Pravinth Vaz Jt v. The Deputy Registrar / Managing Director
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.(MD) No.22262 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD) No.17375 & 17376 of 2025 J.T.PravinthVaz : Petitioner Vs.
1. The Deputy Registrar / Managing Director, O/o.The District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., 15/8-21, Alexchandra Press Road, Nagercoil.
2. The Branch Manager, The District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Nagercoil Town Branch, Nagercoil.
: Respondents P RAYER:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the original impugned order in Na.Ka.No. 56/2025-26/A1 dated 01.08.2025 passed by the 1st respondent and to quash the impugned order as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Micheal Sebastin 1/5
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No. 56/2025-26/A1 dated 01.08.2025.
2. This writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
3. The petitioner, who was appointed in the year 2010, is working as Cashier in the second respondent bank, which is under the control of the first respondent. While this being so, the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 10.07.2025 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation on the allegation that on 23.06.2025, when one school staff came to deposit a sum of Rs.7,000/- in their school account, the petitioner scribbled on one 500 rupees note stating that this would be a counterfeit note and thereby, the petitioner violated the RBI's clean note policy, Banking Regulation Act and also Reserve Bank of India Act. On 15.07.2025, the petitioner submitted his explanation. However, without considering the same, the present impugned charge memo dated 01.08.2025 has been issued.
2/5
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was no such alleged incident happened and the said allegation is baseless and it can be proved by the bank's CCTV footages, which is guarded and under the control of the second respondent and no one can enter into the CCTV room of the second respondent and CCTV footages connected to the computer system were under the direct control and authority of the second respondent and therefore, there is no chance for deleting the CCTV footages, which is also one of the charges framed against the petitioner and it can only be done by the second respondent and not by the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Since no adverse order is proposed to be passed in this writ petition, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.
6. This Court has repeatedly held that the charge memo cannot be quashed. The High Court cannot adjudicate the merits and the demerits of the allegations set out in the charge memo and provide a finding in this regard. Such complex and disputed facts and circumstances are to be adjudicated only by producing documents and by adducing evidences if 3/5
required. Thus, the petitioner has to establish his innocence or otherwise before the enquiry proceedings and the explanations and the grounds raised regarding the merits cannot be adjudicated in the present writ petition. In view of the same, this writ petition itself is not maintainable and this writ petition stands dismissed.
7. After the dismissal order having been passed by this Court, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed this Court that the explanation submitted by the petitioner may be considered and orders may be passed by the enquiry officer.
8. In view of the aforesaid submission made, this Court directs the enquiry officer / disciplinary authority to conclude the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 13.08.2025 Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No Sm 4/5
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
Sm W.P.(MD) No.22262 of 2025 13.08.2025 5/5