Madras High Court
S.Ganapathy vs The Chairman Cum Managing Director on 19 March, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
WA(MD)Nos.1114 of 2017 & 2130 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 30.01.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 19.03.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
and
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
WA(MD)Nos.1114 of 2017 & 2130 of 2023
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.7626 of 2017, 2378 of 2020 &
2249 of 2022
WA(MD)No.1114 of 2017:
S.Ganapathy ... Appellant/
Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Bank of Baroda, Baroda Corporate Centre,
No.C-26, G- Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex,
Mumbai – 400 051.
2.The Executive Director &
Appellate Authority,
Bank of Baroda, No.C-26, G- Block,
Bandra-Kurla Complex,
Mumbai – 400 051.
3.The General Manager (SZ) &
Disciplinary Authority,
Bank of Baroda, Zonal Office,
No.90, C.P.Ramasamy Road,
Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:19 pm )
WA(MD)Nos.1114 of 2017 & 2130 of 2023
Now at
Bank of Baroda Zonal Office,
Baroda Pride,
New No.41, 3rd Floor Luz Church Road,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
4.The Assistant General Manager,
Regional Head, Bank of Baroda,
Regional Office (Tamilnadu),
82, Bank Road, 3rd Floor,
Coimbatore – 641 018
Now at
Bank of Baroda Regional Office,
2nd Floor, Plot No.2,3,
Aparna Tower Bye Pass Road,
Madurai – 625 016.
5.The Deputy Regional Manager /
Enquiry Officer, Bank of Baroda,
Regional Office (Tamilnadu),
82, Bank Road, 3rd Floor,
Coimbatore – 641 018
Now at
Bank of Baroda Regional Office,
2nd Floor, Plot No.2,3,
Aparna Tower Bye Pass Road,
Madurai – 625 016. ... Respondents/
Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set
aside the order dated 07.07.2017 made in W.P(MD)No.3674 of 011
insofar as the same relates to the portion of prayer rejected by the
learned Judge in the above writ petition by allowing this Writ Appeal
and thereby set aside the entire order of punishment passed against
the appellant by the third respondent and confirmed by the second
respondent.
2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:19 pm )
WA(MD)Nos.1114 of 2017 & 2130 of 2023
For Appellant : Mr.A.V.Arun
For Respondents : Mr.Anand Gopalan for
M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co
WA(MD)No.2130 of 2023:
1.The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Bank of Baroda, Baroda Corporate Centre,
No.C-26, G- Block,
Bandra-Kurla Complex,
Mumbai – 400 051.
2.The Executive Director &
Appellate Authority,
Bank of Baroda,
Baroda Corporate Centre,
No.C-26, G- Block,
Bandra-Kurla Complex,
Mumbai – 400 051.
3.The General Manager (SZ) &
Disciplinary Authority,
Bank of Baroda, Zonal Office,
No.90, C.P.Ramasamy Road,
Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018.
4.The Assistant General Manager /
Regional Head, Bank of Baroda,
Regional Office (Tamilnadu),
82, Bank Road, 3rd Floor,
Coimbatore – 641 018
5.The Deputy Regional Manager /
Enquiry Officer, Bank of Baroda,
Regional Office (Tamilnadu),
82, Bank Road, 3rd Floor,
Coimbatore – 641 018. ... Appellants/
Respondents
3/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:19 pm )
WA(MD)Nos.1114 of 2017 & 2130 of 2023
Vs.
S.Ganapathy ... Respondent/
Petitioner
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to allow
the Writ Appeal and set aside the order in W.P(MD)No.3674 of 2011
dated 07.07.2017.
For Appellants : Mr.Anand Gopalan for
M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co
For Respondent : Mr.A.V.Arun
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
Thiru.S.Ganapathy, the writ petitioner herein joined Bank of
Baroda as Scale 1 Agricultural Officer on 01.07.1978. He became
Scale II officer in 1990 and Scale III officer/Senior Manager in 1995.
On 14.08.2004, he was posted as Senior Branch Manager at
Trichirappalli Chinnakadai Branch of the Bank. He was transferred in
May 2007 to Krishnagiri.
2.On 12.11.2007, show cause notice was issued alleging
lapses in sanctioning in housing loans when the writ petitioner was
working in Chinnakadai Branch. The delinquent offered his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:19 pm )
WA(MD)Nos.1114 of 2017 & 2130 of 2023
explanation on 13.12.2007. The management placed him under
suspension on 16.07.2008. Charge memo was issued on 02.03.2009.
Enquiry was conducted. The report was submitted on 05.10.2009.
While most of the allegations were held as proved, some of them were
held as partly proved. The delinquent offered his further
representation on 13.11.2010. On 25.01.2010, suspension was
revoked. On 15.04.2010, the disciplinary authority passed order
concurring with the findings of the enquiry authority and imposing the
punishment of reduction from Scale III level to J.M G/S I and fixing
his pay at Rs.10,000/-. The delinquent preferred an appeal to the
appellate authority who confirmed the punishment. Aggrieved by the
same, he filed WP(MD)No.3674 of 2011. The learned Single Judge vide
order dated 07.07.2017 partly allowed the writ petition and modified
the punishment imposed on the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner
was deemed to have been reduced in rank as Scale II officer instead of
Scale I officer. Since the writ petitioner had retired from service, he
was held entitled to monetary benefits on the basis of the modified
punishment.
3.Aggrieved by the said order, the employee filed WA(MD)No.
1114 of 2017. The management filed WA(MD)No.2130 of 2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:19 pm )
WA(MD)Nos.1114 of 2017 & 2130 of 2023
4.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that
the writ petitioner had acted on the recommendation made by
Thiru.Elangovan who was also a senior manager and
M.Vaigundamoorthy, Manager (Credit). Against them, criminal
prosecution was launched. The writ petitioner was shown only as a
witness in Crime No.4 of 2008. When disciplinary action was initiated
against them, they were let off with minor punishment. The learned
counsel submitted that a disproportionately harsh approach was
adopted in the case of the writ petitioner alone. The writ petitioner
filed an additional affidavit before this Bench pointing out that his
successors were not diligent in pursuing the recovery action against
the borrowers who had defaulted. He called upon this Court to
further modify the order passed by the learned Single Judge in favour
of the employee. He submitted that the employee had put in more
than thirty years of unblemished service when the charge memo was
issued. It is not the case of the management that the writ petitioner
was actuated by any corrupt motive when he sanctioned the loans.
5.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
management submitted that the learned Single Judge ought not to
have interfered with the order passed by the management. Relying
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:19 pm )
WA(MD)Nos.1114 of 2017 & 2130 of 2023
on the judgment reported in (2003) 9 SCC 480 (Kailash Nath Gupta
vs. Enquiry Officer, (R.K.Rai), Allahabad Bank and ors), he argued
that the power of interference with the quantum of punishment is
extremely limited. He also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the decision reported in (2003) 4 SCC 364 (P.C.Kakkar vs. UOI) had
held that a manager in a bank is required to possess higher standards
of honesty and integrity and any interference with the quantum of
punishment would amount to misplaced sympathy. He pointed out
that there can be no comparison with the award of the lesser
punishment to Thiru.Elangovan and Thiru.Vaigundamoorthy. He
pressed for dismissal of the writ petition itself.
6.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went
through the materials on record. The case on hand pertains to
sanctioning housing loans. According to the management, the writ
petitioner was the sanctioning authority and on account of his failure
to follow the standard banking norms, the bank was put to a very
huge loss. It is not in dispute that the borrowers were all employees of
public sector undertakings. But their salaries appear to have been
inflated. It is relevant to note here that even the management did not
choose to dismiss the writ petitioner from service. They only reduced
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:19 pm )
WA(MD)Nos.1114 of 2017 & 2130 of 2023
his rank from Scale III to Scale I and his pay was fixed at the entry
level stage. The fact remains that he was not terminated.
7.The writ petitioner was the sanctioning authority. But
then, he can act only based on the inputs given by his subordinate
officials. The Manager (Credit) had recommended the grant of loans.
Thiru.Elangovan who was in the same rank as Senior Manager had
also endorsed the stand of the Manager (Credit). In the criminal
prosecution, while Elangovan was shown as accused, the writ
petitioner was cited only as a witness. In the departmental action,
those two officials were lightly dealt with.
8.Taking into account all these aspects, the learned Single
Judge thought it fit and appropriate to effect modification. Paragraph
13, 14 and 15 of the impugned order read as follows :
“13.Though, Mr.Pala Ramasamy, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents, would vehemently contend that it is
not for this Court to go into the question of proportionality of
punishment, I do not think that there is an absolute bar. When the
nature of misconduct is the same and all the delinquents have been
charged with the same offence, the punishment should also be
relatively the same. May be that the bank is empowered to impose a
higher punishment on a higher official, who is actually responsible
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:19 pm )
WA(MD)Nos.1114 of 2017 & 2130 of 2023
for the sanction of the loan, but at the same time, it cannot be
totally disproportionate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kailash
Nath Gupta's case referred to above, has held that the Court has the
power to interfere with the quantum of punishment, if it is found
that the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the proved
misconduct. In Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. case, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the officers or workers
faced identical charges and found guilty of misconduct in
connection with the same incident, the punishment should be
relatively the same. Relying upon the Judgment in Glaxo
Laboratories (I) Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut
reported in [1984]1 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a
major punishment of dismissal imposed on one of the employees
when another was punished with only one month's suspension and
the third was ultimately reinstated, would amount to
disproportionality and it would be denial of justice. The
observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said Judgment
are as follows:
“Since as many as three workmen on almost identical charges
were found guilty of misconduct in connection with the same
incident, though in separate proceedings, and one was punished
with only one month's suspension, and the other was ultimately
reinstated in view of the findings recorded by the Labour Court
and affirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court, it
would be denial of justice to the appellant if he alone is singled
out for punishment by way of dismissal from service”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:19 pm )
WA(MD)Nos.1114 of 2017 & 2130 of 2023
14.In the light of the above pronouncements of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, it is clear that there should be some nexus between
the punishments imposed on various employees, who were charged
with the same offence. Of course, the contention of the respondent
Bank that an officer working in a senior position and having more
responsibility, should suffer a larger punishment, cannot be
completely brushed aside. At the same time, it is for the Court to
ensure that the punishment so imposed is not so disproportionate to
the proved misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority while imposing
punishment of stoppage of increment for the other two officers, at
least one of whom was in the same cadre as the petitioner, had
chosen to impose a punishment of reduction in rank by two stages,
thereby pushed the petitioner as an entry level officer after 32 years
of service in the bank. This, in my considered opinion, definitely
offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Of course, I would
like to point out the fact that equality cannot be claimed in all
spheres.A Division Bench of this Court in M.Rajamanickam v. The
Executive Director, Bharath Heavy Electricals Ltd.,
Tiruchirappalli ? 14 and others reported in 1997 Writ L.R.536 has
held that when the Management has chosen impose punishment on
one person while accepting an apology from the other and directed
his reinstatement, the appellant can claim equal privilege of
tendering apology, as otherwise, it will amount to hostile
discrimination. While holding so, the Division Bench has observed
as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:19 pm )
WA(MD)Nos.1114 of 2017 & 2130 of 2023
“26.We are of the view that there is no iota of evidence which
would differentiate the case of the present appellant from that of
the other employee Meenakshisundaram. The discrimination is
writ large on the record and the Court cannot overlook the same.
Therefore, we see no justification in treating the appellant
differently without pointing out how he was guilty of more
serious misconduct or the degree of indiscipline in this case was
higher than compared to that of Meenakshisundaram. Learned
counsel for the management failed to explain to us the
distinguishing features therefore, we are satisfied in putting both
of them in the same bracket. Therefore, we have no hesitation to
come to the conclusion that the treatment meted to the present
appellant suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and Article
14 forbids any arbitrary action which would tantamount to
denial of equality as guaranteed by Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The Court must accordingly interpose and
quash the discriminatory action.
27.Further, we are also not inclined to remit the case to the
Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority as the case
may be, since in our opinion the appellant was subjected to a
hostile discrimination in regard to the award of punishment.
Therefore it is still open to us in exercising the jurisdiction
under Art.226, to interfere with the order of punishment on the
ground that the penalty imposed on the appellant is hostile
discrimination, harsh and disproportionate to the proved
misconduct”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:19 pm )
WA(MD)Nos.1114 of 2017 & 2130 of 2023
15.In the light of above categorical pronouncement of the Division
Bench, I find that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is
disproportionate considering the punishment imposed on the other
two delinquent officers. However, since the petitioner holds a more
responsible position, he cannot insist that the same punishment
should be imposed against him. Therefore, I deem it fit to modify
the punishment and impose a lesser punishment of reduction in
rank by one stage, instead of two stages.”
9.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in
(2010) 5 SCC 783 (State of U.P vs. Raj Pal Singh) held that when
the charges are same and identical in relation to one and the same
incident, then, to deal with the delinquent differently in the award of
punishment would be discriminatory. In DGP vs. G.Dasayan (1998) 2
SCC 407, the Hon'ble Supreme Court underlined the need to
maintain parity in the matter of punishment.
10.We are therefore of the view that the learned Judge was
justified in interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed on
the writ petitioner. We however do not agree with the writ petitioner's
counsel's submission that the writ petitioner should have been treated
on par with Thiru.Elangovan and Thiru.Vaigundamoorthy. It is
undeniable that the writ petitioner was at the helm of affairs and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:19 pm )
WA(MD)Nos.1114 of 2017 & 2130 of 2023
therefore the buck would stop with him. The responsibility which one
has to assume would be commensurate with the position held by him
in the hierarchy. Reduction to Scale II from Scale III as directed by the
learned Single Judge was justified. However, his pay will be fixed by
taking into account his past service. He shall not be fixed in the initial
scale of pay. We hold that the learned Single Judge held the scales
even and has given a balanced judgment. With this clarification, we
dismiss both the writ appeals. No costs.
[G.R.S., J.] & [R.P., J.]
19.03.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
SKM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:19 pm )
WA(MD)Nos.1114 of 2017 & 2130 of 2023
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J
and
R.POORNIMA, J.
SKM
WA(MD)Nos.1114 of 2017 & 2130 of 2023
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.7626 of 2017, 2378 of 2020 &
2249 of 2022
19.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:19 pm )
