Balachandran. G v. The Chairman

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.11.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE and W.M.P.(MD) No.13047 of 2023 G.Balachandran ... Petitioner -vs1.The Chairman Tamilnadu Grama Bank Yercard Main Road Hasthampatti, Salem-636 007 2.The Disciplinary Authority / General Manager Tamilnadu Grama Bank Yercard Main Road Hasthampatti, Salem-636 007 3.Soma Sundaram ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent (Erstwhile Pandian Grama Bank) in his impugned charge memo in TNGB/VIG/CS/23/2020-21 dated 24.08.2020 and quash the same as

without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to pay all monitory benefits, within the stipulated period by this Court. For Petitioner :

Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh For Respondents :

Mr.N.Dilip Kumar Standing Counsel

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned charge memo dated 24.08.2020, issued by the second respondent, in the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondent - Bank against the petitioner.

2. It is now brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent - Bank that subsequent to the issuance of the impugned charge memo and subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, a punishment order has been passed against the petitioner imposing the punishment, namely, "Reduction of two lower stages in time scale of pay for a period of two years and three months with a direction that the petitioner shall not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction shall not have the effect

of postponing the future increments of pay." He would also submit that aggrieved by the said punishment order, the petitioner has also preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 10.06.2025 and the same is under consideration by the Appellate Authority.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, also admits that the punishment order has been imposed against the petitioner subsequent to the filing of this writ petition and that an appeal has also been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the punishment order before the Appellate Authority.

4. In view of the same, since the impugned charge memo has got merged with the punishment order, the question of considering the merits of the impugned charge memo by this Court does not arise and that too when the petitioner has already preferred an appeal as against the punishment order before the Appellate Authority. However, whatever grounds that have been raised by the petitioner in this writ petition will have to be permitted to be raised in the appeal filed by him aggrieved by the punishment order imposed on him before the Appellate Authority.

5. After recording the aforesaid facts, this writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to raise the grounds that have been raised in this writ petition before the Appellate Authority, where the appeal filed by him against the punishment order is pending consideration. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 06.11.2025 NCC :

Yes / No Index :

Yes / No Internet :

Yes / No krk

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

krk and W.M.P.(MD) No.13047 of 2023 06.11.2025