I. SHAHUL HAMEED Vs. CHAIRMAN, PANDYAN GRAMA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.17990 of 2013 was formerly working as the Manager of Illuppaiyur Branch, Pandyan Grama Bank in Virudhunagar District. The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.18550 of 2013 was working as the Cashier in the said branch of the Bank. Admittedly, one Mr.B.Muthupandi approached the said Branch for jewel loan. The jewel produced by Mr.Muthupandi was appraised by the Appraiser and certified to be worth for a loan of Rs.800/ - only. However, these two petitioners, in collusion with each other, prepared and passed a debit voucher for Rs.7000/ - to make it appear as though Rs.7000/ - was paid to Mr.Muthupandi. But, in fact, they paid only Rs.800/ - to Muthupandi, as the proceeds of his jewel loan and these two petitioners allegedly misappropriated Rs.6200/ -. It is further alleged that in order to conceal the act of misappropriation, these two petitioners had asked the introducer of the jewel loan borrower to pay the misappropriated amount with interest on 05.03.2002.

(2.) WITH these allegations, independent charge memos were issued to the petitioners, on 20.05.2003, The petitioners denied the charges. Having not been satisfied with the same, enquiry officers were appointed by the Bank to hold an enquiry into the charges against each petitioner. The petitioners also participated before the respective enquiry officers. Finally, the enquiry officer concerned held the respective petitioner guilty of the charges. Based on the same, by means of separate orders, dated 12.09.2011 in AIVD/V/309/2011 -2012 (in respect of the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.17990/2013) and in AIVD/V/310/2011 -12 (in respect of the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.18550 of 2013), the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of dismissal from service, in terms of Regulation 38(II)(b)(vi) of the Pandyan Grama Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2001. As against the same, the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.17990 of 2013 preferred an appeal on 25.10.2011 and on the same day, the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.18550 of 2013, filed a separate appeal. The appellate authority, namely the 2nd respondent/appellate authority, by order dated 26.09.2013 in AIVD/764/2013 -14, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.17990 of 2013 and similarly, by order in AIVD/763/2013 -14, dated 26.09.2013, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.18550 of 2013. Aggrieved over these two orders, the petitioners have come up with these two writ petitions.

(3.) SINCE common issues are involved in both the writ petitions, they were heard together and they are disposed of by this common order.