Madras High Court
M.Suseendran vs The Chairman - Cum - Managing Director on 27 March, 2025
WP No. 34486 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-03-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
WP No. 34486 of 2019
1. M.Suseendran
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Chairman - Cum - Managing Director,
Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, 763, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600002
2.The General Manager/ Disciplinary Authority,
Zonal Office, 11/ 952 Cross Cut Road, Gandhipuram,
Coimbatore - 641012
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
Calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in ZO/ DA. GM(BARP)-ZO. VIG.
9297 and 9656. 509. 2019-2020 dated 01.08.2019 and to set aside the same as
illegal and without jurisdiction
For Petitioner(s): Mr. S.Sathiaseelan
For Respondent(s): Mr. K.Srinisvasamurthy
for M/s.Row & Reddy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:18 pm )
WP No. 34486 of 2019
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to call for the records in
ZO/DA:GM(BARP)-ZO: VIG : 9297 & 9656 : 509 : 2019-2020 dated
01.08.2019 of the second respondent and to set aside the same as illegal and
without jurisdiction.
2. Heard Mr.S.Sathiaseelan, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the
materials placed on record, apart form the pleadings of the parties.
3. The petitioner, who was working as Chief Manager, has been suspended
from service just two days prior to his date of superannuation. The impugned
charge sheets were issued in respect of three loan accounts handled by the
petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the above charge
memo itself is illegal because it has been issued in violation of the Staff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:18 pm )
Accountability Policy, IOB Pension Regulations, 1995. He further submitted
that as per the above Regulations, no action should be initiated against any
officials in respect of any allegations of loss after the expiry of four years from
the date of the event and that too, not detected in two consecutive internal
inspections. The procedure contemplated under the Staff Accountability Policy,
IOB Pension Regulations, 1995 for disciplinary proceedings and the suspension
has not been followed in the case of the petitioner and hence, the charges should
be quashed.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the fraud,
misappropriation and criminal breach of trust was detected only on 27.10.2015
through the advice sent by the State Bank of Travancore, wherein it is stated
that there is a prior mortgage in respect of the same property offered as
collateral security by the borrower and they have initiated SARFAESI
proceedings. As the petitioner has retired from service, the respondents has to
get prior approval and the files have to be scrutinized by various authorities by
the Regional Office, Zonal Office, Central Vigilance Officer, Competent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:18 pm )
Authority and Disciplinary Authority. The process of initiating disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner has consumed much time and the petitioner
was given with the charges on 01.08.2019, when the date of detection was on
27.10.2015.
6. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the fraud
was detected on 27.10.2015 and the charges against the petitioner were issued
on 01.08.2019, which is well within the period of four years from the date of
detection.
7. On perusal of the Article of the Charges, it is seen that the fraud is found
to be connecting to the following loans :-
Sl. No. Account Constitution/ Loan Facility
Name of the (Rs. in lakh)
Borrower
1. M/s.SBA Poultry Proprietary: CC:1422: 55.00
Farm Mrs.Santhamani Agri NCGC : 67140002 : 45.00
2. M/s.Bannariamman Proprietary: CC : 192: 70.00
Feed Mill Mrs.A.Karunambal TL-26130018: 30.00
3. M/s.Bannariamman Proprietary: AG-NG TL:261400008: 39.22
Poultry Farm Mr.K.Arumugam CC:214: 60.00
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:18 pm )
Insofar as the first loan is concerned, it is alleged that the above loan has been
released on 11.04.2014. With regard to the second loan, it is stated that the loan
has been released on 30.10.2013, 13.11.2013 and 18.11.2014. The third loan is
seen to have been released on 11.03.2014 and 17.03.2014. The memorandum of
allegations and articles of charges is dated 01.08.2019. The petitioner has retired
from service on 30.06.2014. The petitioner has been placed under suspension on
28.06.2014 just two days prior to his date of superannuation.
8. Earlier, the petitioner was given with the charges on 25.06.2014 with
regard to the disbursement pertaining to the loan account of M/s.Trymax Fly
Ash Bricks and Tiles. The disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against
the petitioner and he was imposed with the punishment of reduction of three
stages of his basic pay. Thereafter, the petitioner was allowed to retire.
9. Insofar as the present charges are concerned, the last date on which the
subject loan was disbursed, was of the year 2014.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:18 pm )
10. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
charges ought to have been given in the year 2018 within four years from 2014.
The charge memo was issued only on 01.08.2019, which is beyond four years.
In this regard, it is relevant to refer Regulation 48 of the IOB Employees'
Pension Regulations, 1995. The above regulation would read that no
departmental proceedings can be initiated against the persons who are not in
service in respect of any event that had taken place before four years of their
retirement. The above Regulation is extracted as under:
“48. Recovery of Pecuniary loss caused to the Bank:-
(1) The Competent Authority may withhold or withdraw a
pension or a part thereof , whether permanently or for a specified
period , and order recovery from pension of the whole or part of
any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank if in any departmental or
judicial proceedings the pensioner is found guilty of grave
misconduct or negligence or criminal breach of trust or forgery or
acts done fraudulently during the period of his service:
provided that the Board shall be consulted before any final orders
are passed:
provided further that departmental proceedings, if instituted while
the employee was in service, shall, after the retirement of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:18 pm )
employee, be deemed to be proceedings under these regulations
and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which
they were commenced in the same manner as if the employee had
continued in service:
(2) No departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the
employee was in service, shall be instituted in respect of an event
which took place more than four years before such institution:
provided that the disciplinary proceedings so instituted shall be
in accordance with the procedure applicable to disciplinary
proceedings in relation to the employee during the p6riod of his
service. ”
11. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the irregularity
itself was detected only on 27.10.2015 through the advice given by the State
Bank of Travancore in respect of some other loan availed by the same borrower
by mortgaging the same property. It is further submitted that as the matter has
been scrutinized by various authorities, it took a considerable delay to be
culminated into charges on 01.08.2019. It is claimed by the respondents that the
charges have been detected by the respondents within four years time from the
date of detection of the fraud. The records would show that the periodical
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:18 pm )
inspections are conducted in respect of the loans disbursed by the branch in
which the petitioner was working. In respect of the RTI information requested
by the petitioner, the Public Information Officer of the respondents/Bank has
given the information stating that the Annur Branch, where the petitioner has
been working, has been inspected on 25.08.2014, 24.12.2015, 25.04.2017 and
12.12.2018. Despite four inspections were conducted, the Inspecting Authorities
have not noted any irregularity in respect of the loans mentioned in the present
charges. As the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2014,
the respondents/Bank knows the risk of limitation as per Regulation 48(2) of the
IOB Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995.
12. Regulation 48(1) of the IOB Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995
would make an explicit reference about a misconduct or negligence or criminal
breach of trust or forgery or acts done fraudulently during the period of service
and that has to be read along with Regulation 48(2) of the IOB Employees'
Pension Regulations, 1995.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:18 pm )
13. At least, after getting the intimation from the State Bank of Travancore,
the respondents ought to have expedited the file movements in order to save the
limitations as contemplated under Regulation 48(2) of the IOB Employees'
Pension Regulations, 1995.
14. The learned counsel for the respondents attracted the attention of this
Court to a judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.
No. 29568 of 2015 (R.Saratha Vs. The General Manager, Disciplinary
Authority, IOB, Chennai), wherein the charge sheet has been given on
06.07.2015 and the irregularities alleged to have been committed during January
2013. In that matter, only delay is involved and the question of limitation under
Regulation 48(2) of the IOB Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995 is not
involved. Hence, the above case is not applicable to the present issue.
15. In Brajendra Singh Yambem Vs. Union of India and another reported in
(2016) 9 SCC 20, a similar rule provided under Central Civil Services Pension
Rules, 1972 has been taken up for consideration. The Supreme Court has held
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:18 pm )
that as per Rule 9(2) of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972, no
disciplinary action shall be initiated in respect of any funds, which took place
more than four years before such action. In the above judgment, it is held that
when a particular act is contemplated to be done in a particular manner under
any statute then the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The position of
law on the above point is well established one and the respondents cannot deny
the same. Despite the rules prescribe four years limitation from the date of event
from initiating any disciplinary action against any retired employees, in the
instant case, the same has not been followed in all seriousness. The respondents
cannot take shelter under the intimation received from the State Bank of
Travancore in the year 2015 for saving the limitation. This is for the simple
reason that the respondents/Bank officials have themselves inspected the branch
where the petitioner was working on several occasions and they would not find
out any irregularity in this regard. Even after the advice received from the State
Bank of Travancore by considering the limitation, the files were not moved as
expeditiously as possible in order to save the limitation. Hence, I do not feel any
exception be given to the petitioner for not complying the Regulation 48(2) of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:18 pm )
the IOB Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995. In this regard, it is appropriate
to relevant portion of the above judgment as under:-
“37. The appellant challenged the correctness of the sanction
and charges framed against him before the High Court of
Gauhati, Imphal Bench in WP (C) No. 264 of 2010. The High
Court quashed the memorandum of charges on the ground that it
was issued after four years from the date of the alleged incident.
Therefore, it was held that the said action of the disciplinary
authority in initiating disciplinary proceedings is not valid in law
as the same was barred by limitation as per the provision of Rule
9(2)(b)(ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. This important legal
aspect of the case was not considered by the Division Bench of the
High Court while setting aside the common judgment and order
dated 1-9-2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition (C) No. 904 of 2008 (arms and ammunition case) and
Writ Petition (C) No. 264 of 2010 (contraband ganja case).
38. It is a well-established principle of law that if the manner of
doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute then the act
must be done in that manner or not at all. The aforesaid legal
position has been laid down by this Court in Babu Verghese v. Bar
Council of Kerala [Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala,
(1999) 3 SCC 422] , the relevant paragraphs of which are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:18 pm )
extracted hereunder: (SCC pp. 432-33, paras 31-32)
“31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the
manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any
statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all.
The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision
in Taylor v. Taylor [Taylor v. Taylor, (1875) LR 1 Ch D
426] which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir
Ahmad v. King Emperor [Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor,
1936 SCC OnLine PC 41 : (1935-36) 63 IA 372] who
stated as under: (Nazir Ahmad case [Nazir Ahmad v. King
Emperor, 1936 SCC OnLine PC 41 : (1935-36) 63 IA 372]
, SCC OnLine PC)
‘[W]here a power is given to do a certain thing in a
certain way, the thing must be done in that way or
not at all.’
32. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao
Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh [Rao Shiv
Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC
322 : 1954 Cri LJ 910] and again in Deep Chand v. State
of Rajasthan [Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961
SC 1527 : (1961) 2 Cri LJ 705] . These cases were
considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State
of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:18 pm )
AIR 1964 SC 358 : (1964) 1 Cri LJ 263 (2)] and the rule
laid down in Nazir Ahmad case [Nazir Ahmad v. King
Emperor, 1936 SCC OnLine PC 41 : (1935-36) 63 IA 372]
was again upheld. This rule has since been applied to the
exercise of jurisdiction by courts and has also been
recognised as a salutary principle of administrative law.”
The aforesaid important aspect of the case should have been
considered by the Division Bench of the High Court instead of
mechanically accepting the argument advanced on behalf of the
respondents that the case of the appellant squarely falls under
Rule 9(2)(b)(i) read with Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Division
Bench in the impugned judgment are erroneous in law and are
liable to be set aside.
39. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on
behalf of the respondents contends that the period of limitation of
four years as stipulated in Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972 does not apply to the facts of the present case for the
reason that the departmental proceedings against the appellant
had already been initiated while he was in service, and it was
because of the pendency of the litigation before the High Court
that the proceedings could not be concluded and further
disciplinary proceedings were continued after obtaining prior
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:18 pm )
sanction of the President of India as required under Rule
9(2)(b)(i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The said contention
is untenable both on facts as well as in law.”
16. In the another judgment of this Court in V.Chidambaram Vs. General
Manager/Disciplinary Authority, IOB and Another reported in 2021 SCC
OnLine Mad 16540, the very same arguments have been advanced with regard
to Regulation 48(2) of the IOB Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995, wherein
the Court has held that the Regulations 43 and 45 should be read along with 48
(2) of the IOB Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995 for the purpose of
understanding the limitation. In this regard, it is appropriate to extract the
relevant passage of the above order:-
“Whether disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondents
is barred by limitation?
40. From the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner
retired on 31.03.2014 as Assistant Manager, from Rajouri Garden
Branch, Delhi of the respondents' Bank. The respondents initiated
disciplinary proceedings by a charge memo dated 27.04.2018,
which was issued by covering letter dated 05.05.2018 and was
received by the petitioner on 14.05.2018. The above dates are not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:18 pm )
denied by the respondents. The learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner contended that no disciplinary proceedings can
be initiated against the pensioner for an event which took place
four years earlier while the petitioner was in service. The learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on Regulation
48 (2) of the INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK (EMPLOYEES’)
PENSION REGULATIONS, 1995. According to the learned
Senior Counsel, there is no dispute that the disciplinary
proceedings was initiated after four years of his retirement for an
“event” that took place much earlier than the retirement of
petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel relied on the common
order dated 18.08.2015 made in W.P.(C). Nos. 6382 of 2015 and
etc., batch, rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The
identical issue of limitation was considered by the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court and by order dated 18.08.2015, quashed the charge
memo as time barred. The learned Senior Counsel referred to
paragraph nos. 9, 13, 15 and 16 of the said judgment and prayed
for quashing the impugned charge memo. The learned Senior
Counsel further contended that the Regulations have to be read as
a whole and Regulations 43 and 45 cannot be read separately and
cannot contend that Regulation 48 (2) does not apply for a
disciplinary proceedings in respect of Regulations 43 and 45. The
limitation prescribed under Regulation 48 (2) applies to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:18 pm )
disciplinary proceedings initiated under any of the Regulations.
41. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents that the disciplinary
proceedings is initiated under Regulations 43 and 45 for
withholding pension and not under Regulation 48 for recovery of
any amount from the petitioner. The limitation prescribed in
Regulation 48 (2) applies only when the respondents initiate
disciplinary proceedings under Regulation 48 and it does not
apply to disciplinary proceedings initiated under Regulations 43
and 45 and no time limit is prescribed for initiating the
disciplinary proceedings under these Regulations and prayed for
dismissal of the Writ Petition.
42. From the memorandum of allegations and articles of
charges served on the petitioner, it is seen that the same is issued
alleging that the petitioner committed certain acts of omission and
commission, contravening Regulations 3(i), 3(iii) and 3(iv) of the
Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct)
Regulations,1976, constituting misconduct punishable under
Regulation 43, to be read with 45 of the Indian Overseas Bank
Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations,1976. The misconduct
alleged, took place on 30.04.2014, i.e., before the petitioner
retired.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:18 pm )
43. Regulations 43, 45 and 48 are extracted hereunder for easy
reference to decide whether the impugned disciplinary
proceedings is within the time or barred by limitation.
“43. Withholding or withdrawal of pension:—
The Competent Authority may, by order in writing,
withhold or withdraw a pension or a part thereof, whether
permanently or for a specified period, if the pensioner is
convicted of a serious crime or criminal breach of trust or
forgery or acting fraudulently or is found guilty of grave
misconduct:
provided that where a part of pension is withheld or
withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be
reduced below the minimum pension per mensem payable
under these regulations
45. Pensioner guilty of grave misconduct-
In a case not falling under regulation 44 if the Competent
Authority considers that the pensioner is a prima face
guilty of grave misconduct, it shall, before passing an
order, follow the procedure specified in the Indian
Overseas Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and
Appeal) Regulation, 1976 or in Settlement as the case may
be.
48. Recovery of Pecuniary loss caused to the Bank:—
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:18 pm )
(1) The Competent Authority may withhold or withdraw a
pension or a part thereof, whether permanently or for a
specified period, and order recovery from pension of the
whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank if
in any departmental or judical proceedings the pensioner
is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence or
criminal breach of trust or forgery or acts done
fraudulently during the period of his service : provided
that the Board shall be consulted before any final orders
are passed : provided further that departmental
proceedings, if instituted while the employee was in
service, shall, after the retirement of the employee, be
deemed to be proceedings under these regulations and
shall be continued and concluded by the authority by
which they were commenced in the same manner as if the
employee had continued in service:
(2) No departmental proceedings, if not initiated while the
employee was in service, shall be instituted in respect of
an event which took place more than four years before
such institution : provided that the disciplinary
proceedings so instituted shall be in accordance with the
procedure applicable to disciplinary proceedings in
relation to the employee during the period of his service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:18 pm )
3) Where the Competent Authority orders recovery of
pecuniary loss from the pension, the recovery shall not
ordinarily be made at rate exceeding one-third of pension
admissible on the date of retirement of the employee :
provided that where a part of pension is withheld or
withdrawn, the amount of pension drawn by a pensioner
shall not be less than the minimum pension payable under
these regulations”
44. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents that Regulation 48 (2) applies only to Regulation 48
and does not apply to Regulations 43 and 45. According to
learned counsel appearing for respondents, the said two
Regulations relate to withholding or withdrawal of pension, while
Regulation 48 relates to recovery of loss caused by the pensioner
to the Bank. In view of the same, Regulation 48 (2) does not apply
to Regulations 43 and 45. This contention is not acceptable, as
Regulation 48 also empowers the respondents to withhold or
withdraw the pension and in addition to the same, order recovery
from the pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss
caused to the Bank. Regulation 48(2) starts with “No
departmental proceedings”. A reading of Regulation 48 (2) shows
that it relates to all departmental proceedings and is not restricted
to Regulation 48 only. All the three Regulations along with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:18 pm )
Regulation starting from 42, are in chapter IX General
Conditions. In view of the arrangement of said Regulations under
the heading ‘General Regulations’, all the Regulations, especially
Regulations 43 & 45 are to be read in conjunction with
Regulation 48, especially 48(2).
45. Identical Regulations 43, 45 and 48 of Punjab & Sind Bank
and identical issue of limitation came up for consideration before
the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C). Nos. 6382 of 2015 and
etc., and batch. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court considering
Regulations 43, 45 and 48 and judgments of the Hon'ble Apex
Court, held that Regulations 43 and 45 have to be read in
conjunction with Regulation 48 and also held that Regulation is
not specific for recovery of pecuniary loss and it contemplates
withholding or withdrawal of pension or part thereof, whether
permanently or for a specific period. Regulations 43, 45 and 48 of
the respondents' Regulations are identical, as the said Regulations
of Punjab & Sind Bank. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that
petitioners have claimed that charge sheet issued are without
jurisdiction and not permitted under the Rules, which goes to the
root of maintainability of the charge sheet in violation of
Regulation and therefore, the Writ Petitions were maintainable.
After elaborately considering the Regulations and judgments, the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court quashed the charge sheet issued to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:18 pm )
petitioners therein. The reasoning of the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The
disciplinary proceedings is initiated for an ‘event’ that happened
before 30.04.2014. The charge memo has been served to the
petitioner on 14.05.2018, after four years of the ‘event’, the same
is barred by limitation, as per the Regulation 48(2), and without
jurisdiction.
46. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents
referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported
in (2016) 9 SCC 20, referred to above, submitted that even if the
disciplinary proceedings initiated is not maintainable, the
respondents may be permitted to proceed with the disciplinary
proceedings as the charges leveled against the petitioner are
serious and grave in nature. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that
memo of charges dated 22.08.2008 and 16.10.2009 were clearly
beyond the period of four years and quashing the same, permitted
the disciplinary authority to continue the disciplinary proceedings
and conclude the same within the stipulated time. The Hon'ble
Apex Court has granted such permission, exercising the power
under Article 147 of the Constitution of India. This Court has no
such power and cannot permit the respondents to continue the
disciplinary proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:18 pm )
47. For the above reasons, the Writ Petition is maintainable in
this Court and the disciplinary proceedings impugned in the
present Writ Petition is barred by limitation, not maintainable and
without jurisdiction.
48. For the above reason, this Writ Petition stands allowed.
Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.”
As the respondents had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner
by issuing the charge sheet in respect of the event that has been taken before
four years, the charges are barred by limitation and the respondents lack
jurisdiction.
17. In view of the above stated reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the
order passed by the second respondent in ZO/DA : GM(BARP)-ZO: VIG : 9297
& 9656 : 509 : 2019-2020 dated 01.08.2019 is set aside. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
27-03-2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
Maya
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:18 pm )
To
1.The Chairman - Cum - Managing Director,
Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, 763, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600002
2.The General Manager/ Disciplinary Authority,
Zonal Office, 11/ 952 Cross Cut Road, Gandhipuram,
Coimbatore - 641012
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:18 pm )
R.N.MANJULA J.
Maya
27-03-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:18 pm )
