Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was employed as Assistant Manager during 1998 in Reddiarpatti Branch in Tirunelveli District. He was on leave from 15.05.1998 to 25.05.1998 while he was transferred by an order dated 15.05.1998 from Reddiarpatti Branch to Edayankulam Branch. 2. On15.05.1998, the Manager relieved him from Reddiarpatti Branch by making entry in the Attendance Register. After expiry of the medical leave, since he was relieved from the Reddiyarpatti Branch, he joined at the transferred place. 3. Further, while he was working in Reddiyarpatti Branch, he made a note in the tour diary on 06.04.1998 stating that he would be on leave from 10.04.1998 and therefore, he requested the Senior Manager to contact Ms. Saraswathi, who is a borrower, on 12.04.1998 at Hotel Blue Star or at 178, N.G.O. 'A' Colony and get the revival letter since he was informed that she would definitely attend a function at Hotel Blue Star, since Ms. Saraswathi obtained loan and it would get time barred if no revival letter is obtained. However, the aforesaid note was struck out since the loanee herself visited the branch on the same day on 07.04.1998 by 2.15 p.m. and signed the revival letter. 4. In the said circumstances, a charge memo dated 22.09.1998 was issued containing 8 charges. We are concerned with only charge Nos.3 and 7, since other charges were held as not proved. 5. Charge Nos.3 and 7 are as follows: Charge No.3:- "On 20.05.1998, you have joined in the Edayankulam Branch without the relieving order from our Reddiarpatti Branch. Thus you have displayed insubordination to Head Office instructions". Charge No.7:- "On 06.04.98, you have written remarks on the tour diary instructing your superior the Senior Manager, Mr. Thiraviyam to obtain Revival letter. Thus you have instructed your superior officer committing a breach of discipline". 6. The petitioner submitted explanation denying the charges. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. Witnesses were examined and documents were produced. 7. The Enquiry Officer submitted his finding, dated 06.01.2005 holding that charge Nos.3 and 7 alone were proved and the other charges were not proved. 8. The disciplinary authority issued a memo dated 09.02.2005 enclosing the findings of the Enquiry Officer and directed the petitioner to offer his comments on the findings. The petitioner submitted his comments dated 23.02.2005 on charge Nos.3 and 7 and requested to drop the charges. 9. 8. The disciplinary authority issued a memo dated 09.02.2005 enclosing the findings of the Enquiry Officer and directed the petitioner to offer his comments on the findings. The petitioner submitted his comments dated 23.02.2005 on charge Nos.3 and 7 and requested to drop the charges. 9. The first respondent disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice, dated 23.03.2005 stating that he concurred the findings of the Enquiry Officer and proposed to impose the punishment of lowering of one stage from the present basic pay in the incremental scale with immediate effect. 10. The petitioner gave his reply dated 08.04.2005 requesting to drop the disciplinary proceedings. 11. While so, the impugned order dated 10.05.2005 was passed by the first respondent imposing the punishment of lowering of one stage from the present basic pay in the incremental scale. 12. The petitioner filed an appeal, dated 10.04.2006 before the second respondent and the same was rejected by the second respondent by an order dated 11.08.2006. The said order is communicated by the first respondent in its order dated 04.11.2006. 13. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 04.11.2006 of the second respondent. 14. The respondents have filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations. 15. Heard both sides. 16. The relevant charges 3 and 7 are extracted above. It is relevant that the Senior Manager, Reddiyarpatti Branch made a complaint, dated 18.04.1998 based on which charge sheet was issued. In the said complaint, dated 18.04.1998, there is no complaint relating to charge Nos.3 and 7. Those complaints are relating to other charges. The Area Manager also gave a complaint, dated 13.04.1998 which was also not relating to charge Nos.3 and 7. Both the complaints dated 13.04.1998 and 18.04.1998 could not obviously contain anything relating to charge No.3 since the same occurred after the issuance of the complaints. Furthermore, the Senior Manager who was examined as M.W.4, in the enquiry did not speak anything about the charge Nos.3 and 7. 17. The Area Manager investigated into the complaint and gave his report and in the report dated 03.06.1998, the Area Manager has recorded the following findings: "Unwanted Remarks: It was also noticed that the officer made some unwanted remarks in his tour diary. 17. The Area Manager investigated into the complaint and gave his report and in the report dated 03.06.1998, the Area Manager has recorded the following findings: "Unwanted Remarks: It was also noticed that the officer made some unwanted remarks in his tour diary. In one of the remarks he asked the Senior Manager to contact one lady borrower at 8 p.m in the next day at Hotel Blue Star for getting the revival letter. Photo copy tour report is enclosed for perusal". 18. Likewise, the Area Manager, made another report dated 'nil' to the General Manager wherein he has recorded the following findings: "The following irregularities are noted: i. Before relieving the officer, Senior Manager, Reddiarpatti marked in the attendance register as relieved from the branch. ii. The officer Mr. C. Selvakumar Thilagaraj before joining at Idayankulam branch should have ascertained from Reddiarpatti whether relieving order has been sent to Idayankulam branch. iii. The Idayankulam Branch Manager Mr. Udayakumar should not have allowed Mr. C. Selvakumar Thilagaraj, Officer to sign in the attendance register without relieving order from Reddiarpatti". 19. I have perused the relevant materials on record. Analysis of Charge No.3: 20. In my view, the allegations made in charge No.3 could not constitute misconduct and therefore, disciplinary action itself is not warranted. It is not stated anywhere in the proceedings that there are Rules framed by the Bank requiring an employee who is transferred from one place to another place to join the transferred place with the relieving order, otherwise he would not be permitted to join the transferred place. 21. It is not the case of the bank that the petitioner failed to join at the transferred place and disobeyed the transfer order. Even now, the learned counsel for the bank is not able to bring to the notice of this Court as to the existence of some Rules that contemplate that no employee could join at the transferred place without relieving order. 22. More importantly, in this case, the petitioner was issued transfer order, dated 15.05.1998 and as per Ex.M.E.18, the attendance register, he was relieved from the Branch. I have perused Ex.M.E.18. It is recorded by the Senior Manager on 15.05.1998 that he was relieved from Reddiyarpatti Branch to join at Edayankulam Branch. 22. More importantly, in this case, the petitioner was issued transfer order, dated 15.05.1998 and as per Ex.M.E.18, the attendance register, he was relieved from the Branch. I have perused Ex.M.E.18. It is recorded by the Senior Manager on 15.05.1998 that he was relieved from Reddiyarpatti Branch to join at Edayankulam Branch. In spite of Ex.M.E.18, the first respondent has recorded in his finding dated 23.03.2005 that the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence that he was instructed by the Senior Manger to report duty at Edayankulam Branch. In my view, Ex.M.E.18, is the best evidence that he was instructed to join at Edayankulam Branch. The following passage in the findings, dated 23.03.2005 of the first respondent is reproduced hereunder: "a) No proof or evidence has been adduced by CSO to this effect. Moreover when relieving order is not served, you could not proceed to other branch on your own without the relieving order". 23. According to the aforesaid findings, the petitioner should not have proceeded to the transferred Branch without relieving order. I am unable to understand the said findings of the first respondent. 24. It is not the case of the respondent bank that relieving order was served on the petitioner and he refused to receive the same. 25. I am also not able to understand the following reasons given by the second respondent in the appellate order dated 10.05.2005. "a) Since the member had availed Medical leave while at Reddiarpatti branch the date of relieve from the branch should be on or after the expiry of the medical leave. But the record shows different picture. Moreover, even if he had been relieved in absentia, as contended by CSO, a copy of the letter should have been served on him. Without serving of such a letter a staff member cannot be deemed relieved in absentia. In view of these factors, Enquiry Officer's findings are acceptable". The aforesaid reasons are totally perverse and no prudent person can come to such a conclusion based on the materials available on record. 26. More importantly, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the witnesses examined by the Department deposed in favour of the petitioner viz., M.W.7 N.M.A.Siddhika Jarina, who was also transferred from Reddiyarpatti to Moolakaraipatti was not issued the relieving order. 26. More importantly, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the witnesses examined by the Department deposed in favour of the petitioner viz., M.W.7 N.M.A.Siddhika Jarina, who was also transferred from Reddiyarpatti to Moolakaraipatti was not issued the relieving order. The following passage from the cross examination of the said witness is extracted hereunder: "TAMIL" 27. As I have already held that the allegations made in charge No.3 could not constitute misconduct for proceeding departmentally. In any event, the allegations are not established in view of Ex.M.E.18 and therefore, the findings of the authorities are totally perverse and the impugned punishment is liable to be interfered with. Analysis of Charge No.7:- 28. The allegations of the bank are that the petitioner made a note in the tour diary in an impolite way as against the Senior Manger. But as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Senior Manger who was examined as M.W.5 did not speak anything about Charge No.7. He did not state that he got offended due to the note made by the petitioner. The note, that was made by the petitioner is reproduced hereunder: "It has been informed by her relatives that she will definitely attend a function at Hotel Blue Star, Tirunelveli Junction on 12.04.1998 by 8.00 p.m. Note: I may on leave from 10.04.98. Hence, I kindly request the Senior Manager to contact the lady on 12.04.98 at Hotel Blue Star or at 178 NGO 'A' colony and get the Revival letter". 29. According to the petitioner, the loanee Ms. Sarasvathy was not staying in the station after obtaining loan and she was not residing in the address given in the loan application. If renewal application is not obtained from Ms. Sarasvathy, then it would be difficult for the bank to recover the amount. The petitioner was to take leave from 10.04.1998 and he got information that the lady would visit on 12.04.1998 for a function at Hotel Blue Star, Tirunelveli. Hence, he made a note with an intention to safeguard the interest of the bank. 30. When the Senior Manager made a complaint, dated 18.04.1998, he did not make any grievance over the note made by the petitioner on 07.04.1998. Furthermore, the note was struck out since the loanee herself visited the branch at 2.15 p.m. on 07.04.1998 itself and signed the revival letter. 31. 30. When the Senior Manager made a complaint, dated 18.04.1998, he did not make any grievance over the note made by the petitioner on 07.04.1998. Furthermore, the note was struck out since the loanee herself visited the branch at 2.15 p.m. on 07.04.1998 itself and signed the revival letter. 31. The Investigating Officer, who was examined as M.W.11 deposed that the struck out portion should not be considered. The relevant deposition of M.W.11 is extracted hereunder: "TAMIL" 32. Furthermore, the appellate authority, in the order dated 10.05.2005 has not dealt with Charge No.7 at all. 33. I am also of the view that the respondents are not correct in finding fault with the note. Instead of appreciating the petitioner for his duty consciousness, he was slapped with the charges. The note was made by the petitioner to safeguard the interest of the Bank. In fact, he uses the word "kindly" and "request" in the note. The purpose of the note is to get Revival letter. 34. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the findings of the authorities are totally perverse and the punishment has no basis. Hence, the impugned orders are quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.