Madras High Court
R.J.Narayanan vs Indian Bank on 21 November, 2025
W.P.No.8321 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 9/10/2025
Pronounced on 21/11/2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K. SURENDER
Writ Petition No.8321 of 2009
R.J.Narayanan ... Petitioner
Vs
1. Indian Bank
rep. By its Deputy General Manager/
Appellate Authority
Vigilance Department
66 Rajaji Salai
Chennai 08.
2. The Assistant General Manager/
Disciplinary Authority
Indian Bank
Vigilance Cell, Circle Office
Dr.Besant Road
Kumbakonam. ... Respondents
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
W.P.No.8321 of 2009
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first
respondent in the nature of writ calling for the records of the first
respondent made in No.2567/APP:VG:2007 dated 27/10/2007 and direct the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits
including monetary benefits.
For petitioner ... Mr.T.Mohan
Sr.Advocate
for Mr.S.Ramachandran
For respondents ... Ms.Rita Chandrasekar
for M/s.Aiyar & Dolia
-----
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to quash the order dated 27/10/2007
passed by the first respondent in No.2567/APP:VG:2007 and direct the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits
including monetary benefits.
2. The crux of the allegations are that initially, the petitioner joined
the respondent Bank on 2/5/1978. While he was working as Branch
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
Manager, the petitioner has committed certain acts of omission and
commission. Hence, on 8/12/2004, he was suspended from service and
issued with a show cause memo dated 14/11/2005. In response to the show
cause memo, the petitioner has submitted his explanation. Not satisfied
with the said reply, by communication dated 2/6/2006, the second
respondent had issued a charge memo to the petitioner framing 25 charges,
which are serious irregularities that were allegedly committed in a pre-
sanctioned proposal, post sanction follow up and sanction of home loans.
3. According to the charges, loans were sanctioned by the petitioner
in favour of fictitious persons and impersonators in respect of home loans,
agricultural vehicle loans (kissan bikes) and agricultural loans (crop and
borewells). Loans were advanced on the basis of fake and fabricated
documents. In case of loans for purchase of vehicles, documents were not
verified and after grant of loan, it was not ensured that the vehicles were
purchased, thereby, the Bank had faced a financial loss to the tune of
Rs.31,23,000/- excluding MOI and future interest. The said illegalities were
committed during the period 10/6/2000 to 31/6/2004.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
4. During the course of enquiry, relevant evidence was placed on
record and after enquiry was concluded, charges 1 to 10, 12 to 19, 24 and 25
were held to be fully proved, charges 11 and 23 were not proved and charge
Nos.20 and 21 in respect of two accounts, it was proved and charge No.22
in respect of one account was fully proved. The details of the charges are
not necessary for adjudication of the present case.
5. The disciplinary authority submitted the enquiry report on
15/6/2007. In the enquiry report, running to about 28 pages, the evidence
placed on record and also the defence of the petitioner was discussed.
Thereafter, considering the charges that were proved, the disciplinary
authority/Assistant General Manager awarded the major penalty of
compulsory retirement in terms of Regulation 4 (h) of Indian Bank Officer
Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976.
6. On the basis of the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, who is the Deputy
General Manager. In the appeal filed, several grounds were raised. The
appellate authority found that the petitioner was reckless in lending and has
violated the guidelines of Head Office. Further, the petitioner was
responsible for sanctioning benami loans to impersonators, having
knowledge about their impersonation. The acts of the petitioner resulted in
a financial loss of Rs.31.23 lakhs to the Bank, excluding the interest
component. Accordingly, appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed
and the appellate authority found that charges that were proved against the
petitioner were serious in nature and could not be condoned. The appellate
authority found that finding of the disciplinary authority needs no
interference and confirmed the punishment of compulsory retirement.
7. The petitioner has raised several grounds on the basis of facts
regarding the disposal of loans, fictitious persons, impersonators and the
records that were produced during the course of enquiry, etc. Though
several grounds were raised in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner would confine his argument that 17 (3)
of Indian Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
1976 Regulation, which provides for appeal was not followed. In view of
not following Regulation 17 (3) and (4), findings by the disciplinary
authority and consequent confirmation by the appellate authority have to be
set aside.
8. It is relevant to extract Regulation 17 (3) and (4) of Indian Bank
Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 and the same
read as follows:-
“(3). The authority which made the order
appealed against shall, on receipt of a copy of the
appeal from the appellant, forward the same with
its comments thereon together with the relevant
records to the Appellate Authority within a period
not exceeding forty five days from the date of the
receipt of the appeal.
4. The Appellate Authority shall on receipt
of the comments and records of the case from the
authority whose order is appealed against,
consider whether the order of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
suspension/findings are justified or whether the
penalty is excessive or inadequate and pass
appropriate orders. The Appellate Authority may
pass an order confirming, enhancing, reducing or
setting aside the penalty/suspension or remitting
the case to the authority which imposed the
penalty or to any other authority with such
directions as it may deem fit in the circumstances
of the case.
Provided that:
(i). If the enhanced penalty, which the
Appellate Authority proposed to impose is a
major penalty specified in clauses (f), (g), (h), (i)
and (j) of Regulation 4 and an inquiry as
provided in Regulation 6 has not already been
held in the case, the Appellate Authority shall
direct that such an enquiry be held in accordance
with the provisions of Regulation 6 and thereafter
consider the record of the inquiry and pass such
orders as it may deem proper.
(ii). If the Appellate Authority decides to
enhance the punishment but an enquiry has
already been held as provided in Regulation 6,
the Appellate Authority shall give a show cause
notice to the officer employee as to why the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
enhanced penalty should not be imposed upon
him and shall pass final order after taking into
account the representation, if any, submitted by
the officer employee.”
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once
an appeal is filed before the appellate authority, it is incumbent on the
disciplinary authority to forward the complete record along with the
comments to the appellate authority (within 45 days). Since there is nothing
on record to show that the comments were sent by the disciplinary authority
along with the records to the appellate authority, there is gross violation of
Regulation 17 (3), for which reason the punishment imposed on the writ
petitioner deserves to be set aside.
10. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in MAHARANA PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
AND OTHERS (2025 SCC Online SC – 890), wherein, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the
petitioner therein was not in tune with the principles of fairness as well as
natural justice prejudicing his defence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
11. The learned counsel also relied on a judgment rendered in
ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE AND ANOTHER Vs. R.K.UPPAL
(2011 JT SC – 91), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, had held that the
order of the appellate authority suffered from not giving any reasons on the
appeal filed by the petitioner therein.
12. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in
W.P.No.26110 of 2005 (K.DURAISAMY Vs. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER
GENERAL), wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has held
that in all cases, the appellate authority cannot decline an opportunity of
hearing the delinquent Officer.
13. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents would submit that the proceedings of the disciplinary authority
and appellate authority did not suffer from any infirmities and due
procedure was followed. The petitioner was given ample opportunity, both
at the stage of disciplinary proceedings and also at the stage of appeal.
Having considered the explanation of the petitioner, the disciplinary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
authority has given its finding.
14. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in BACHAHAN DEVI AND
ANOTHER Vs. NAGAR NIGAM, GORAKHPUR AND ANOTHER (2018)
12 SCC – 372, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that as a matter of
routine, remand orders for fresh consideration by the disciplinary/appellate
authority cannot be passed.
15. In a judgment reported in (2006) 7 SCC – 212, STATE BANK
OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. RAMESH DINKAR PUNDE, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the High Court cannot sit in re-appreciation of
evidence which was considered by the disciplinary authority and the
appellate authority. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that in banking business, the officials have to do their jobs with absolute
devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty, so that confidence of the public
would not be impaired.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
16. It is not the case of the petitioner that any prejudice was caused
to him either during the course of the enquiry by the disciplinary authority,
nor that no opportunity was given to ventilate his grievance before the
appellate authority. The petitioner has preferred an appeal raising several
issues on facts, before the appellate authority.
17. In K.L.TRIPATHI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND
OTHERS, (1984) 1 SCC – 43, a Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
on facts held that though reasons were not expressly stated by the appellate
authority, however, the reasons were implicit regarding the charges that
were framed, the explanation offered and also the reply of the appellat
therein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that in the facts of the case
that conclusion of the authority imposing penalty of dismissal was not
unreasonable.
18. The main ground that was urged by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that comments were not passed on by the disciplinary authority
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
to the appellate authority while sending the case record. The said ground
cannot form basis to set aside the finding by the disciplinary authority and
the subsequent finding by the appellate authority. As seen from the finding
of the disciplinary authority, disciplinary authority has commented upon the
evidence and also the conduct of the petitioner in its findings. The
comments of the disciplinary authority are implicit in its findings. Even in
the absence of any such comments being separately provided to the
appellate authority, it cannot be called as violation of the Rules of the Bank.
It is not stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how not giving
the comments separately other than the enquiry report, had in any way
prejudiced to the petitioner either in filing the appeal or having any impact
on the findings by the appellate authority.
19. The Appellate authority has independently on the basis of the
record provided, has come to a conclusion that the findings of the
disciplinary authority needs no interference. Though the findings of the
appellate authority or the grounds raised by the petitioner are not in detail,
however, the appellate authority has discussed the sum and substance of the
allegation levelled, grounds raised by the petitioner and also the findings of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
the disciplinary authority. In the present facts of the case, since there is no
violation of any Rule prescribed for conducting enquiry nor any principles
of natural justice being violated. Hence, this Court finds that the instant
writ petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.
20. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
(K.SURENDER,J)
21/11/2025
mvs.
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
K.SURENDER, J
mvs.
Pre-delivery order made in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
21/11/2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 02:47:34 pm )
