{"id":195393,"date":"2003-12-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-12-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-k-perichiappan-on-15-december-2003"},"modified":"2016-09-03T06:51:24","modified_gmt":"2016-09-03T01:21:24","slug":"indian-overseas-bank-vs-k-perichiappan-on-15-december-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-k-perichiappan-on-15-december-2003","title":{"rendered":"Indian Overseas Bank vs K. Perichiappan on 15 December, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Indian Overseas Bank vs K. Perichiappan on 15 December, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 15\/12\/2003\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice V.S. SIRPURKAR\nand\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice N. KANNADASAN\n\nW.A.  No.1010 OF 1999\n\nIndian Overseas Bank\nrep. by its General Manager\nCentral Office\nChennai 600 002                 ...                      Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\nK. Perichiappan                        ...                Respondent\n\n\nAppeal under Cl.15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 11-6 -1999\nmade inW.P.  No.9706 of 1991\n\n!For Appellant          ::  Mr.  N.G.R.  Prasad for\n                        M\/s.  Row & Reddy\n\n^For Respondent ::  Mr.  K.  Chandru, Senior Counsel\n                        for Mr.  C.  Prakasam\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
V.S.  SIRPURKAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
                The appellant Indian Overseas Bank  (hereinafter  called  ‘the
\nBank’)  challenges  the judgment of the learned single Judge whereby, the writ
\npetition  filed  by   the   respondent   herein   (hereinafter   called   ‘the
\ndelinquent-officer) was allowed by the learned single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
                2.   The  delinquent-officer  had  joined the bank in 1968 and
\ncontinued to serve in the various capacities.  A scheme was launched providing
\nloans in the year 1982-83 under Integrated Rural Development Programme  (IRDP)
\nto help small and marginal farmers.  These loans were used to be sanctioned by
\nthe   regional   office   and,   according   to   the   policy,   it  was  the
\ndelinquent-officer who granted the loans as the Manager of the branch  on  the
\nrecommendations of the Panchayat Union.  The loans were supposedly to be given
\ndirectly to the recipient agriculturists and it is to them that the cheques of
\nthe loan amounts were being issued.\n<\/p>\n
        2.1.   Some complaints were received from the recipients in November 1\n<\/p>\n
983.  However, they were withdrawn.  In the meantime,  the  delinquent-officer
\nwas  transferred  to the Regional office of the bank at Tiruchy as an officer.
\nAfter his transfer, his successor collected some material,  on  the  basis  of
\nwhich  a  charge-sheet  came  to  be framed against him, containing charges of
\nmisappropriation of funds as also the irregularities in  connection  with  the
\ngrant of  loans  as  also  its  disbursements.   The charges were based on the
\nwritten complaints received and the investigations made.  The enquiry was duly
\nheld and completed and ultimately the delinquent-officer  was  ordered  to  be
\ndismissed.   The delinquent-officer, therefore, filed an appeal to the General
\nManager provided in the bank rules.  However, the  same  was  also  dismissed,
\nnecessitating  the  employee to file a writ petition before the learned single
\nJudge.\n<\/p>\n
        2.2.  It was the case of the  delinquent-officer  before  the  learned
\nsingle  Judge  that  the enquiry was not properly and fairly held; that he was
\nnot even heard on the question of punishment; that  the  enquiry  officer  had
\nfailed  to  see  that  the  delinquent-officer  was deliberately framed at the
\ninstance of some persons, who were inimical to him.  It seems that the learned
\nJudge found fault with the merits of the case  and  recorded  his  independent
\nfindings,  suggesting  thereby  that  the enquiry officer had wrongly held the
\ndelinquent-officer guilty.  He also found that  the  appellate  authority  had
\nmechanically dismissed the appeal.  The learned Judge also rewrote the finding
\nof facts.      Thus   the  petition  was  allowed  and  reinstatement  of  the
\ndelinquent-officer was  ordered,  with  all  the  attendant  service  benefits
\ntogether  with full backwages and the backwages also ordered to carry interest
\nat the rate of 12% per annum from the date  of  dismissal  till  the  date  of
\nreinstatement.   It  is  this  judgment of the learned single Judge, which has
\nfallen for consideration in the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                3.  Shri N.G.R.  Prasad, learned  counsel  appearing  for  the
\nbank  has pointed out that this was a case where a full-fledged and a detailed
\nenquiry had taken place wherein both the oral as well as documentary  evidence
\nwas tendered.    He  pointed  o re was voluminous material on record available
\nsuggesting the misconduct on the part of the delinquent-officer, which was  in
\nthe  serious  nature of misappropriation, falsification of records as also the
\ncriminal breach of trust.  He further  points  out  that  a  detailed  enquiry
\nreport  was  given  by  the  enquiry  officer,  discussing the evidence of the
\nwitnesses threadbare and it is on this basis that the enquiry officer has come
\nto  the  conclusion  that  the  delinquent-officer  had  in   fact   committed
\nmisappropriation and  had  also  cheated  the  bank.    The  learned  counsel,
\ntherefore, urges that the learned single Judge  travelled  completely  outside
\nhis  jurisdiction  under  Art.226  in  considering  the  questions of fact and
\nupsetting the findings of facts recorded by the  enquiry  officer  as  if  the
\nlearned Judge was an appellate court.  Learned counsel argues that the learned
\nsingle  Judge  has  nowhere  bothered  even  to  refer  to the evidence of the
\nwitnesses which evidence was  clearly  incriminating  evidence  while  setting
\naside  the  finding  of  the  facts  and  coming  to  the  conclusion that the
\ndelinquent-officer was liable to be exonerated on all counts.  With  reference
\nto  several Supreme Court decisions, the learned counsel urges that it was not
\npossible for the learned single Judge to enter into the arena of  appreciation
\nof  evidence  and  to set aside the finding of facts as if he was an appellate
\ncourt.  According to him, in the writ petition, the learned single  Judge  was
\nobliged to consider only whether there was incriminating material available on
\nrecord  and  if such material was in fact available then, he could not take up
\non himself the task of appreciating the evidence  and  come  to  the  contrary
\nconclusions.   Learned  counsel,  therefore,  urges  that  the  whole order is
\nwithout jurisdiction and tends to be illegal.\n<\/p>\n
                4.  Shri K.  Chandru, learned senior counsel did not seriously
\ndispute  the position of law as regards the jurisdiction of the learned single
\nJudge as culled out from the Supreme Court judgments.  He, however,  tried  to
\nargue  the  case  on merits suggesting that in fact there was no incriminating
\nmaterial even before the learned single  Judge  and,  therefore,  the  learned
\ncounsel  earnestly  argued  that  on  merits,  there was no material available
\nbefore the enquiry officer and, therefore, the findings of the enquiry officer
\nwere not only improper but perverse also and as such, the  learned  Judge  has
\ncommitted no  error  in upsetting the findings.  Learned counsel urged that it
\nis not as if the High Court cannot at all look into the findings.  He  pointed
\nout  that where there was no material and where there was total denial of fair
\ntrial, the High Court certainly look into the findings as has been done by  it
\nin the present case.\n<\/p>\n
                5.  On the backdrop of this rival submissions, it  has  to  be
\nseen  firstly  as to whether there was any material before the enquiry officer
\nand whether his findings were perverse so as to require interference.\n<\/p>\n
                6.  There were in all three charges which have been subdivided
\nfurther.  Under the first charge, it is alleged that in respect of the  number
\nof  small  loans,  the borrowers alleged that they gave a sum of Rs.300\/- each
\nthrough one Mahalingam as illegal gratification to the employee.    Under  the
\nsub-heading,  it  is  alleged that the employee had granted fresh loans to the
\nexisting borrowers\/near relatives with a view  to  appropriate  the  loan  pro
\nceeds  for  the  previous  loans  outstanding and also to avail the benefit of
\nsubsidy without ensuring the genuineness of the loans  granted.    By  way  of
\nsecond  charge  under the heading ‘Agricultural Advances’, it was alleged that
\nwhile granting sericulture advances, the officer demanded and accepted illegal
\ngratification of  Rs.500\/-  each  from  the  agriculturists,  whose  list  was
\nprovided   in  the  charge-sheet,  for  releasing  the  second  stage  of  the
\nsericulture loan sanctioned to the borrowers.    In  the  subheading  of  this
\ncharge by way of charge No.2(b), it was alleged that the concerned officer had
\nnot  ensured  the  genuineness  of  the  loans  granted in the cases listed in
\nAnnexure to the charge-sheet.  In that the employee had failed  to  carry  out
\nthe   pre-sanction   inspection   to  ensure  the  genuineness  of  the  loans
\nrequirements; seocndly, he failed to verify the end use of  loans  immediately
\nafter  release  of  the loans , and thirdly, he had released the loan proceeds
\nonly Rs.2,900\/- as against Rs.4,000\/- sanctioned to the borrowers directly for
\npurchase of bullocks and carts leading to misutilisation of the funds  by  the
\nborrowers  and  a portion of the balance amount of Rs.1,100\/- in each case was
\nmisappropriated by the employee and the middlemen;  fourthly,  it  was  stated
\nthat  the borrowers have not purchased carts\/animals out of the loan proceeds;
\nand  fifthly,  it  was  alleged  that  the  employee  had  not   insured   the
\ncarts\/animals under the master policy of United Insurance Company Limited.  By
\nway  of  charge No.2(c) under the heading ‘Sheep Rearing’, it was alleged that
\nthe employee opened savings bank account in the personal name of the President
\nand the loan granted to the  sheep  breeders  society  was  credited  to  this
\naccount  instead  of  opening  the  account  in  the name of the society after
\nobtaining permission from the Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry.  It  was
\nsecondly  alleged  that  the  employee had not utilised the services of branch
\nAgricultural Officer for purchase of sheep and  verification  of  utilisation.
\nIt  was  thirdly  alleged that out of balance of Rs.1,000\/- each, the employee
\nhad appropriated Rs.200\/- each for share capital of the  member  and  Rs.130\/-
\neach  towards insurance and the balance of Rs.670\/- remained unacounted, which
\ntotalled to Rs.28,810\/-.  Fourthly, it was alleged that out  of  43  units  of
\nsheep  financed  by  the employee, 17 borrowers were not having any sheep unit
\nand out of the remaining 26 units,  some  of  the  parties  did  not  purchase
\nanimals  as  per  requirement  leading  to  shortfall of the number of animals
\npurchased.  Fifthly it was  alleged  that  in  respect  of  the  above  loans,
\nPurchase Committee was not formed, pre as well as post inspection had not been
\ndone; animals purchased were not ear-tagged, with the result insurance company
\nwas  not settling the claims; as per the sanction stipulation, 10% of the loan
\namount, i.e.  Rs.17,200\/- was not deposited in  RDP,  that  the  employee  had
\nfailed  to  take  registered mortgage of lands for twice the value of the loan
\namount by the members in favour of society as per sanction, that he had failed
\nto obtain the veterinary Assistant Surgeon’s certificate showing the  purchase
\nof the  animals.    Under charge No.2(d), under the subheading ‘Diary’, it was
\nalleged that the employee had misappropriated Rs.147\/-  each  while  releasing
\nthe  first  stage  of  diary loans and also Rs.173.75 each while releasing the
\nsecond stage of loans in 78 cases listed in the annexure.  In this behalf,  it
\nwas  alleged  that  while  disbursing  the  loans,  he  had also committed the
\nfollowing lapses inasmuch as the loans were disbursed without any pre-sanction
\ninspection; loan amounts disbursed  were  not  paid  directly  to  vendors  of
\nanimals; that  a  sum  of  Rs.978\/-  was  paid  to one Mr.  Subbumahalingam on
\n28-12-1983 being the amount collected from 39 borrowers for being passed on to
\nthe Veterinary Assistant Surgeon  for  tatooing  animals  when  in  fact  this
\nservice was  bound  to  be done at free of cost by the Veterinary surgeon.  It
\nwas also alleged that he had not formed the Purchase Committee  and  also  had
\nnot  properly  accounted  for  in  regard  to  insurance claim relating to the
\naccount of Mr.  Karugannan.  Lastly, it was suggested under the  heading  ‘Oil
\nEngine and Tyre Cart’ that the loans were granted for enjoying subsidy benefit
\nand  they  were  not  need-based inasmuch as the borrowers were not having any
\ntyre carts and oil engines.\n<\/p>\n
                7.  In this enquiry, the accounts of hundreds of the borrowers
\nwere checked and their statements were also recorded.  It seems that  a  reply
\nwas given  to  the  charge-sheet,  denying  all  the allegations.  The enquiry
\nofficer seems to have written an enquiry report, running  into  about  hundred
\npages.   He  had  taken into account about 158 documents tendered on behalf of
\nthe Management and about 24 documents tendered on behalf of the defence.    As
\nmany  as  18  witnesses  were  examined; 4 out of them for proving the alleged
\nirregularities committed in grant of sericulture loans; about three  witnesses
\nfor  proving  the  alleged  irregularities  in  grant of loans for purchase of
\nbullocks and carts; one for proving the irregularities committed in  grant  of
\ndiary  loan;  office-bearers  of the Milk Producers’ Co-operative Society; one
\nwitness representing the guarantors as also  the  Government  officers.    The
\ndelinquent-officer examined himself as a witness.\n<\/p>\n
                8.   We  have  carefully  seen the whole report which suggests
\nthat the enquiry was held for about 21 days.  Each charge has  been  discussed
\nseparately  in  the  enquiry  report  with  reference to the adduced evidence.
\nThere is a specific reference to the  evidence  of  the  witnesses  and  their
\ncross-examination.   The  enquiry  officer  has  then  recorded  his  findings
\nvis-a-vis the each charge and the subheads thereof.   We  must  say  that  the
\nenquiry  report  is  drawn  very  meticulously  and  the  findings  have  been
\nseparately given against each charge.  Lastly, the enquiry officer  has  given
\nthe gist  of  imputations and the findings.  Ultimately, a conclusion has been
\nreached that the delinquent officer had granted many loans  by  demanding  and
\naccepting  illegal  gratification;  that  he had misappropriated a part of the
\nloan amount; that he did not ensure the genuineness of the loans and  violated
\nthe  norms and terms of sanction of regional office for granting the loans and
\nthat many of the loans have become overdue.  It was, therefore, concluded that
\nthe charge-sheeted officer had failed to ensure and protect the  interests  of
\nthe  bank  with  utmost  integrity,  honesty, devotion and diligence and acted
\notherwise than in his best judgment.\n<\/p>\n
                9.  All the irregularities alleged against the delinquent have
\nbeen threadbare discussed  on  the  basis  of  the  evidence  adduced  by  the
\nwitnesses separately in respect of each charge.  Seeing the whole charge-sheet
\nand the enquiry officer’s report, it cannot be said that this was a case where
\nthere  was no material available or for that matter, this was a case where the
\nenquiry officer had written perverse findings.\n<\/p>\n
                10.  On this backdrop, when we go through the judgment of  the
\nlearned  single  Judge,  it is apparent that the first seven paragraphs merely
\ncontain the statements of facts and the rival contentions, as they emerge from
\nthe affidavits filed before the learned single Judge.  The learned  Judge  has
\nnot quoted  the  charges  faced  by the delinquent officer.  The learned Judge
\nhas, in paragraph 8, proceeded to again  give  a  resume  of  the  allegations
\nagainst  the  delinquent  officer and has made a startling observation that in
\nthe enquiry officer’s  report,  there  was  no  specific  charge  against  the
\ndelinquent officer.    There  is  again a reference to the observations in the
\norder of the disciplinary authority and on the basis of those observations, it
\nis suggested that there was no specific corruption charge or  misappropriation
\nof the  large  amounts  of  the bank by the petitioner.  The learned Judge has
\nthen made a  reference  to  the  fact  that  though  in  the  disbursement  of
\ncart-loans,  the  delinquent  officer  had  misappropriated Rs.2,000\/- in each
\ncase, it was the admitted case of the bank that another sum  of  Rs.900\/-  has
\nbeen  paid by the intermediary and the delinquent but at the same time accepts
\nthat record is there to show that entire sum of Rs.4,000\/- has  been  received
\nby the  borrowers.    Without  naming any particular charge, the learned Judge
\nproceeds to hold that since the loan granted to the co-operative  society  was
\nre-paid, there  will  be  no  question of misappropriation.  The learned Judge
\nfurther proceeds to hold even if it is taken that all the proved charges as it
\nis and has found established by the  enquiry  officer  and  confirmed  by  the
\ndisciplinary  authority,  there is no co-relation at all in between the proved
\ncharges and the punishment awarded.  It is then suggested that the  petitioner
\nwas  not  given  the  opportunity  to  explain  his  case  before awarding the
\npunishment.\n<\/p>\n
                11.   Now,  in  fact,  the  enquiry  report  itself  is  dated
\n27-7-1988  and  the  disciplinary  authority’s  order  is also dated 18-8-1988
\nbefore the law was laid down in Ramzan’khan s  case.    However,  the  learned
\nJudge  has found fault with the whole enquiry report solely on the ground that
\nthe bank was not put to any loss.  Very strangely, it is observed  that  there
\nis  no  complaint against the delinquent-officer, alleging misappropriation of
\nloan amount or demanding gratification.  In fact, the whole report is  replete
\nwith such  complaints.    Even if it is true that the co-operative society had
\nmade good the loss caused to the bank but, in the process  of  disbursing  the
\nloans, the  delinquent officer had earned illegal gains.  It is then suggested
\nthat the investigating  officer  has  coerced  the  witnesses  to  give  false
\nstatements after  the  delinquent officer was transferred from his station.  A
\ngeneral statement is to be found to the  effect  that  there  is  no  specific
\ninstance  that  the  petitioner has caused loss or damage to any amount of the
\nbank.  Then the learned Judge has very strangely written a finding in internal
\npage 15 of the judgment in the following words:\n<\/p>\n
“From all the above aspects of this case, it is very clear that in relation to
\nthe gravity of the proved charges, the punishment of  dismissal  from  service
\nawarded  to  the  petitioner herein is highly disproportionate and against the
\naccepted norms and also the principles of natural justice.   …    …    …
\nTherefore,  I am of the view that this is a clear case wherein great and grave
\ninjustice has been done to the petitioner and the award of punishment in  this
\ncase  is  highly  disproportionate  to  the proved charges and for this single
\nreason itself the impugned orders of the respondents have to be quashed.”
\nIt is then quoted:\n<\/p>\n
“Further even though a number of decisions have been  cited  by  the  bank  in
\nsupport  of  their case, because of the above clear finding arrived at by this
\nCourt, and also due to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,  they
\nare not helpful to the bank.”\n<\/p>\n
Needless  to say, not a single decision relied upon has either been considered
\nor even mentioned in the judgment.  Ultimately, the learned Judge has  allowed
\nthe writ petition and has directed the bank to reinstate the petitioner within
\nthirty  days  from  the  date  of judgment with all attendant service benefits
\ntogether with full backwages and also granted 12% interest per annum on  those
\nbackwages from  the  date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement.  It is,
\ntherefore, obvious that the learned Judge has treaded into the dangerous  area
\nof  appreciation  of  evidence  and  even  without  quoting  the  names of the
\nwitnesses has straight away disproved the evidence.   Likewise,  even  without
\nnaming  the  charges  in  particular  has discarded the findings which were so
\npainstakingly given on the basis of the evidence.  We have deliberately  given
\nthe break-up  of the witnesses and the points on which they were examined.  It
\nis apparent from that, all the witnesses examined, though some  of  them  were
\npartly disbelieved, had supported the case of the Management and it is only on
\nthat basis that the finding of guilt was reached by the enquiry officer on the
\ncharges.   We  cannot see any justification to the order of the learned single
\nJudge in setting aside those findings even without discussing them.   We  have
\ndeliberately  quoted  the  kind  of  discussion  that  is  discerned  from the
\njudgment.  We are unable to agree with the learned Judge that in this case the
\ncharges had not been proved.\n<\/p>\n
                12.  Again, we fail to follow  as  to  how  firstly  when  the
\nlearned  Judge  had  held  that  the  charges were not proved, the question of
\nquantum of punishment could be discussed.  The learned Judge has clearly  held
\nthat  the punishment of dismissal for the proved charges was disproportionate.
\nSuch being the state of affairs, it is not possible for this  Court  to  agree
\nwith the judgment of the learned single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
                13.   In  this  behalf, the law stated by the Supreme Court is
\nwell settled.  In the celebrated decision  in  HIGH  COURT  OF  JUDICATURE  AT
\nBOMBAY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR v.  SHRI UDAYSINGH (JT<\/a> 1997 (5) 298), the Supreme
\nCourt  had  examined the question regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court
\nor the Tribunal, as the case may  be,  while  dealing  with  the  disciplinary
\nmatters.  The  learned  Judges referred to the decision in B.D.  Chaturvedi v.
\nUnion of India & others (JT<\/a> 1995 (8) SCC 65) and relied upon the  observations
\ntherein to the following effect:\n<\/p>\n
Judicial  review  is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner
\nin which the decision is made.  Power of judicial review is  meant  to  ensure
\nthat  the  individual  receives  fair  treatment  and  not  to ensure that the
\nconclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in  the  eye  of
\nthe court.   When an enquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public
\nservant, the Court\/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry  was
\nheld  by  a  competent office or whether rules of natural justice are complied
\nwith.  Whether the findings or conclusions are based  on  some  evidence,  the
\nauthority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and
\nauthority to reach a finding to fact or conclusion.
\nThe  Court  further cautions that such finding must be based on some evidence.
\nThe Court then points out that the technical rules  of  Evidence  Act  do  not
\napply  to  the  disciplinary  proceedings  and,  therefore, when the authority
\naccepts the evidence  and  the  conclusions  receive  support  therefrom,  the
\ndisciplinary  authority  is  entitled  to  hold that the delinquent officer is
\nguilty of charge.  The Court further stated that the  court\/tribunal,  in  its
\npower  of  judicial  review,  does  not  act  as  the  appellate  authority to
\nre-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its’ own independent  findings  on
\nthe basis  of  the  evidence.  The Court had cautioned that the court\/tribunal
\nmay interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the  delinquent
\nofficer  in  a  manner  inconsistent  with  the rules of natural justice or in
\nviolation of statutory rules prescribing the mode  of  inquiry  or  where  the
\nconclusion  or  finding  reached  by the disciplinary authority is based on no
\nevidence.  A further reference has been made to a number  of  other  decisions
\nand ultimately the Court went on to record:\n<\/p>\n
“When  the  conclusion reached by the authority is based on evidence, Tribunal
\nis devoid of power to reappreciate the evidence and would ( sic) come  to  its
\nown conclusion  on  the  proof  of  the  charge.    The only consideration the
\nCourt\/Tribunal  has  in  its  judicial  review  is  to  consider  whether  the
\nconclusion  is based on evidence on record and supports the finding or whether
\nthe conclusion is based on no evidence.”\n<\/p>\n
Seeing these authorities, it is not possible for us to agree with the  learned
\nJudge  as  the learned Judge has travelled outside his jurisdiction in setting
\naside the findings, re-appreciating the evidence and in substituting  his  own
\nfindings in the place of the enquiry officer.\n<\/p>\n
                14.   Shri Chandru, however, relied on the decision in KAILASH
\nNATH GUPTA v.  ENQUIRY OFFICER (R.K.  RAI) ALLAHABAD BANK AND OTHERS<\/a> (2003 SCC
\n(L&S) 1137) to suggest that the courts always have the power to interfere with
\nthe quantum of punishment and that where the punishment  was  disproportionate
\nto the charges, it is always open for the High Court to consider the question.
\nFrom  the aforementioned judgment, learned senior counsel argues that this was
\nalso a case where there were irregularities in disbursement of the loans  but,
\nhowever,  the  Supreme  Court took a lenient view on the ground that they were
\nmere ” irregularities” in disbursement of loans more particularly in the rural
\natmosphere.  It is pointed out that the Supreme Court had remanded the  matter
\nto the  High  Court  to  consider the question of quantum of punishment.  This
\nargument is advanced by the learned senior counsel particularly because we are
\nalso concerned here in this case with the disbursement of loans to  the  small
\nand marginal farmers.\n<\/p>\n
                15.   We have gone through the reported decision carefully and
\nfind that there is an essential difference in the  facts.    In  the  reported
\ndecisions, under the five charges, what is alleged is only irregular nature of
\nloan and  the  procedural la bursement of the loans.  There are no allegations
\nof bribery, misappropriation, cheating, breach of trust, etc.    in  the  said
\ndecision.   It is on this backdrop that the Supreme Court has found fault that
\nthe punishment was disproportionate.  In paragraph 11, it is clearly mentioned
\nby the Supreme Court that the  power  of  interference  with  the  quantum  of
\npunishment was  extremely  limited.   But when relevant factors were not taken
\nnote of, which have some bearing on the quantum of punishment,  certainly  the
\nCourt  can  direct  re-reconsideration  or  in  an appropriate case to shorten
\nlitigation, indicate the punishment to be awarded.  It is  apparent  that  the
\nSupreme  Court  has  noted that in that case there was no occasion in the long
\npast service indicating either irregularity or  misconduct  of  the  appellant
\nexcept  the  charges which were the subjectmatter of his removal from service.
\nThe Court has specifically noted that there was nothing to indicate  that  the
\nappellant had misappropriated any money or committed any act of fraud and that
\nthere  were  some  procedural  irregularities  which  cannot  be  termed to be
\nnegligence to warrant the extreme punishment of dismissal from service.\n<\/p>\n
                16.  That is precisely the case here and the  fraudulent  acts
\nof the delinquent officer have been brought home in the enquiry and the charge
\nof  demanding  and  accepting  illegal  gratification has also been held to be
\nproved.  Under the circumstances, we  cannot  accept  the  contention  of  the
\nlearned  counsel that we should take a lenient view on the question of quantum
\nof punishment or for that  matter  remand  the  case  back  to  the  appellate
\nauthority or  the  disciplinary  authority.  In our view, a correct punishment
\nhas been given considering the gravity of the charges held to be proved on the
\nbasis of the available material before the enquiry officer.    We,  therefore,
\nallow  this  appeal,  set  aside  the judgment of the learned single Judge and
\norder the dismissal of the writ petition.    Under  the  circumstances,  there
\nshall be no order as to the costs.  C.M.P.  No.10107 of 1999 is closed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:Yes
\nWebsite:Yes<\/p>\n
Jai<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Indian Overseas Bank vs K. Perichiappan on 15 December, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 15\/12\/2003 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice V.S. SIRPURKAR and The Honourable Mr. Justice N. KANNADASAN W.A. No.1010 OF 1999 Indian Overseas Bank rep. by its General Manager Central Office Chennai 600 002 … […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-195393","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nIndian Overseas Bank vs K. Perichiappan on 15 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-k-perichiappan-on-15-december-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Indian Overseas Bank vs K. Perichiappan on 15 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-k-perichiappan-on-15-december-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-03T01:21:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-k-perichiappan-on-15-december-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-k-perichiappan-on-15-december-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Indian Overseas Bank vs K. Perichiappan on 15 December, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-03T01:21:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-k-perichiappan-on-15-december-2003\"},\"wordCount\":4244,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-k-perichiappan-on-15-december-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-k-perichiappan-on-15-december-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-k-perichiappan-on-15-december-2003\",\"name\":\"Indian Overseas Bank vs K. Perichiappan on 15 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-03T01:21:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-k-perichiappan-on-15-december-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-k-perichiappan-on-15-december-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-k-perichiappan-on-15-december-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Indian Overseas Bank vs K. Perichiappan on 15 December, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Indian Overseas Bank vs K. Perichiappan on 15 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-k-perichiappan-on-15-december-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Indian Overseas Bank vs K. Perichiappan on 15 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-k-perichiappan-on-15-december-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-03T01:21:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-k-perichiappan-on-15-december-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-k-perichiappan-on-15-december-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Indian Overseas Bank vs K. Perichiappan on 15 December, 2003","datePublished":"2003-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-03T01:21:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-k-perichiappan-on-15-december-2003"},"wordCount":4244,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-k-perichiappan-on-15-december-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-k-perichiappan-on-15-december-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-k-perichiappan-on-15-december-2003","name":"Indian Overseas Bank vs K. Perichiappan on 15 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-03T01:21:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-k-perichiappan-on-15-december-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-k-perichiappan-on-15-december-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-k-perichiappan-on-15-december-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Indian Overseas Bank vs K. Perichiappan on 15 December, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195393","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=195393"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195393\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=195393"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=195393"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=195393"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}