WA/2439/2026 of Assistant General Manager/Disciplinary Authority Vs S Balasubramaniam on 28 August 2026

JUDGMENT

(Krishnaswamy Govindarajan J.) The writ appeal was filed as against the order dated 18.11.2025. The writ petition was allowed by modifying the punishment of dismissal from service into compulsory retirement with a direction to the respondents in the writ petition to settle the pension and other retirement benefits. Aggrieved on the said order, the respondents Bank filed the present writ appeal.

2. The prayer in the writ petition is one for certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the order of the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Ref/F428:SAL:VIG:2010-11:3629, dated 01.02.2011 and the order of the 2nd respondent in his Ref.CO:SAL:VG:96: 2010-11 dated 05.10.2010 and to quash the same and consequently, provide the petitioner with the service benefits and other emoluments.

( Uploaded on: 28/08/2026 05:47:13 pm )

3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he joined the service of the respondents Bank and served in various capacities. Between October 2007 and February 2009, he served as Branch Manager of Veerapandi Branch, Indian Bank. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred as Manager, Service Branch, Salem. On inspection and verification of agriculture loan accounts, a show cause notice was issued in respect of certain serious lapses/irregularities in sanctioning and disbursing the agriculture loans during his tenure as Branch Manager of Veerapandi Branch. On the basis of the said show cause notice, charges were framed, which was denied by the writ petitioner. Thereafter, preliminary inquiry was conducted and a disciplinary inquiry was also ordered. On the basis of the disciplinary proceedings, the Enquiry Officer vide his report dated 07.08.2010 held that 14 charges were proved and 2 charges were not proved. The said enquiry report was served on the petitioner on 23.08.2010. Subsequent to the reply submitted by the petitioner, a punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on 05.10.2010. The petitioner further contended that on 11.11.2010, he preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which was rejected as devoid of merits vide communication dated 01.02.2011. The petitioner further contended that the higher officials responsible for final approval of the loan are spared and the petitioner alone was imposed with the charges. Hence, on that ground, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order.

4. The respondent Bank filed a detailed counter-affidavit denying all the allegations and contending that a reasonable opportunity was given, asserting that there is absolutely no necessity to interfere with the order of the Disciplinary Authority.

( Uploaded on: 28/08/2026 05:47:13 pm )

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. The reason for modifying the punishment in paragraph 11 of the order of the Writ Court, which reads as follows:-

11. The main allegations against the petitioner are that of reckless and irregular lending. The said allegations do not in any way attribute any kind of conscious act to defraud the bank or to cause any kind of loss to the bank. No doubt, there are irregularities in disbursement of the loans, however, that by itself would not indicate any fraudulent nature of the petitioner nor his involvement in disbursal of the loan amounts in collusion with the borrowers. The loss caused to the bank alone cannot be considered as the basis to impose the major punishment, but all other factors have also to be taken into consideration. When it is not found that the petitioner was involved in any fraudulent activity in collusion with the borrowers or misappropriated the amount, the imposition of the punishment of dismissal from service, in the opinion of this Court, is harsh and disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner.

( Uploaded on: 28/08/2026 05:47:13 pm )

7. The Writ Court came to the conclusion that when the Bank has not established the charges, the only available option is to remit the case to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh consideration. The Court does not have the power to modify the punishment order, especially in respect of charges of grievous nature. The respondent is working in the Bank and handling the financial accounts of the Bank as well as the public money. When that be the case, he should be more careful in dealing with the finance of the bank.

8. The charge against the petitioner involves the issuance of agricultural loan against the rules. It is for the petitioner also to establish his case that he sanctioned the loan only according to the rules or on the other aspect that the sanctioning authority is his higher official and he is not the sanctioning authority. Either of the fact is not established before this Court. On the other hand, the appellants Bank also has not placed any materials for imposing a punishment of dismissal from service.

9. In view of the same, we hereby set aside the orders of the Writ Court, as well as the impugned orders dated 01.02.2011 and 05.10.2010 and direct the appellant concerned to revisit the charges and explanation, and if necessary, call for fresh explanation from the writ petitioner and pass orders according to the Service Rules, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

( Uploaded on: 28/08/2026 05:47:13 pm )

10. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 28-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Sni

( Uploaded on: 28/08/2026 05:47:13 pm )

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. KSA-2 Order made in WA No. 2439 of 2026 28-08-2026

( Uploaded on: 28/08/2026 05:47:13 pm )