(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 16.08.23 passed by the 1st respondent in Case No. TNSE 05/2017 and quash the same as illegal.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, whereby the order of dismissal imposed on the second respondent was set aside.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Bank submitted that the petitioner is a Scheduled Bank in the private sector having branches throughout the country. The second respondent was employed as an Assistant Manager at the petitioner's Ichalkaranchi Branch during the period from 14.05.2008 to 15.04.2011. It was submitted that, during the said period, the second respondent committed several serious irregularities by grossly abusing his official position. He had indiscriminately granted cheque purchase facilities without adhering to the prescribed banking norms and had indulged in parallel banking by extending private loans to several customers of the Bank. According to the petitioner, the second respondent acted in collusion with the then Branch Manager, thereby causing substantial financial loss to the Bank. In view of the serious nature of the allegations, the second respondent was placed under suspension by order dated 04.05.2011. Thereafter, a charge memo dated 19.05.2011 containing eight charges was issued to the second respondent. The Branch Manager, who was also involved in the transactions, was proceeded against separately on similar charges. The second respondent submitted his explanation on 24.05.2011. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the explanation substantially admitted the allegations, while attempting to shift the responsibility to the Branch Manager by stating that the transactions were carried out under his instructions and with his approval. Since the explanation was found to be unsatisfactory, a domestic enquiry was conducted by an independent Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer, after affording full opportunity to the second respondent, submitted a report holding all the charges proved. Based on the enquiry report, a second show cause notice was issued and after considering the further explanation, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 27.01.2012 dismissing the second respondent from service. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the second respondent preferred an appeal under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of dismissal. Challenging the said order, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even a plain reading of the explanation dated 24.05.2011 and the evidence adduced during the domestic enquiry would clearly establish that the second respondent had admitted the factual allegations. His only defence was that he acted under the directions of the Branch Manager. Such a defence cannot absolve him of his independent responsibility as an officer of the Bank. It was further submitted that officers working in the banking sector are expected to strictly adhere to the banking regulations and internal guidelines, as they deal with public money. Any deviation from the prescribed procedure affecting the financial interest of the Bank constitutes serious misconduct warranting major punishment. Therefore, the Appellate Authority erred in interfering with the well-reasoned order of dismissal. The learned counsel also submitted that the Branch Manager, against whom similar charges were framed, had also been dismissed from service. Though the Appellate Authority had interfered with his punishment, this Court, in W.P.(MD) No.1312 of 2018, by order dated 02.02.2023, modified the punishment of dismissal into one of compulsory retirement. The said order has attained finality. Since both the Branch Manager and the second respondent were proceeded against on the basis of the very same transactions and enquiry materials, the principle of parity requires that the second respondent should also be visited with the same punishment.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the allegations against the Branch Manager were graver than those levelled against the second respondent. Though the second respondent admitted certain procedural lapses, the same cannot be construed as an admission of all the charges. The Appellate Authority, after independently appreciating the materials, rightly interfered with the punishment of dismissal. Therefore, the impugned order does not warrant interference.

5. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the entire materials placed on record.

6. It is not in dispute that the second respondent was working as an Assistant Manager during the relevant period and that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against both the second respondent and the Branch Manager in respect of the very same set of transactions. The records reveal that a detailed domestic enquiry was conducted after affording adequate opportunity to the second respondent. The Enquiry Officer found all the charges proved. The findings are based on documentary evidence as well as the admissions made by the second respondent in his explanation and during the enquiry. The defence that the transactions were undertaken under the instructions of the Branch Manager cannot exonerate the second respondent from his independent responsibility as an officer of the Bank.

7. However, this Court also finds that the Branch Manager, who was proceeded against in respect of the same transactions, approached this Court in W.P.(MD) No.1312 of 2018. By order dated 02.02.2023, this Court modified the punishment of dismissal into one of compulsory retirement and the said order has attained finality.

8. Since both the Branch Manager and the second respondent were proceeded against on the basis of the same enquiry materials and substantially similar allegations, this Court is of the view that the principle of parity should be applied. While the misconduct proved against the second respondent is undoubtedly serious and warrants a major penalty, imposing a punishment different from that imposed on the Branch Manager in respect of the same incident would result in unequal treatment.

9. Accordingly, while setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority, this Court modifies the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the second respondent into one of compulsory retirement, on the same terms as ordered by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.1312 of 2018.

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The order of the Appellate Authority is set aside. The punishment of dismissal imposed on the second respondent is modified to compulsory retirement. The petitioner Bank is directed to give effect to the modified punishment and settle all consequential terminal benefits admissible to the second respondent. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.