W.A.(MD)No.2167 of 2023 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.08.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR W.A.(MD)No.2167 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD)No.17347 of 2023 1.The Appellate Authority, (Board of Directors) Pandyan Grama Bank, No.2-70-1, Collectorate Complex, Administrative Office, Virudhunagar - 626 002, Now Known as Tamil Nadu Grama Bank, No.6, Yercaud Road, Hasthampatty, Salem – 636 007. 2.The Chairman / Disciplinary Authority, Pandyan Grama Bank, No.2-70-1, Collectorate Complex, Administrative Office, Virudhunagar - 626 002, Now Known as Tamil Nadu Grama Bank, No.6, Yercaud Road, Hasthampatty, Salem – 636 007. 3.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Grama Bank, No.6, Yercaud Road, Hasthampatty, Salem - 636 007. ... Appellants (Cause title is accepted vide order dated 1/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2167 of 2023 21.06.2023 in C.M.P.(MD)No.7015 of 2023 in W.A.(MD)SR.No.30421 of 2023 by RSMJ & LVGJ) Vs. 1.K.Gurunathan 2. The General Manager / Chief Vigilance Officer, Vigilance Department, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. 3.The Vice - President, Pandyan Grama Bank Officers Union, C.O.Colony, Back to Regional Transport Office, Opposite to Collectorate, Virudhunagar - 626 002. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No. 19668 of 2013 dated 07.02.2023 on the file of this Court. For Appellants : Mr.K.Srinivasa Moorthy, For Mr.M.P.Senthil. For Respondents : Mr.V.Vijay Shankar for R JUDGMENT (By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) Heard both sides. 2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2167 of 2023 2.The Management of Pandyan Grama Bank has filed this writ appeal challenging the order dated 07.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.19668 of 2013 filed by the first respondent herein (herein after referred to as writ petitioner). 3.The writ petitioner joined Pandyan Grama Bank as Field Supervisor on 01.04.1985. He was promoted as Scale II Officer with effect from 12.05.2003. He was then posted at Keelakarai Branch. Whileso, charge memo dated 11.12.2007 was issued by the disciplinary authority containing the following articles of charges:- “a. On 26.06.2006, you had failed to report to Head Office, to non-availability of jewel packets relating to AJL 3991/04 and AJL 3681/05 pledged in the name of Mrs.Manimegalai wife of Mr.S.Sundaravadivelu and thus you had suppressed the unauthorized removal of jewel packets by Mr.Sundaravadivelu, and failed to protect the bank's interest. b. On 28.06.2006, you had created false jewel loans records/vouchers, by tampering with the jewel loan ledgers to make it appear as though jewel loan accounts, namely AJL 3991/04 and AJL 3681/05 were closed and jewels redeemed by Mrs.Manimegalai in the normal course 3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2167 of 2023 c. At Keelakarai Branch, you failed to implement and enforce and of important requirement of banking norm, i.e., dual custody cash/jewel keys at all times, which facilitated Mr.A.Sundaravadivelu in unauthorisedly removing the two jewel loan packets, namely AJL 3991/04 and AJL 3681/05 from the jewel safe for his personal gain. Thus you have failed to protect the bank's interest.” 4.Enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer submitted report holding that all the charges framed against the delinquent stood proved. Copy of the enquiry report was served on the writ petitioner and his further representation was also obtained. Show cause notice dated 26.09.2012 was issued and the punishment of compulsory retirement was proposed to be imposed. The writ petitioner offered his comments on the show cause notice. Thereafter, the final order dated 27.11.2012 was passed awarding punishment of compulsory retirement with immediate effect. 5.Challenging the same, the writ petitioner filed an appeal before the Board of Directors. The appellate authority vide order dated 26.09.2013 dismissed the appeal. Questioning the same, 4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2167 of 2023 W.P.(MD)No.19688 of 2013 was filed. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 07.02.2023 in the following terms:- “10.The allegation against the petitioner is that his staff namely, Sundaravadivelu had removed the jewel packets and the petitioner and Sundaravadivelu were joint custodians of the jewel packets. In spite of knowledge of removal of jewel packets, the petitioner had not reported the incident to the higher officials and the petitioner had resorted to tampering of bank records. The contention of the petitioner is that he had not removed the jewel packets and this fact is admitted by both the petitioner and the respondents. It is the contention of the respondents that the said Sundaravadivelu had removed the packets and the petitioner being the Manager of the Branch failed to report the removal of the jewel packets to the higher officials. 11.The further contention of the petitioner is that he was transferred to another place on 12.06.2006 and the alleged incident as per the respondent has happened on 26.06.2006 to 29.06.2006. The incumbent Mr.Sunder Singh ought to take over the charge. While handing over, a check of stocks was carried out on 26.06.2006 and it was found that jewel packets were missing on 26.06.2006 and after thorough checkup on 27.06.2006 the jewel packets were available and on 28.06.2006 the owner of the jewel had remitted the amount and redeemed the jewels. On considering the rival submissions this Court has given its anxious consideration. It is seen that the petitioner was in the period of 5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2167 of 2023 handing over the charge due to transfer and the transfer was granted on 12.06.2006, the jewels was found missing on 26.06.2006 and on thorough checkup it was found on 27.06.2006, the next date. Since the owner of the jewels had redeemed the jewels on 28.06.2006 the next day, a suspicion was entertained and the petitioner is made liable for not reporting the missing of jewels to higher authorities and had supported his staff namely Sundarvaivelu by tampering records. Since the allegation is that the petitioner has not informed the missing jewels to the higher authority, the present action has been initiated. This Court is of the considered opinion that for the said allegation the punishment is disproportionate and shocking the conscious of this Court. 12.The next allegation is that the petitioner had tampered with the records by over writing the ledger, which the petitioner denied. The contention of the petitioner is that in the Keelakarai Branch jewel loan transactions would be nearly 100 transactions daily and due to numerous transactions, there will be huge rush in the banking hours, hence after banking hours while tallying the transactions there may be some delay and corrections in the ledger. The respondents relied on two entries for the said allegation and submitted that the two jewels were retrieved on the same day i.e. on 28.06.2006 and there is an entry in Serial No.19, AGL 3681/05 amount Rs.6800/- and last entry in Serial No.76, AGL 3991/04, amount to Rs.22,400/- by the said Manimegalai. The contention of the respondents that there is overwriting in the total and grand total and the overwriting occurred after adding Rs.22,400/-, for 6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2167 of 2023 which the respondents relied on the ledger. On verifying the ledger, the said Manimegalai had remitted Rs.6800/- in the Serial No.19, thereafter had remitted Rs.22,400/- in Serial No.76. The allegation of the respondent is that the last entry of Rs.22400/- was made after closing of ledger, hence there was overwriting in total, hence there is a tampering of records. If the case of the respondent ought to be accepted, then the entry in Serial No.19 also cannot be accepted. But the Serial No.19 cannot be disputed since the same was entered in the course of transaction and subsequently there are as many as 75 transactions. Moreover, the respondents are not disputing and cannot dispute the transaction in Serial No.19, but disputing Serial No.76 and alleges the petitioner had tampered the records. Hence this Court is of the considered opinion that the stand of the respondents is inconsistent. Moreover, the respondents have held the charges are proved based on assumption and not on any evidence. 13.The next contention raised by the respondents is that the said Sundaravadivelu had taken the jewels and had kept the same jewels in the Ramanathapuram District Branch, for which the respondents submitted that the weight of the jewels is same and the jewels are similar. But the petitioner submitted that the said jewels are not similar and the weight is different. As per the counter filed in writ petition the weight of three jewels is stated as 45.300 grams and for one jewel as 15.800 grams and the total is 61.100 grams. The jewels mortgaged in Ramnad is two jewels as stated in the counter wherein it is stated one chain weighs 16 grams, one chain 7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2167 of 2023 weighs 23.400 grams, one collar chain 32 grams and the total is 71.400 grams. Apart from this necklace and chain 34.500 in the name of Vimalavathi. On comparing the weights there is difference and hence the contention of the respondent that the weight is one and the same is incorrect. Even if it is so, attributing intension on the petitioner is unwarranted. Moreover, even according to the respondents, the entire act was not carried out by the petitioner, but by the said Sundarvadivelu. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has allowed the said Sundarvadivelu to stealthily remove the jewels, to cover up has falsely tampered records, thereby has not followed the norms prescribed by the bank. This Court is of the considered opinion that the very allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner had not followed the norms prescribed and petitioner has not exercised his supervisory power as per norms prescribed and has allowed the said Sundarvadivelu to redeem without following the norms, then in such circumstances the punishment of compulsory retirement is disproportionate to the act alleged. Even the respondents have not alleged that the petitioner had carried out such acts for his personal gain. Therefore, this Court is inclined to modify the punishment of compulsory retirement to stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect. It is seen that the petitioner had not worked from the date of order of the punishment and now he had attained the age of superannuation. 14.Therefore, this Court is modifying the punishment as of compulsory retirement to stoppage of increment for two years 8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2167 of 2023 without cumulative effect. The petitioner is entitled to continuity of service, but is not entitled to any backwages for the non- employment period on the principles of no work no pay. The petitioner is entitled to terminal benefits. The respondents shall implement the order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.” Questioning the said order, the management has filed this writ appeal. 6.The learned counsel for the bank pointed out that the writ petitioner was guilty of the lapses attributed to him and that the findings of the enquiry officer which were confirmed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority rest on solid evidence. He would contend that a Branch Manager is the linchpin of the banking operations and that he should exhibit the highest standards of devotion to duty and integrity. In the case on hand, two packets of jewels which were pledged by none other than the wife of the other delinquent went missing and this came to light when a new Branch Manager came to assume charge. The new Branch Manager had given a written complaint on 13.07.2006 and this was marked as ME-19. M.Sundersingh, the new Branch Manager took charge from the delinquent was examined as witness during enquiry and he admitted having sent the letter dated 13.07.2006 (ME - 19) in 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2167 of 2023 which difference of two packets in agricultural jewel loan accounts had been brought to the notice of the management. While the difference was detected on 26.06.2006, the accounts were set right by 29.06.2006. The learned counsel for the bank would argue that the records were fudged with the knowledge of the writ petitioner. He, therefore, called upon this Court to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allow this writ appeal. 7.Per contra, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner had served the bank from 1985 till November 2012 and that he had a clean track record. According to him, two packets went missing but they had not been removed from the strong room. It was discovered a day later in another tray. He drew our attention to the answers given by Sundersingh in his cross examination which clearly support the stand of the delinquent. He submitted that the learned Single Judge had passed an equitable order and that it does not call for interference. 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2167 of 2023 8.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. It must be noted at the very outset that this writ appeal has been filed only by the management and not by the employee. Therefore, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has to confine himself to justifying that interference with the quantum of punishment was in order. He cannot assail the finding of guilt. 9.We went through the relevant records. We do notice that there is some over-writing. But even according to the management, the writ petitioner is not guilty of any act of misappropriation. It is only the other delinquent / Sundaravadivelu who appears to be primarily culpable. Probably, that was why, he was awarded with punishment of dismissal from service. 10.The bank has not suffered any loss whatsoever. In fact, there has been no formal complaint from any quarter. The amount involved is very small. The delinquent can at best be guilty of oversight. Probably to cover up what had happened, the agricultural jewel loan accounts in question were hastily allowed to be closed. For this, imposing the 11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2167 of 2023 punishment of compulsory retirement appears to be grossly disproportionate. The writ petitioner has served the bank for close to three decades. His track record appears to be otherwise clean. During the pendency of the writ proceedings, he had already reached the age of superannuation. The learned Single Judge had also denied him backwages. We, therefore, do not propose to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in respect of quashing of punishment of compulsory retirement on the writ petitioner. 11.At the same time, Paragraph Nos.13 and 14 of the order of the learned Single Judge do not go together. In Paragraph No.13, it was indicated that the Court felt inclined to modify the punishment to one of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect. But in the operative portion, the punishment imposed on the writ petitioner was modified as stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect. 12.Considering the overall facts and circumstances, we modify the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the following terms:- 12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2167 of 2023 (i) The punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the writ petitioner is modified to one of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. In all other aspects, the order of the learned Single Judge is confirmed. (ii) While computing the monetary benefits payable to the writ petitioner, the pension already paid shall be duly adjusted and taken into account. (iii) Time for compliance of the order of this Court is twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13.This writ appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (G.R.S. J.,) & (K.R.S. J.,) 13.08.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias 13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2167 of 2023 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. and K.RAJASEKAR, J. ias W.A.(MD)No.2167 of 2023 13.08.2025 14/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis