Judgment :- The petitioner is the same in these two writ petitions. In W.P.No.24476 of 2007 the petitioner is challenging the charge sheet framed against him by the third respondent dated 14. 2007 along with the statement of imputations. In W.P.No.24763 of 2007 the petitioner is challenging the interim charge memo dated 30.11.2006/12. 2006 framed by the third respondent against the petitioner along with the statement of imputation of misconduct. 2. The petitioner has joined as a Clerk in the Indian Bank in the year 1976 and he was promoted as Officer in 1987 and was appointed as Branch Manager at Tirupporur in December, 1999 wherein he worked in that capacity till June, 2002, when he was shifted to Mapped Branch. There was a C.B.I. raid in the house of the petitioner on 29. 2002 and an FIR was lodged on 29. 2002 on the file of ACB Chennai. While he was working in Mapped Branch, the second respondent by order dated 28. 2002 suspended the petitioner pending investigation and according to the petitioner, he continued to be under suspension till date and as per the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, he is entitled to the subsistence allowance. However, he is paid only 50% of salary. 2 (a).He was issued a show-cause notice on 22. 2003 by the third respondent in respect of certain irregularities said to have been committed by him during his tenure as Branch Manager at Tirupporur for which he sent a reply on 4. 2003. It is the case of the petitioner that CBI has completed its investigation and charge sheet has been laid before the Special Court for CBI Cases/IX Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in C.C.No.52 to 60 of 2004 under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. There was another criminal case filed in Kancheepuram in which charges have been framed in C.C.No.227 of 2003 under sections 409, 477(A) and 420 IPC and the said case is pending trial on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu. Thereafter, after 2½ years, the third respondent has issued a charge memo dated 8. 2005. In respect of the said disciplinary proceedings, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.33967 of 2005 and W.P.No.60 of 2006 and according to the petitioner, there was an interim stay granted which was also made absolute. Thereafter, after 2½ years, the third respondent has issued a charge memo dated 8. 2005. In respect of the said disciplinary proceedings, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.33967 of 2005 and W.P.No.60 of 2006 and according to the petitioner, there was an interim stay granted which was also made absolute. He has also filed another W.P.No.4323 of 2007 for granting full salary during the period of suspension which is continuing for the past 4 years and 11 months. The petitioner would state that after four years and 10 months the third respondent has issued the impugned charge memo dated 30.11.2006 which is the subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.24763 of 2007 and the charges are relating to the grant of five loan accounts. According to the petitioner, he has sent his explanation to the said charges on 112. 2006 an there is no reply. 2(b).In the meantime, the third respondent has issued another charge memo dated 14. 2007 impugned in W.P.No.24476 of 2007 containing four charges which are also relating to the grant of loans. According to the petitioner, the list of witnesses was not given to him and the inordinate delay in issuing charge memo vitiates the proceedings and he has not received subsistence allowance and therefore, the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated as per the judgment of the Supreme Court. The petitioner would also state that no charge can be made implicating the petitioner. The petitioner was informed on 30.5.2007 by the third respondent that the Inquiring Authority and the Presenting Officer were nominated. The Inquiring Authority by letter dated 6. 2007 directed the petitioner to attend the enquiry on 16. 2007 and the petitioner was given a copy of 28 documents and the enquiry was adjourned to 7. 2007. In the meantime, on 26. 2007, the petitioner has requested the Inquiring Authority to provide 19 documents. When he attended for enquiry on 7. 2007, the petitioner was given five documents and according to the petitioner, most of them are not related to the charges framed. 2007. In the meantime, on 26. 2007, the petitioner has requested the Inquiring Authority to provide 19 documents. When he attended for enquiry on 7. 2007, the petitioner was given five documents and according to the petitioner, most of them are not related to the charges framed. 2(c).The petitioner has represented to the Inquiring Authority, as per the Indian Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976 that any question that arises has to be referred to the Board for its decision and the Inquiring Authority has no power to refuse the documents and therefore, according to the petitioner, participating in the enquiry would become futile and therefore, he has not participated in the enquiry thereafter. In respect of the charges dated 30.11.2006/12. 2006, the petitioner has received a letter from the Circle Officer, Kancheepuram dated 17. 2007 enclosing the findings of the Investigating Authority holding that all the charges are proved and at that point of time, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.24763 of 2007. The petitioner has challenged the charge memo in both the writ petitions on various grounds including that the charges are arbitrary and illegal; the charges are not specific; and the charges do not indicate any loss to the Bank by virtue of loans granted by the petitioner, that the petitioner has not been paid subsistence allowance, that the failure to produce documents asked for by the petitioner will make the entire proceedings vitiated, that when the entire loan accounts were closed as fully settled, the Bank is estopped from reopening the case after lapse of six years, that the petitioner is entitled to the inspection of original documents which is not allowed and copies supplied have no relevance to the charges and they are not authenticated, that the fifth respondent is acting with personal bias against the petitioner and that the proceedings are arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India. 3. The third respondent, Assistant General manager, Indian Bank Circle Office, Kancheepuram has filed separate counter affidavits. 3. The third respondent, Assistant General manager, Indian Bank Circle Office, Kancheepuram has filed separate counter affidavits. While the facts relating to the case are not disputed, it is the specific case of the third respondent that the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act is not applicable to the petitioner and it is governed by the Indian Bank Officer/Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation Act, 1976 and therefore, the subsistence allowance has been paid in accordance with the said Act. It is also stated that criminal cases have nothing to do with the disciplinary proceedings and charges framed against the petitioner. It is the case of the third respondent that various misconducts committed by the petitioner have been surfacing one after another and hence, the Bank had to issue charge sheet and see that the domestic enquiry was completed and the Enquiry Officer’s report has been furnished to the petitioner calling for his comments. It was at that point of time, having realized that he has no other valid points, the petitioner has chosen to file the writ petitions. It is also the case of the third respondent that the bank had no intention to harass the petitioner. Further, the charge memo dated 14. 2007 had to be issued since the petitioner had committed various misconducts and misappropriated huge amounts of the Bank and the charges levelled against the petitioner are very grave in nature. In respect of charge sheet dated 14. 2007, which is impugned in W.P.No.24476 of 2007, the petitioner was given time to submit his explanation till 5. 2007. Since the petitioner requested some more time by his letter dated 5. 2007, time was extended upto 5. 2007. However on 5. 2007, the petitioner submitted that he cannot offer his reply since some of the exhibits mentioned in the charge sheet are only Xerox copies and based on the said letter, time was extended up to 25. 2007 as a last chance. On 25. 2007, the petitioner requested for copies of some of the documents and the same were furnished on 25. 2007 and thereafter the petitioner submitted his reply on 25. 2007 denying the charges. 3(a). Mr.Mariappan, the 4th respondent in W.P.No.24763 of 2007, was appointed as Inquiring Authority in respect of the charges dated 30.11.2006/12. 2006 and Mr.Valmikinathan, the 5th respondent in the writ petitions was appointed as the Presenting Officer. 2007 and thereafter the petitioner submitted his reply on 25. 2007 denying the charges. 3(a). Mr.Mariappan, the 4th respondent in W.P.No.24763 of 2007, was appointed as Inquiring Authority in respect of the charges dated 30.11.2006/12. 2006 and Mr.Valmikinathan, the 5th respondent in the writ petitions was appointed as the Presenting Officer. Due to the administrative reasons, the appointment of Mr.Mariappan as Inquiring Authority was cancelled and in his place, Mr.R.Chakrapani was appointed as Inquiring Authority. The Inquiring Authority has given notice to conduct the preliminary enquiry on 16. 2007. On that day, the petitioner appeared before the Inquiring Authority and admitted that he has received all documents and understood the charges and pleaded not guilty. The petitioner has also admitted that he was satisfied with the documents provided by the Management. It is in order to protract the enquiry proceedings, by letter dated 26. 2007, the petitioner has sought for 19 documents, which are totally irrelevant and not connected with the charges. On 7. 2007, the Presenting Officer has explained as to how the documents are not relevant to the charge sheet and some of the documents had already been furnished. For instance, in respect of charge No.3, by typographical error, the amount of Rs.40,000/- has been mentioned as Rs.4,00,000/-, however, the amount is correctly mentioned as Rs.40,000/-in words. The petitioner has adamantly represented that the charge is vague. The counter affidavit also states that in respect of each of the charges there are substantial records. It is also stated that the request of the petitioner to produce various records on the face of it is made only to prolong the enquiry and it is a dilatory measure and there are no such rules or procedures for receipt of cash, however, the petitioner insisted that such rules must be produced. It is also the case of the third respondent that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law by giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and the enquiry was conducted not in hasty manner. 4. It is also the case of the third respondent that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law by giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and the enquiry was conducted not in hasty manner. 4. Mr.K.Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in these writ petitions would submit that both the impugned charges are liable to be set aside on the following grounds: (a) The subsistence allowance due to the petitioner has not been paid in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act and therefore as per the Supreme Court judgement, the same has to be paid to him to effectively defend himself, and that is sufficient to vitiate the entire disciplinary proceedings by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in State of Punjab & others v. K.K.Sharma (2003(3) LLN 72) and also the Division Bench judgment of this Court in C.Jayarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu & others ( 2006(3) MLJ 251 ). (b) The petitioner has not been furnished with documents which he required and he has called for the production of copies of nearly 19 documents which include the Indian Bank Rules and Procedures for receipt of cash, cash paid challan counterfoil, copy of the inspection report, return of accounts statement, financial loss statement, loan account ledger, copies of circulars issued by the Indian Bank as well as issued by the Reserve Bank of India, etc. In the absence of those documents, it is not possible for the petitioner to effectively defend himself and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the entire disciplinary proceedings are vitiated. According to him, the failure to produce documents would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice. He would rely upon the judgment in Venkatesh Gururao Kuratti v. Syndicate Bank (2005 (1) LLN 242) and other cases to substantiate his contention. (c) It is his further case that the entire disciplinary proceedings are vitiated by long laches. The charges are relating to the year 2001 while the impugned charge memos were issued in 2006 and 2007. 5. On the other hand, Mr.AL.Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Bank would submit that the writ petitions are premature. It is his submission that pending disciplinary proceedings the petitioner cannot come to this Court and the cause of action itself would arise only after the final orders are passed. 5. On the other hand, Mr.AL.Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Bank would submit that the writ petitions are premature. It is his submission that pending disciplinary proceedings the petitioner cannot come to this Court and the cause of action itself would arise only after the final orders are passed. He would submit that a reference to the request of the petitioner would show that he is in the habit of asking all irrelevant documents only with intention to prolong the issue. He would also submit that the delinquent is entitled only to the copies of relevant documents and not all documents. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chanan Singh v. Registrar, Co-op. Socy. (1976 II LLJ 98). In respect of delay, the learned senior counsel would submit that the point of delay has never been raised at any stage including the explanation submitted by the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner has taken part in the disciplinary proceedings and copies of various documents have been furnished to him. Inasmuch as the plea of delay has never been pleaded by the petitioner in the explanation, he cannot raise the said plea at this stage. It cannot be stated that each and every one of the documents has to be furnished. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India ( AIR 1988 SC 117 ), State of T.N. v. Thiru K.V.Perumal [ (1996) 5 SCC 474 ] and Suresh Pathrella v. Oriental Bank of Commerce [(2007) 1 SCC (L & S) 224]. 6. In respect of W.P.No.24763 of 2007, learned senior counsel would submit that the statement of the petitioner who has worked as Branch Manager that he does not know about the rules is unbelievable. According to the learned senior counsel, even before the charge memo was issued, a show-cause notice was issued on 26. 2005 itself and the petitioner also sent a reply. The petitioner cannot question the validity of the enquiry proceedings at every stage before passing orders. Learned senior counsel would submit that the petitioner has participated in the enquiry and when the enquiry is about to be completed, he filed the writ petition and obtained the order of stay. 7. 2005 itself and the petitioner also sent a reply. The petitioner cannot question the validity of the enquiry proceedings at every stage before passing orders. Learned senior counsel would submit that the petitioner has participated in the enquiry and when the enquiry is about to be completed, he filed the writ petition and obtained the order of stay. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the entire records. 8. It is admitted that the charges framed in both the impugned charge memos are relating to the functioning of the petitioner as Branch Manager at Tirupporur branch. Four charges framed in the impugned charge memo dated 14. 2007 which is challenged in W.P.No.24476 of 2007, are as follows: “1. On 23.08.2001, Mr.K.Kumaravel, THADCO loan borrower had handed over Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) to you towards the repayment of his loan. You had given him the counterfoil for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs). But you had accounted for Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) in the books of the bank and thereby you had misappropriated Rs.50,000/- for your own benefit. 2. On 310. 2001, you had received Rs.35,000/- Rupees Thirty five thousand only) towards remittance in suit filed account relating to M/s.M.Vedagiri, Mrs.K.Indirani and Mrs.S.Rajeswari and issued to counterfoils one for Rs.25,000/- and another for Rs.10,000/-. On 011. 2001, you had accounted for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only)in the books of the bank and misappropriated the balance amount of Rs.10,000/-. 3. Mr.C.Asaithambi, a Tahdco vehicle loan borrower, had handed over Rs.40,000/-(Rupees Forty thousand only) to you on 211. 2001 towards repayment of his loan account. You had issued a counterfoil for having received Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) towards repayment of the loan account. However, you had not remitted the cash into the loan account of Shri C.Asaithambi and thereby misappropriated Rs.40,000/-. 4. On 31.05.2001, Shri G.Radhakrishnan had given Rs.2,000/- to you towards repayment of his loan for cycle. You had given two counterfoils for Rs.1,000/- each acknowledging the receipt of cash. However, you had no accounted for the amount so received in the books of accounts. Thus, you had misappropriated the amount ofRs.2,000/- received from Shri G.Radhakrishnan by not crediting into his loan account.” 9. Likewise, the charge memo dated 30.11.2006/12. You had given two counterfoils for Rs.1,000/- each acknowledging the receipt of cash. However, you had no accounted for the amount so received in the books of accounts. Thus, you had misappropriated the amount ofRs.2,000/- received from Shri G.Radhakrishnan by not crediting into his loan account.” 9. Likewise, the charge memo dated 30.11.2006/12. 2006, which is the subject matter of the challenge in W.P.No.24763 of 2007 relates to four charges which are as follows: “1. You had authorized opening of savings bank accounts in the names of Mrs.A.Baby, Mr.I.Johnson and Mr.L.Muniyandi without following the HO guidelines in respect of opening of accounts. It transpired that the addresses furnished in the account opening forms are fictitious and the introducers are having no knowledge about the account holders and they introduced these accounts at your instance only. Thus, you have violated HO guidelines and did not protect the interest of the bank. 2. You had sanctioned a loan of Rs.25,000/- on 11. 2001 to Mrs.A.Baby with the guarantee of Mr.Sivalingam. You had released the amount in one lump sum and allowed to be withdrawn on the same day by the borrower. You did not ensure verification of end use. It transpired that the borrower and the guarantor are not available at the given address and are not traceable. 3. On 12. 2001 you had sanctioned loans to Mr.I.Johnson and Mr.L.Muniyandi, Rs.25,000/- each for paddy business against mutual guarantee. It transpired that at the time of sanctioning the loans you did not make thorough enquiry about the borrowers and the borrowers are not available at the given address and are not traceable. You accepted cash bills in both accounts purportedly issued by M/s.Lakshmi Rice Mills, Karumpakkam and signed by one Mr.E.Saivanatha Mudaliar which turned out to be a bogus and fictitious one. Thus you had sanctioned fictitious loans in the name of Mr.I.Johnson and Mr.L.Muniyandi and did not protect the interest of the Bank. 4. You had sanctioned a loan of Rs.20,000/- on 14.08.2001 to Mr. C.Manikannan whose SB Account was under inoperative status and Rs.20,000/- to Mr.C.Nadaraj on 110. 2001 whose SB account was not properly authorized, for setting up of provision stores against mutual guarantee. 4. You had sanctioned a loan of Rs.20,000/- on 14.08.2001 to Mr. C.Manikannan whose SB Account was under inoperative status and Rs.20,000/- to Mr.C.Nadaraj on 110. 2001 whose SB account was not properly authorized, for setting up of provision stores against mutual guarantee. You had accepted the cash bill for Rs.25,260/- in the account of Mr.C.Manikannan issued by M/s. Vaibhav Shoppee, West Mambalam, Channei without enquiring the reasons for purchasing the items from far away place and the entire amount was allowed to be withdrawn on the same day in cash and you did not ensure end use verification.” The charges are relating to the sanctioning of loan during the time when the petitioner was working as a Branch Manager in Tirupporur Branch between 1999 to 2002. 10. The Indian Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 applies to the petitioner, as he is a Branch Manager. Regulation 3(1) contemplates as follows: "3. General (1) Every officer employee shall, at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of an officer employee." Regulation 24 contemplates that the breach of provisions of the regulations will be deemed to be misconduct punishable under Indian Bank (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, which reads as under: "24. Act of Misconduct: A breach of any of the provisions of these regulations shall be deemed to constitute a misconduct punishable under the Indian Bank (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976." 11. The Indian Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 contemplate in Regulation 5 the authority to institute disciplinary proceedings and Regulation 6 deals with imposing of major penalties. Regulation 14 speaks about the subsistence allowance payable during suspension period, which states as follows: "14. Subsistence Allowance during suspension: .(1) An officer employee who is placed under suspension shall during the period of such suspension and subject to sub-regulations (2) to (4) be entitled to receive payment from the bank by way of subsistence allowance on the following scale, namely- .(a) Basic Pay .(i) For the first three months of suspension, 1/3 of the Basic Pay which the officer employee was receiving on the date prior to the date of suspension irrespective of the nature of enquiry. .(ii) For the subsequent period after 3 months from the date of suspension. .(ii) For the subsequent period after 3 months from the date of suspension. .(1) Where the enquiry is held departmentally by the bank, ½ of the basic pay the officer employees was drawing on the date prior to the date of suspension; and .(2) Where the enquiry is held by an outside agency, 1/3 of the basic pay which the officer employee was drawing on the date prior to the date of suspension for t he next three months and ½ of the basic pay which the officer employee was drawing on the date prior to the date of suspension for the remaining period of the suspension. .(b) Allowances (1) For the entire period of suspension, dearness allowance and other allowances excepting conveyance allowance, entertainment allowance and special allowance will be calculated on the reduced pay as specified in items (1) and (ii) of clause (a) and at the prevailing rates or at rates applicable to similar category of officers. .(2) During the period of suspension an officer employee shall not be entitled to occupation of rent-free house or free use of the Banks car or receipt of conveyance or entertainment allowance or special allowance. .(3) No officer employee of the Bank shall be entitled to receive payment of subsistence allowance unless he furnishes a certificate that he is not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation. .(4) If, during the period of suspension an officer employee retires by reason of his attaining the age of superannuation, no subsistence allowance shall be paid to him from the date of his retirement." 12. In the context of above said specific Regulation relating to the payment of subsistence allowance as available in the Regulations which are binding on the petitioner, there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner that he is eligible for the payment of subsistence allowance as per the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been paid subsistence allowance at the rate of 50% of pay which is the requirement as per the Regulation relating to the employees of the respondent bank and therefore, it can never be said that the petitioner was disentitled from effectively defending the disciplinary proceedings due to the non-payment of subsistence allowance. It is clear that this Court cannot interfere with the disciplinary proceedings at this stage on the above said basis. 13. The next point raised by the petitioner is in respect of the incidents that took place in the year 2001, charges are framed in 2006-2007 and therefore there is a delay. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.V.Mahadevan v. Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in 2005 (4) CTC 403. That was a case where in respect of alleged act committed in 1990 charge memo was issued in the year 2000. The charges are relating to financial irregularities. Under Sections 118 and 119 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, 1961, there was an obligation on the part of the Board to submit to the Government at the end of every year an abstract of accounts of receipts and expenditure and the accounts of the Board shall be examined and audited once in a year by such Auditor as the Government may appoint. In the context of the said position, the Supreme Court has held that the explanation offered by the Housing Board for delay in finalizing the audit account cannot stand the scrutiny of law due to the said provisions and in the meantime, the delinquent has retired and in the absence of proper explanation for inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceedings, the Supreme Court has quashed the charge. 14. Following the same, this Court in M.Elangovan v. Trichy District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. & another reported in 2006 (2) CTC 635 has held that when in respect of an occurrence that took place in 1996 charge was framed in 2003, there was inordinate delay of 18 months in completing the proceedings even after second show-cause notice in passing the final order and quashed the departmental proceedings. However, in the present case, it is seen that before the Charge Memo dated 30.11.2006/12. 2006 was issued, the respondent bank has issued a show-cause notice on 26. 2005, to which the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 8. 2005, in which he has denied the charges individually with particulars. Not only that, he has not raised the point of delay on the ground that after the lapse of 4 or 5 years, he is unable to recollect the particulars. 2005, to which the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 8. 2005, in which he has denied the charges individually with particulars. Not only that, he has not raised the point of delay on the ground that after the lapse of 4 or 5 years, he is unable to recollect the particulars. It is seen that the petitioner has in fact participated in the enquiry proceedings on 1. 2007 and 21. 2007 and he has not raised the issue of delay at any point of time. Likewise, in respect of charge memo dated 14. 2007, the petitioner has sent his reply on 25. 2007 and even in that reply he has not raised the issue of delay and thereafter, he has participated in the enquiry on 16. 2007, 7. 2007 and 7. 2007 and the petitioner has not raised any point of delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings and on the other hand, he has participated throughout and suddenly he has approached this Court challenging the disciplinary proceedings also on the ground of delay. I do not see any merit in the said contention raised by the petitioner. 15. One another contention raised by the petitioner relates to the supply of various documents. A reference to the list of documents asked for by the petitioner in his letters dated 21. 2007 and 26. 2007 would clearly show that the real intention of the petitioner is not to effectively defend himself, but only to drag on the proceedings. A perusal of the list of documents asked for by the petitioner on the said dates as given by him in the affidavit filed in the writ petition itself is sufficient to prove the same. The list of documents asked for by the petitioner is as follows: (as found in W.P.No.24763 of 2007) "(i) Copy of Inspection Report of 2002, 2003 and 2004. (ii) Copies of D11s renewed for these five accounts. (iii) Village Visit Register .(iv) HO Guidelines for write-off accounts. .(v) Copy of the plaint .(vi) Incumbent Manager relieving letter. (vii) HO guidelines to prove that items should be purchased within the area of the branch. (viii) Compete list of accounts which were written off for the year 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. .(ix) HO guidelines for opening of SB Accounts. .(x) HO guidelines where loan should not be released in one lump sum. (vii) HO guidelines to prove that items should be purchased within the area of the branch. (viii) Compete list of accounts which were written off for the year 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. .(ix) HO guidelines for opening of SB Accounts. .(x) HO guidelines where loan should not be released in one lump sum. .(xi) HO guidelines that written off accounts can be considered as balance outstanding the loan accounts of the customers. (xii) Latest Original documents of all the five loan parties and the latest loan account statement sheets." (as found in W.P.No.24476 of 2007) "Lok Adalat decree copy of Mr.Asai Thambi .(i) The Final ledger Foliocopy of Mr.Asai Thambi .(ii) The financial loss statement incurred on this account by the bank. (iii) Copy of cash challan for Rs.4,00,000/-. .(iv) Bank Service Regulations. .(v) Copy of the ‘Account Closed’ Certificate. .(vi) Copies of all the Circulars issued by Indian Bank, Head Office relating to Reserve Bank of India Compromise Policy, 2000. (vii) Last Loan Account Ledger of Mr.G.Radhakrishnan. (viii) The financial loss statement incurred on this Account (Mr.G.Radhakrishnan) by the Bank. .(ix) The financial loss statement incurred on account (Kumaravel) by the Bank. .(x) Cash paid counterfoil challan for Rs.1,50,000/-. .(xi) Copy of Regional Manager Letter, Kancheepuram for one Time settlement. (xii) Latest Loan Account Ledger sheet of M.Vedagiri & others. (xiii) The financial loss statement incurred on this account (M.Vedagiri & others) by the Bank. (xiv) Indian Bank Rules and Procedures for receipt of cash. (xv) Cash paid challan counterfoil for this account(Mr.Vedagiri & others) (xvi) Copy of Inspection Report of 2002, 2003 and 2004. (xvii) Written-off account statements for 2000, 2001 and up to May 2002. (xviii) HO guidelines that written off accounts can be considered as balance outstanding in the loan accounts of the customers." .16. (xv) Cash paid challan counterfoil for this account(Mr.Vedagiri & others) (xvi) Copy of Inspection Report of 2002, 2003 and 2004. (xvii) Written-off account statements for 2000, 2001 and up to May 2002. (xviii) HO guidelines that written off accounts can be considered as balance outstanding in the loan accounts of the customers." .16. It is only the documentswhich are relevant and having a bearing on the charges or which are relied upon by the Enquiry Officer to support the charges that are to be supplied and the non-supply of other documents does not violate the principles of natural justice, as held by the Supreme Court in Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India ( AIR 1988 SC 117 ) and the relevant passage is as follows: ."However, it is not necessary that each and every document must be supplied to the delinquent government servant facing the charges instead only material and relevant documents are necessary to be supplied to him. If a document even though mentioned in the memo of charges is not relevant to the charges or if it is not referred to or relied upon by the enquiry officer or the punishing authority in holding the charges proved against the government servant, no exception can be taken to the validity of the proceedings or the order. If the document is not used against the party charged the ground of violation of principles of natural justice cannot successfully be raised. The violation of principles of natural justice arises only when a document, a copy of which may not have been supplied to the party charged when demanded is used in recording finding of guilt against him. On a careful consideration of the authorities cited on behalf of the appellant we find that the obligation to supply copies of a documents is confined only to material and relevant documents and the enquiry would be vitiated only if the non-supply of material and relevant documents when demanded may have caused prejudice to the delinquent officer." .17. On the face of it, even though I do not prima facie find any relevancy in the context of the charges framed against the petitioner, inasmuch as the final order in the enquiry proceedings has not been passed, I do not wish to express any opinion. On the face of it, even though I do not prima facie find any relevancy in the context of the charges framed against the petitioner, inasmuch as the final order in the enquiry proceedings has not been passed, I do not wish to express any opinion. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charges framed against the petitioner are vague is not acceptable. Therefore, the Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court relied on by the counsel for the petitioner rendered in Venkatesh v. Syndicate Bank (2005 (1) LLN 242) has no application to the facts of the case. 18. Finally, this is a classic instance where the disciplinary proceedings are pending and the petitioner has taken all possible steps to curtail the proceedings in one way or the other by initiating various proceedings. It is relevant to point out that all cases relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner including the cases wherein the judicial pronouncements have been given in setting aside the charges, are all cases where final orders have been passed and not in pending proceedings. Therefore there is substance in the contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the respondents that the writ petition is premature. This Court cannot be expected to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in pending disciplinary proceedings on hypothetical grounds when the disciplinary authority has not made any final decision. It is very strange that in this case, the petitioner even wants documents to substantiate his way of interpretation with Regulations of the bank for the purpose of defending himself when the authority has not even taken a final decision. In a similar circumstance, arising under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act in Chanan Singh v. Registrar, Co-Op. Socy. (1976 II LLJ 98) the Supreme Court has held that when the disciplinary authority has not taken any final action, the writ petition challenging the disciplinary proceedings is only premature on the basis that if ultimately the delinquent is punished, it is certainly open to him either to file an appeal or to seek legal recourse. The relevant passages of the judgment of the Supreme Court are as follows: "4. The relevant passages of the judgment of the Supreme Court are as follows: "4. The first point raised in objection by the second respondent is that the writ petition is premature since no action has been taken finally against the appellant, the disciplinary proceedings are still pending and the explanation of the appellant is under consideration. It is only in the event of the appellant being punished that any grievance can arise for him to be agitated in the proper forum. 5. Other obstacles in the way of granting the appellant relief were also urged before the High Court and before us, but we are not inclined to investigate them for the short reason that the writ petition was in any case premature. No punitive action has yet been taken. It is difficult to state, apart from speculation, what the outcome of the proceedings will be. In case the appellant is punished, it is certainly open t him either to file an appeal as provided in the relevant rules or to take other action that he may be advised to resort to. It is not for us at the moment, to consider whether a writ petition will lie or whether an industrial dispute should be raised or whether an appeal to the competent authority under the rules is the proper remedy, although these are issues which merit serious consideration." 19. In a recent judgment in Suresh Pathrella v. Oriental Bank of Commerce [(2007) 1 SCC (L & S) 224] when it was argued that non-furnishing of copy of the handwriting expert’s report will vitiate the disciplinary proceedings, the Supreme Court has negatived the same on the basis that there is no allegation of mala fide or bias and therefore, it cannot be held to be a denial of reasonable opportunity. In fact, in the said case, while referring the Oriental Bank of Commerce Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1982, the Supreme Court has pointed out that merely no loss of money to the bank is not a ground to take a lenient view but it is the requirement of utmost integrity in the services of the Officer of the Bank, which is as follows: "It will be noticed that the appellant was charged for the alleged violation of Regulation 3 (1) of the Regulations, 1982. Regulation 3(1) reads: ‘3(1) Every Officer employee shall, at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer’. The regulation ensures that every officer at all times takes all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which will be unbecoming of a bank officer. Such regulations are made to instill the public confidence in the bank so that the interests of customers /depositors are well safeguarded. In such a situation the fact that no amount was lost to the bank would be no ground to take a lenient view for the proved misconduct of a bank officer." Under these circumstances, there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the writ petitions are premature. It is always open to the petitioner to raise all these issues after the disciplinary authority takes a final decision either by way of appeal or otherwise. In view of the same, the writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.