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002.
24. The learned counsel for the Appellant/Writ Petitioner drew our
attention to the Letter dated 31.07.2014 addressed to the Enquiry Officer by
the Appellant's/Writ Petitioner's nephew R.G.Deivasigamani, wherein, it
was stated that the Appellant/Writ Petitioner was continuously harassed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
the Respondent Bank since 2012 by issuing letters, calling for explanation,
framing charges and contemplating disciplinary proceedings for an error
committed by the 'Field Officer' in opening of the Loan Account in which
the Appellant/Writ Petitioner has no role to play. It is stated that even after
the receipt of said letter from the Loan Account Holder,
Mr.R.G.Deivasigamani, the Respondent Bank proceeded to frame charges
against the Appellant/Writ Petitioner.
25. In support of the above submissions, the learned counsel for the
Appellant/Writ Petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions:
(i) Chief of Army Staff & Ors. Vs. Major Dharam Pal Kukrety AIR
1985 SC 703
(ii) Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. & Ors. (1999)
3 SCC 666
(iii) Kalabharati Advertising Vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania &
Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 437
(iv) S.Gunasekar Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. 2015 SCC Online
Mad 4077
(v) S.Andiyannan Vs. The Joint Registrar & Anr. (2015) 3 LW 513
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
26. On the other hand, defending the impugned order of the Writ
Court, the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent Bank submitted that
the Appellant/Writ Petitioner approached this Court repeatedly and
purportedly delayed the disciplinary proceedings.
27. It is further stated that the Appellant/Writ Petitioner was in
service in the Respondent Bank till he attained the age of superannuation on
30.04.2021 and therefore, stated that the Respondent Bank was not
responsible for the delay in completion of disciplinary proceedings since the
Show Cause Notice dated 14.06.2014 issued to the Appellant/Writ
Petitioner was set aside by the Writ Court vide Order dated 11.07.2014 in
W.P.No.18163 of 2014 filed by the Appellant/Writ Petitioner.
28. The learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent Bank further
submitted that the conduct of the Appellant/Writ Petitioner as an Officer of
the Respondent Bank amounts to “Gross Misconduct” in terms of Clause
5(j) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
29. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent
Bank that the Appellant/Writ Petitioner opened a Bank Account in his
wife's name and made transactions breaching the interests of the
Respondent Bank. It is stated that the actions of the Appellant/Writ
Petitioner amounted to gross violation of the interests of the Respondent
Bank and also, incurred serious loss to the Respondent Bank.
30. It is further submitted by the Respondent Bank that it is
incumbent on part of the Appellant/Writ Petitioner who had committed
mistakes by opening Loan Account in the name of his wife to demonstrate
the modus adopted in operation of his wife's Loan Account
No.30460266666.
31. In support of the submissions, the learned Senior Counsel for the
Respondent Bank placed reliance on the following decisions:
(i) State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. T.J.Paul (1999) 4 SCC 759
(ii) State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Bela Bagchi & Ors. (2005) 7
SCC 435
(iii) Executive Director, Corporation Bank Vs. P.R.Shantharam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
(2021) 4 LLN 335 (DB) (Mad)
(iv) Indian Overseas Bank & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash Lal Srivastava
(2022) 3 SCC 803
32. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant/Writ
Petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent Bank and
have perused the materials placed before this Court.
33. It is not in dispute that even before filing of Writ Petition in
W.P.No.8155 of 2015, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner had already filed three
Writ Petitions viz., W.P.Nos.29172 of 2013, 34052 of 2013 & 18163 of
2014. Out of these three writ petitions, in two writ petitions viz.,
W.P.Nos.29172 of 2013 & 18163 of 2014, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner
had secured order in his favour.
34. There were several irregularities in the disciplinary proceedings
initiated by the Respondent Bank against the Appellant/Writ Petitioner
which were noticed by this Court and hence, the Courts had passed orders in
favour of the Appellant/Writ Petitioner in the aforesaid two Writ Petitions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
preferred by the Appellant/Writ Petitioner against the disciplinary
proceedings initiated against him by the Respondent Bank.
35. The Writ Court while admitting the W.P.No.8155 of 2015 was
also pleased to grant an order of interim injunction by restraining the
Respondent Bank from proceeding with the Show Cause Notice dated
10.03.2015, as a result of which, the disciplinary proceedings initiated
against the Appellant/Writ Petitioner have remained inconclusive. While
the Writ Petition in W.P.No.8155 of 2015 was pending, the Appellant/Writ
Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2021 and was
relieved.
36. From a reading of the facts narrated above, it is crystal clear that
the Appellant/Writ Petitioner was in service at the Respondent Bank for
over a period of 38 years i.e., from 11.11.1982 till 30.04.2021 and was
continuously facing proceedings since 13.04.2013.
37. The Respondent Bank vide Show Cause Notice dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
14.06.2014, called upon the Appellant/Writ Petitioner to appear for personal
hearing regarding the proposal to impose punishment of “Be discharged
from service with superannuation benefits” on the Appellant/Writ Petitioner
in terms of Clause 6(d) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated
10.04.2002. Relevant portion of the Show Cause Notice dated 14.06.2014
is reproduced below:-
“2. I have carefully gone through the facts of the case, the
submissions of the prosecution as well as the defence, the enquiry
proceedings, the Enquiry Officer's Report and I concur with the findings
of the Enquiry Officer. After applying my mind independently and
dispassionately to the case and considering the nature and gravity of the
charges proved, I propose to impose on you the punishment of “Be
discharged from service with superannuation benefits” in terms of clause
6(d) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002.”
38. After the receipt of aforesaid Show Cause Notice dated
14.06.2014, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner filed W.P.No.18163 of 2014
before this Court seeking to quash the aforesaid Show Cause Notice and to
direct the Respondent Bank to conduct a fresh domestic enquiry in respect
of Charge Memo dated 13.04.2013. By order dated 11.07.2014, the Court
had set aside the Show Cause Notice and allowed the W.P.No.18163 of
2014 with a direction to the Enquiry Officer to proceed with the enquiry of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
the charges framed against the Appellant/Writ Petitioner.
39. Pursuant to the order dated 11.07.2014, the enquiry was re-
opened. The Enquiry Officer submitted the Enquiry Report on 20.08.2014
before the Respondent Bank. Thereafter, the Respondent Bank vide Show
Cause Notice dated 10.03.2015, called upon the Appellant/Writ Petitioner
to appear for personal hearing on 14.03.2015 regarding the proposal to
impose a much harsher punishment of “Dismissal from service” on the
Appellant/Writ Petitioner purportedly in terms of Clause 6(a) of the
Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002. Relevant portion of the
Show Cause Notice dated 10.03.2015 reads as under:
“2. I have carefully gone through the facts of the case, the
submissions of the prosecution as well as the defence, the enquiry
proceedings, the Enquiry Officer's Report (Re-opened enquiry), your
submissions and I concur with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. After
applying my mind independently and dispassionately to the case and
considering the nature and gravity of the charges proved, I propose to
impose on you the punishment of “Dismissal from service” in terms of
Clause 6(a) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002.”
40. Thus, it is evident that the Respondent Bank changed the goal
post from “discharge from service with superannuation benefits” to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
“dismissal from service”. These punishments proposed to the imposed on
the Appellant/Writ Petitioner vide aforesaid Show Cause Notices have
different consequences under the aforesaid Memorandum of Settlement
dated 10.04.2002.
41. The fact remains that the disciplinary proceedings initiated
against the Appellant/Writ Petitioner have not been completed. The
punishment that can be imposed against the Appellant/Writ Petitioner based
on the Enquiry Report of the Enquiry Officer should be in terms of the
Show Cause Notice dated 14.06.2014 and not in terms of the Show Cause
Notice dated 10.03.2015 issued by the Respondent Bank.
42. We are therefore of the opinion that the maximum punishment
that can be imposed against the Appellant/Writ Petitioner by the
Respondent Bank is discharging the Appellant/Writ Petitioner from service
with superannuation benefits. Since the Appellant/Writ Petitioner had
attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2021 during the pendency of
the Writ Petition and continued in service during the course of disciplinary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
proceedings, dismissal of the Writ Petition was without justification.
43. There is no provision under the Rules which allows the Bank to
continue with the disciplinary proceedings after its employee was allowed
to retire from the service of the Bank.
44. It is to be noted that order dated 30.10.2013 in W.P.No.29172 of
2013 & order dated 11.07.2014 in W.P.No.18163 of 2014 were passed by
the Court are in favour of the Appellant/Writ Petitioner. There is an
enormous delay in completion of the disciplinary proceedings by the
Respondent Bank. That apart, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner already
attained the age of superannuation and was allowed to retire from the
service from the Respondent Bank on 30.04.2021. Therefore, question of
termination from service cannot be countenanced.
45. In the aforesaid circumstances, the disciplinary proceedings
initiated against the Appellant/Writ Petitioner by the Respondent Bank
ought not to have been continued further as it was meaningless in view of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
superannuation of the Appellant/Writ Petitioner. Hence, we are of the view
that the impugned order of the Writ Court is liable to be set aside.
46. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the
Writ Court in W.P.No.8155 of 2015 is set aside. Consequently, Charge
Memo dated 13.04.2013 & Show Cause Notice dated 10.03.2015 issued by
the Respondent Band are hereby quashed. The Respondent Bank is
therefore directed to release the arrears of salary and terminal benefits to the
Appellant/Writ Petitioner without any further delay, preferably within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
47. In the result, this Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(S.S.S.R., J.) (C.S.N., J.)
13.03.2025
mrr
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
Speaking Order (or) Non-Speaking Order
To
Regional Manager (Region IV)
(Disciplinary Authority),
State Bank of India,
Regional II, Network 2
Kurinji Complex,
State Bank Road,
Coimbatore – 641 018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
and
C.SARAVANAN, J.
mrr
13.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:26 pm )
