J.Rajesh v. The Disciplinary Authority/ The

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11-02-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI AND WMP No. 13578 and 13577 of 2024 J.Rajesh Petitioner(s) Vs The Disciplinary Authority/ The Asst . General Manager, DA Cell/ HRM Section, Circle Office, Canara Bank, Chennai 18.

Respondent(s) PRAYER; This petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the punishment order passed by the respondent in Ref. CNC DAC E- 37 865 2024 VSR dated 18.04.2024 served on the petitioner through email, in so far as it relates to the petitioners transfer and quash the same. For Petitioner(s):

D.Geetha For Respondent(s):

Mr.P.Raghunathan for M/s. T.S. Gopalan And Co

ORDER

The petitioner is challenging the order, dated 18.04.2024, in and by which, while imposing the punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the timescale of pay of two stages for two years and revoking the suspension, the petitioner was also further transferred by the same order to Chennai South.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Canara Bank Officer Employees Regulations 1976 does not prescribe transfer as one of the punishments and as such the act of the respondent is against the Regulations and is liable to be set aside.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that for unauthorized absence, disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the petitioner and communication letter was sent to the petitioner for attending the enquiry. However, the petitioner has not responded to the said notice. Therefore, the respondent passed the impugned order suspending the petitioner.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner entered in service in the year 2011 and was promoted in the year 2015. Thereafter, vide the impugned order of suspension, the petitioner was suspended from service. It is borne out by record that after conducting enquiry, report was submitted whereinafter, punishment has been imposed on the petitioner. Once punishment has been imposed on the petitioner, thereafter, transferring the petitioner for the very same delinquency is nothing but an act of double jeopardy, as the petitioner cannot be punished for the same delinquency twice, one by means of punishment and the other by means of transfer. Therefore, the impugned order of transfer is wholly unsustainable and

the same deserves to be interfered with.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service at the same place where he was initially working by recalling the impugned order of transfer. The above exercise of reinstatement shall be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 11-02-2026 Rli Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To The Disciplinary Authority/ The Asst . General Manager, DA Cell/ HRM Section, Circle Office, Canara Bank Chennai 18

M.DHANDAPANI J.

rli 11-02-2026