N.RATNAKUMAR RAJU vs TAMIL NADU GRAMA BANK

2026:MHC:4361
WP No. 24404 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON: 14-10-2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 29-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 24404 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA011505392024}
AND
WMP No. 26680 OF 2024
N.Ratnakumar Raju
S/o.A.Natarajan,
New No.35, Old No.69,
th
11 Street, Z Block, Anna Nagar,
Chennai-600 040.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Tamil Nadu Grama Bank
Rep. By Its Chairman, Head Office,
6 Yercaud Road, Salem-636 007.
2. Board Of Directors
Tamil Nadu Grama Bank,
Head Office, 6 Yercaud Road,
Salem-636 007.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
st
to issue a writ of Mandamus, to call for the records from the files of the 1 and
nd
2 respondents pertaining to their impugned order bearing Ref. No.PGB/ VIG/
OF/ PUN/ SPKG ORDER/2/2009-10 dated 27.10.2009 imposing the
punishment of “Removal from service, which shall not be disqualification for
st
future employment” passed by the 1 respondent and the appellate authority’s
order bearing TNGB/ VIG/ APP/ 01/2024-25 dated 23.04.2024 passed by the
__________
Page1 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:16 pm )

2026:MHC:4361
WP No. 24404 of 2024
nd
2 respondent respectively, and to quash the same and consequently to direct
the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service
with back wages and with all other attendant and consequential benefits.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.M.Ramesh
Senior Counsel
for Mr.V.Subramani
For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Raghunathan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan &Co, for R1 & R2

ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the
first respondent bearing Ref. No.PGB/ VIG/ OF/ PUN/ SPKG ORDER/2/2009-
10 dated 27.10.2009 imposing the punishment of “Removal from service, which
shall not be disqualification for future employment”.
2.The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present writ
petition is that, the petitioner joined the service of the Respondent-Bank as
Probationary Officer on 15.04.1988. Thereafter, when he was serving as a
Manager of the Cuddalore Branch, he was placed under suspension on
29.08.2008 and was also served with the Charge Memorandum. The crux of the
charge was that, he granted loans violating the mandatory guidelines. Since the
petitioner’s explanation was not satisfactory, a disciplinary proceedings was
initiated and after having considered 114 documents, out of 19 charges, except
__________
Page2 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:16 pm )

2026:MHC:4361
WP No. 24404 of 2024
the charges 8 and 10, the Enquiry Officer held that other charges are proved.
But, the Disciplinary Authority has disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry
Officer with reference to the charges 8 and 10. Thus, the Disciplinary Authority
has found that all the charges framed against the petitioner was proved and
imposed with a penalty of removal from service on 27.10.2009. Aggrieved by
the order of removal from service, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the
Appellate Authority. However, vide order dated 07.12.2019, the Appellate
Authority has confirmed the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. Aggrieved
with the same, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in WP.No.9048 of 2010, in
which this Court vide order dated 13.02.2018 has remitted back the matter to the
Appellate Authority. Even after the order of the Appellate Authority, once
again the petitioner preferred a writ petition in WP.No.9279 of 2020, wherein,
the order of the Appellate Authority was set aside and again the matter was
remitted back. As per the directions of this Court in WP.No.9279 of 2020, the
impugned order dated 23.04.2024 was passed again confirming the order of
removal from service. Aggrieved with the same, the present Writ Petition has
been filed.
3.Heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr.K.M.Ramesh, appearing for the
petitioner and the learned counsel Mr.P.Raghunathan for the respondents.
__________
Page3 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:16 pm )

2026:MHC:4361
WP No. 24404 of 2024
4.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend
that the entire disciplinary proceedings were initiated without application of
mind, which could be demonstrated from the identical charges framed as the
charge 1 and 1A and charge 1(d) and 1(e) are identical. It is also the contention
of the learned Senior Counsel that the Enquiry Officer having held that the
charges 8 and 10 were not proved, the Disciplinary Authority without recording
reasons, has differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. It is also his
contention that when the petitioner was serving in Pallavan Grama Bank, the
charges were issued. However, they have not followed the relevant Service
Rules. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that initially the
petitioner joined in Vallalar Grama Bank, which was later renamed as
“Adhiyaman Grama Bank” and subsequently to “Pallavan Grama Bank”. It is
the specific submission of the learned Senior Counsel that there was a blatant
discrimination in initiating the disciplinary proceedings between the petitioner
and the other employees those who are also responsible for such alleged
irregularity. It is his further submission that, without examining the respective
witnesses, the Enquiry Officer has permitted to mark all the documents through
the presenting Officer. Hence, having no proof, the findings rendered by the
Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority are erroneous. It is also
__________
Page4 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:16 pm )

2026:MHC:4361
WP No. 24404 of 2024
his contention that the Disciplinary Authority has not assigned any reasons as to
the defence documents. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the
findings of the Enquiry Officer is perverse. Notwithstanding the above
submissions, it is also the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the
punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to the
gravity of the charges. To support his contention, he would rely upon the
following judgments:-
1. Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others reported in
(2009) 2 SCC 570;
2. Anil Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer and Others reported in (1985) 3 SCC
378;
3.Ram Chander Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1986) 3 SCC
103;
4. Dev Singh Vs. Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., and
another reported in (2003) 8 SCC 9;
5. Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj Vs. Bank of India and others reported in
(2019) 15 SCC 786.
5. Per contra, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents
would submit that while the petitioner was serving as a Branch Manager, a
vigilance inspection was conducted on 10.11.2007 and in pursuance thereof, a
show cause notice was issued to him on 12.12.2007. After that, the petitioner
has given his explanation. Not satisfying with the explanation, the charges were
framed and later on, the domestic enquiry was conducted and ultimately, the
Enquiry Officer held that except charges 8 and 10, the other charges were
__________
Page5 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:16 pm )

2026:MHC:4361
WP No. 24404 of 2024
proved. It is his submission that on account of the petitioner’s callous conduct,
there was a huge loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs.5.64 crores. It is his
submission that the loan, which had been sanctioned by the petitioner was
exceeding his authority, and in respect of many barred loans, he miserably
failed to get the acknowledgement of debt. Though the petitioner would contend
that, he has followed the business practice of his predecessors, that by itself will
not confer any right to the petitioner to act beyond his statutory limits and
powers. Though the petitioner would contend that the charges are similar, that
by itself will not confer any right to the petitioner to get rid of the disciplinary
proceedings. The mere overlapping of charges cannot be construed as a ground
to discharge. Even according to the petitioner, the charges are not fictitious. He
would contend that in the absence of any mala fide , the petitioner has no right to
go into the minute details of the evidences, as the present proceedings is only a
judicial review and this Court could act only within the contours as prescribed
by the Apex Courts under the various decisions. In order to substantiate his
contention, he relied upon the following judgments:-
1. Orissa Mining Corporation and another Vs. Ananda Chandra Prusty
reported in (1996) 11 SCC 600;
2.State Bank of India Vs. A.G.D.Reddy reported in (2023) 14 SCC 391
3.State of Haryana and another Vs. Rattan Singh reported in (1977) 2
SCC 491;
4.B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1995) 6 SCC
__________
Page6 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:16 pm )

2026:MHC:4361
WP No. 24404 of 2024
749;
5.Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager and others Vs.Nikunja
Bihari Patnaik reported in ( 1996) 9 SCC 69;
6.State Bank of India and another Vs. Bela Bagchi and others reported in
(2005) 7 SCC 435;
7.General Manager (Operations) and another Vs. R.Periyasamy reported
in (2015) 3 SCC 101;
8.Katra Educational Society Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others
reported in 1966 SCC OnLine SC 61;
9.National Carbon Company Vs. Labour Court, Madras and another
reported in 1987 1 LLN 405;
10.Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank and another Vs. Rajendra Singh
reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372.
6.I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.
7.While perusing the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated
27.10.2009, there were 19 charges. The sum and substance of those charges are
in respect of irregularity committed by the petitioner while sanctioning the loan.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the charge nos.“1” and
“1A”, and would contend that both the charges are identical. Though the said
submissions cannot be outrightly denied, on the same breadth, we may say that
such submission is not fully correct. While closely reading the above charges,
there are some overlapping of the imputations. In the “charge No.1”, they
simply stated in a plain language that the petitioner had sanctioned multiple
facility to the same parties, without assessing their repaying capacity, whereas
in “charge 1A”, they fine tuned the charge and they have expressly stated that
__________
Page7 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:16 pm )

2026:MHC:4361
WP No. 24404 of 2024
the petitioner had sanctioned loans to the ineligible persons and the amount
sanctioned are excess to the prescribed limit. Therefore, the contention that the
respondents had not applied their mind while framing the charge, can have no
legs to stand.
8.Similarly, he has also contended that the “charges 1(b)” and “1(e)” are
identical. But, this Court would look at the issue in a different perspective.
nd
While looking into the 2 remand order dated 23.11.2023 in WP.No.9279 of
2020, the order of the Appellate Authority was not set aside on the ground that
the charges are irregular, but on the ground that there were no discussions with
reference to his ground. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AAI v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee , reported in
(2025) 4 SCC 111. The relevant portions of the above judgment are extracted
hereunder:-
“ 35. It is trite law that in disciplinary proceedings, it is not
necessary for the disciplinary authority to deal with each and every
ground raised by the delinquent officer in the representation against
the proposed penalty and detailed reasons are not required to be
recorded in the order imposing punishment if he accepts the
findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Our view stands fortified
by the decision of this Court in Boloram Bordoloi v. Lakhimi Gaolia
Bank [Boloram Bordoloi v. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank, (2021) 3 SCC
806 : (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 624] , wherein it was held : (SCC p. 810,
para 11)
“11. … Further, it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority
__________
Page8 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:16 pm )

2026:MHC:4361
WP No. 24404 of 2024
accepts the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and passes an
order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order
imposing punishment. The punishment is imposed based on the
findings recorded in the enquiry report, as such, no further
elaborate reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary
authority.
36. All that is required on the part of the disciplinary authority is
that it should examine the evidence in the disciplinary proceedings
and arrive at a reasoned conclusion that the material placed on
record during the course of enquiry establishes the guilt of the
delinquent employee on the principle of preponderance of
probabilities. This is precisely what was done by the disciplinary
authority and the appellate authority while dealing with the case of
the respondent.”
9.According to the above ratios, when the Appellate Authority concurs
with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, there is no necessity to traverse
each and every grounds raised by the petitioner. However, there should be a
clear indication as to the application of mind. In the case in hand, while looking
into the orders of the Appellate Authority, it has discussed each and every
minute aspects and has ultimately come to the conclusion that the petitioner has
sanctioned loans beyond his discretionary limits. Though the petitioner would
contend that the charges 1(e) and 1(d) are identical, the Appellate Authority has
dealt the issue with threadbare details and has identified the borrowers against
whom the petitioner failed to assess their repaying capacity, and had failed to
obtain the relevant revenue records. Only after listing out those names, the
__________
Page9 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:16 pm )

2026:MHC:4361
WP No. 24404 of 2024
Appellate Authority has given finding.
10.Therefore, as rightly contented by the learned counsel for the
respondents, though the charges appear to be identical, the crux and fulcrum
have got a minute difference, which had been elaborately dealt by the Appellate
Authority in the impugned order. It is in this background, this Court is of the
nd
view that the main ground for 2 remand viz., there is no reason assigned in
respect of their defence of identical charges, has now been cured on account of
the elaborate discussion made in the impugned order. As already observed,
though the charges are similar, it is not really similar. In respect of every
charges, the Appellate Authority has elaborately dealt the issue in the backdrop
of the facts, documents and law. Therefore, there are abundant material to
demonstrate that there was an application of mind while passing the order by the
Appellate Authority.
11.At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the contours of the judicial
review. In this regard, this Court would like to refer to the following
judgments:-
(i) B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India reported in (1995)
6 SCC 749
(ii) Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) Vs.
Ajai Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 61.
(iii) The Indian Oil Corporation & Ors., Vs. Ajit Kumar
__________
Page10 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:16 pm )

2026:MHC:4361
WP No. 24404 of 2024
Singh & Anr., reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 478.
Through the above judgements, the following principles would
emerge:-
(i) Power of Judicial review is not like an appeal. But such
power is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair
treatment and the compliance of natural justice.
(ii) The power of judicial review is not like an appellate
remedy to substitute its own finding, unless the findings of the
Original Authority and Appellate Authority is perverse and
without evidence.
(iii) The High Court had no jurisdiction to review the
penalty, unless the same is shockingly disproportionate.
(iv) The mere possibility to arrive at yet another finding,
cannot be a reason to substitute the finding of the disciplinary
Authority.
(v) The judicial review is meant only to ensure fairness in
treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion.
(vi) While exercising the power of judicial review, so long
as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by
the original authority, the same has to be sustained.
12.Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment
of Roop Singh Negi [cited supra] to contend that there are no proof before the
Disciplinary Authority, this Court respectfully differ from the above
submission. The above reported judgment is distinguishable from the facts of
the present case. The principle in Roop Singh Negi [cited supra] is reliability
upon the Criminal Court records, without examining the Investigating Officer
__________
Page11 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:16 pm )

2026:MHC:4361
WP No. 24404 of 2024
and the persons who attested to the confession statement. But, in the present
case, the documents are related to the very same Department and nowhere the
petitioner has raised an objection that the documents are forged, fabricated or
self serving. The main contention put forth by the petitioner is that, while
sanctioning loan acted in accordance with the established procedures. When on
production of the documents if the Disciplinary Authority could be able to find
that the defence of the petitioner has not been established, nothing wrong to rely
upon those documents. Besides, these documents are produced by the
presenting Officer, though he plays a role of a Prosecutor, there are no material
available before this Court or it is not the case of the petitioner that he has
objected to the production of those documents.
13.It is relevant to mention that the petitioner had a defence assistance.
Therefore, having not raised any objection for marking of those documents and
having not raised any objection before the Disciplinary Authority as well as the
Appellate Authority in respect of the admissibility of those documents, it is too
late for the petitioner to raise such a defence in a judicial review.
14.Though the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Anil Kumar [cited
supra], it deals about the reasoned order. The reasoning is inexorable
__________
Page12 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:16 pm )

2026:MHC:4361
WP No. 24404 of 2024
requirement in any order of the quasi judicial authority. He has elaborated the
reason as to how they arrived at such conclusion. Here, the Disciplinary
Authority and the Appellate Authority have narrated the reasons.
15.Though the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of Ram
Chander case [cited supra], as already observed, in the present case the
Appellate Authority has dealt the issue on every aspects and passed a detailed
order. Therefore, there is no scope to have a use of this precedent.
16.At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that nowhere the petitioner
has pleaded that he acted within his bounds. But, it is the contention that he
acted in accordance with the existing procedure followed by his predecessors.
But, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nikunja Bihari Patnaik’s case [cited supra]
has held that acting beyond one’s authority is a misconduct. It is not expected
from the Bank Officers to act liberally in respect of the public money. In this
regard, it is also relevant to refer Bela Bagchi case [cited supra]. As already
referred, while exercising the power of judicial review, what is essential is, the
correctness of the procedures followed by the Authorities and not the
correctness of the decision. Unless there is a perversity in the order, the Writ
__________
Page13 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:16 pm )

2026:MHC:4361
WP No. 24404 of 2024
Court normally should not interfere with the findings rendered by the
Disciplinary Authority, as the Writ Court cannot assume the functions of the
Disciplinary Authority as held in Rajendra Singh’ s case [cited supra].
17. Here, to substantiate the petitioner’s case, they relied upon 114
documents. Though the petitioner would contend that no documents had been
proved, which contention was rejected by this Court [as held supra], it is equally
relevant to mention that the standard of proof in a disciplinary proceedings is
only preponderance of probability. For which, there should be some evidence. It
is not that the proof to the hilt. While perusing the orders of the Disciplinary
Authority and the Appellate Authority, there are abundant evidences supporting
the finding of the Authority. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rattan Singh ’s case [cited supra] .
18.Though the petitioner pleads about the discrimination, it was the
contention that out of various documents relied upon by the petitioner, 56
documents were dealt by his predecessors, against whom no disciplinary
proceedings was initiated. However, it was contended that the petitioner’s
predecessors since retired at the time of unearthing the misconducts. He would
__________
Page14 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:16 pm )

2026:MHC:4361
WP No. 24404 of 2024
also contend that the staffs were not prosecuted. The petitioner, being a
responsible person and who had ultimate control over the Bank, ought not have
acted on the basis of the documents prepared by his sub-staffs. Therefore, the
mere absence of any disciplinary proceedings against other employees cannot
be construed that there was a discrimination to the petitioner, that too where this
Court could not find any perversity in the impugned order. In fact, this Court
could not find any substance of real discrimination invoking Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the findings
rendered by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are on the
basis of some evidences. Though the learned Senior Counsel would raise
various defences, this Court, while exercising the power of judicial review
normally should not re-appreciate the evidences as long as the findings of the
authority are not perverse. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that, there
are no ground to interfere in the finding of guilt.
19.With regard to the punishment, it is the contention of the learned
Senior Counsel that the punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of the
charges. It is well settled principle of law that unless the punishment is
disproportionate to the gravity of charge, this Court could not take the mantle of
__________
Page15 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:16 pm )

2026:MHC:4361
WP No. 24404 of 2024
a Disciplinary Authority to modify the punishment. In the case in hand, there is
a huge financial loss to the respondent-Bank and this petitioner, being a
responsible officer, has failed to exercise his due diligence.
20.In such view of the above factual position, this Court absolutely does
not find any disproportionality in imposition of punishment. Therefore, even in
respect of the punishment, this Court could not find any grounds to interfere
with.
21.Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected WMP is also closed.
29-10-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KMI
To
1. Tamil Nadu Grama Bank
Rep. By Its Chairman, Head Office,
6 Yercaud Road, Salem-636 007.
2. Board Of Directors
Tamil Ndu Grama Bank, Head Office,
6 Yercaud Road, Salem-636 007.
__________
Page16 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:16 pm )

2026:MHC:4361
WP No. 24404 of 2024
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KMI
WP No. 24404 of 2024
AND
WMP No. 26680 OF 2024
29-10-2026
__________
Page17 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:16 pm )