R MUTHUVIJAYAN Vs. CHAIRMAN PANDIYAN GRAMA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the respondent, dated 04.12.2009 by which the respondent bank has placed the petitioner under suspension for certain acts of commission and omission relating to the lending of money exceeding the discretionary power etc., and also for a direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service.

(2.) The petitioner having served as Probationary officer in the respondent bank in 1981 was promoted in 1999 as Scale-II Officer and thereafter, in 2007 as Scale III Officer and on promotion he was posted at Virudhunagar from Aruppukotti Branch and transferred immediately to the Head Office at Virudhunagar. After he was transferred to Mudhugulathur at Ramanathapuram Branch, he was again transferred to Tirunelveli Town Branch wherein he is working from July 2008.

(3.) It is his case that as the Manager of the Bank there is not even a single NPA account and the loans are regularly repaid. As a member of the Pandiyan Grama Bank Officers Association to which he was elected as its President in March 2009 and in that way he had to represent the management in respect of the welfare measures of the officers including the regularisation of the service, in respect of certain transfers, apart from some agitation and demands and industrial disputes was raised by the association, regarding the issuance of charge sheet in respect of one of the members association has also taken up the cause and ultimately the individual has approached this Court. Further, it is stated that there has been some struggle by the Officers' Association and protest meetings were also called for. It was, in those circumstances, the impugned order of suspension came to be served on the petitioner on 07.12.2009 on the basis that the petitioner has committed various commissions and omissions including indiscriminate lending of loans exceeding discretionary power as stated above. It is stated that in a meeting of 10 Senior Officers in October 2008 to decide about the procedure for sanctioning loans and conducting the business of all the branches, all the Senior Officers were granted permission to exercise the discretionary powers of Area Manager for sanctioning of credit proposals in order to meet the challenges and to take quick decision in disposal of loan application. As one of such officers, the petitioner has exercised his discretionary power in the sanction of the loans and the details have been reported to the Area Manager every month regularly and there has never been any adverse remark against him. It is stated that there was an audit in the Tirunelveli Town Branch in October 2009 in which, no discrepancy was found. Out of Rs.1.39 crores of loan disbursed as on 27.11.2009, Rs.49 laks have been recovered from the borrowers and there was no NPA account. It is stated that the petitioner has followed the principles laid down in the Regional Rural Banks Act and therefore, the order of suspension is challenged on the basis that it is with vindictive motive since the petitioner is the office bearer of the officers' union. It is also stated that the bank has issued suspension order in respect of two workers and charge sheet issued in respect of six persons and explanation called for from 10 persons and therefore, the entire motive is vindictive in nature. The impugned order of suspension is challenged on various grounds including that the same is against Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; that the suspension order is vindictive in nature since the petitioner being the President of the Pandian Grama Bank Officers Association; that the violation has not been specifically stated to be against any specified instructions or circular; that the order is against the letter of General Manager, dated 29.10.2008 who has permitted the petitioner to exercise higher layer of discretionary power of an Area Manager to keep the bank's image; that the impugned order failed to specify the omission and commission in the circumstance, that the petitioner has been working from 1981 with unblemished record of service.