Supreme Court of India
THE GENERAL MANAGER (P) CANARA BANKversusGANGANARASIMHAIAH
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 1088
- Decided
- 9 September 2025
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- K MAHESHWARI
Holding
The Tribunal and High Court exceeded their jurisdiction by re‑appraising evidence and must be set aside, affirming the disciplinary authority’s order of compulsory retirement.
Summary
The respondent, a sub‑staff of Canara Bank, was found guilty of making unauthorized entries, coercing the branch manager to sanction loans for his family, and tampering with bank records, leading to his compulsory retirement in 2006. The disciplinary authority’s findings were affirmed by the appellate authority, and the Central Government referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal set aside the retirement order and ordered reinstatement without back wages, a decision upheld by the Karnataka High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal and High Court overstepped their jurisdiction by re‑appraising evidence, which is prohibited in disciplinary matters, and failed to apply the pre‑ponderance of probability standard. The Court restored the disciplinary authority’s order of compulsory retirement, confirming the employee’s entitlement to gratuity and pensionary benefits but not reinstatement. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and the Tribunal and High Court awards were set aside.
Issues considered
- The Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Section 11A to interfere with the disciplinary authority’s punishment order.
- Whether the Tribunal acted as an appellate body by re‑appraising evidence and thereby exceeded its statutory powers.
- Whether the disciplinary enquiry complied with principles of natural justice and was based on evidence sufficient on a pre‑ponderance of probabilities.
- Whether compulsory retirement is a proportionate punishment and entitles the employee to retirement benefits.
- Whether the High Court erred in confirming the Tribunal’s award of reinstatement without back wages.
Legislation cited
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in affirming the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal by setting aside the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the respondent-workman and directing his reinstatement into the original of service without back wages. Headnotes† Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.11A – Powers of the labour court, tribunals – Allegations against the respondent-duftery- cum-cash posted in the Bank that he benefitted on account of misconduct/irregular loan sanction –
Subjects
Compulsory retirementReinstatementSerious irregularitiesUnauthorized entries in the bank accountsTampering with the official recordsCoercing the managerJudicial review in disciplinary mattersDisciplinary enquiryRule of natural justiceEnquiry held by competent authorityDisciplinary AuthorityStrict rules of evidenceDepartmental proceedingsPreponderance of probabilitiesRetirement benefitsDismissal from servicePensionary benefitsContinuity of service without back wagesSuspension
Judgment
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 703 : 2025 INSC 1088
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank
v.
Ganganarasimhaiah
(Civil Appeal No. 11461 of 2025)
09 September 2025
[J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the Division Bench of the High Court was
justified in affirming the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal by
setting aside the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed
upon the respondent-workman and directing his reinstatement into
the original post with continuity of service without back wages.
Headnotes†
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.11A – Powers of the labour
court, tribunals – Allegations against the respondent-duftery-
cum-cash posted in the Bank that he benefitted on account
of misconduct/irregular loan sanction – In the preliminary
enquiry respondent admitted that certain loans were availed
by coercing the manager and without obtaining any sanction
from the Controlling Officer and accepted making unauthorized
entries in the bank accounts, thereby tampering with the
official records – Charges stood proved in the enquiry, by
the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate authority and
punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the
respondent – Industrial tribunal found that the enquiry was fair,
however in the final award directed the appellant to reinstate
the respondent without back wages – Final award upheld by
the High Court – Sustainability:
Held: Order passed by the tribunal as well as the High Court
not sustainable – Tribunal as well as the High Court failed to
take into consideration the settled principal of law in respect of
judicial review in disciplinary matters – High Court while adding
its irrelevant reasons, confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal
acted in a manner as if it was hearing an appeal against the order
passed by the Disciplinary Authority, it failed to take into account
* Author
704 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
that in the departmental proceedings strict rules of evidence, as
applicable in the judicial proceedings, cannot be applied and a
charge of misconduct is to be proved only on preponderance of
probabilities – Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority
took into consideration the evidence available on record and had
come to the conclusion that the respondent was found guilty on the
charges levelled against him – Appellate Authority had also revisited
the evidence and concurred with the Disciplinary Authority – After
careful scrutiny of their order, it cannot be said that the orders
were based on no evidence or are perverse in the absence of
cogent and reliable evidence – Tribunal acted as an Appellate
Authority and despite concluding that it is highly possible that the
irregularities as alleged in the chargesheet were committed by the
manager at the insistence of the Respondent, and he was the direct
beneficiary of the irregular loan sanction, had illegally interfered
with the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority –
Compulsory retirement of an employee from the services does
not mean that the employee is not entitled to retirement benefits,
which can only be denied in a case of dismissal from service –
Impugned order passed by the tribunal as well as the High Court
set aside – However, as punishment of compulsory retirement is
imposed upon the respondent, he is entitled for gratuity and other
pensionary benefits in accordance with law. [Paras 30, 34, 39-41]
Case Law Cited
Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others v. Ajai
Kumar Srivastava [2021] 1 SCR 51 : (2021) 2 SCC 612; Standard
Chartered Bank v. R.C. Srivastava (2021) 19 SCC 281; Indian
Overseas Bank and Others v. Om Prakash Lal Srivastava [2022]
1 SCR 246 : (2022) 3 SCC 803; B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India
and Others [1995] Supp. 4 SCR 644 : (1995) 6 SCC 749; State of
Rajasthan and Others v. Heem Singh [2020] 13 SCR 951 : (2021)
12 SCC 569; State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand
Nalwaya [2011] 3 SCR 589 : (2011) 4 SCC 584 – referred to.
List of Acts
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
List of Keywords
Compulsory retirement; Reinstatement; Serious irregularities;
Unauthorized entries in the bank accounts; Tampering with
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 705
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
the official records; Coercing the manager; Judicial review in
disciplinary matters; Disciplinary enquiry; Rule of natural justice;
Enquiry held by competent authority; Disciplinary Authority; Strict
rules of evidence; Departmental proceedings; Preponderance
of probabilities; Retirement benefits; Dismissal from service;
Pensionary benefits; Continuity of service without back wages;
Suspension.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11461
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.08.2022 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WP No. 1857 of 2022
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Anant Gautam, Deepanjal Choudhary,
Dinesh Sharma, Ms. Likivi Jakhalu.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Saju Jakob, Teerthgowda N.M., Preyoshi Bhattacharjee, Senthil
Kumar, Chand Qureshi.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant challenging the
Judgment dated 12.08.2022 passed in Writ Petition No. 1857 of
2020 (L-RES) by the High Court of Karnataka. The Division Bench
of the High Court, thereby affirmed the Award passed by the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court (hereinafter referred to
as “Tribunal”) in C.R. No. 138/2007 dated 25.09.2019, by setting
aside the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the
Respondent and directed his reinstatement into the original post with
continuity of service without back wages.
706 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
BRIEF FACTS
3. The facts, in brief, are that the Respondent joined the service
of the Appellant-Bank as a daily wage Sub-Staff on 17.10.1990.
Subsequently, his service was confirmed as Duftery-cum-Cash
Peon as Sub-Staff Leader on 18.07.1992. The Respondent was
thereafter posted at V.G. Doddi branch from 11.11.1997 till 01.08.2004.
Thereafter, he was posted at Bommasandra branch on 02.08.2004.
4. The then manager, Shri H.N. Ramesh of V.G. Doddi branch submitted
an investigation report on 06.08.2004 alleging serious irregularities
at the branch office, V.G. Doddi branch when the Respondent and
other staff members were posted there.
5. A preliminary enquiry was conducted into the said irregularities
and the Respondent, in the said enquiry, on 24.07.2004 admitted
that certain loans were advanced to his wife which were availed
by coercing the manager and without obtaining any sanction
from the Controlling Officer. The Respondent also accepted that
he made unauthorized entries in the bank accounts of one Shri
Ramakrishnaiah and his father, Shri Kambaiah, thereby tampering
with the official records.
6. The Respondent was then put under suspension on 19.08.2004
because of contemplation to initiate the disciplinary proceeding,
and thereafter a chargesheet dated 28.04.2005 was issued to the
Respondent in respect of the charges. The chargesheet is reproduced
herein below for easy reference:-
“… CHARGE
You were working at our V.G. Doddi branch from 11.11.1997
to 01.00.2004 prior to your joining Bommasandra Branch
on 02.08.2004 and you were placed under suspension
on 19.08.2004.
Serious discrepancies in the Advances Portfolio of our
V.G. Doddi branch was observed and an investigation
conducted into the matter has brought to fore the following
irregularities/ fraudulent acts on your part;
FGC 1/2000 for Rs. 25000/- for Rs. 25,000/- to Shri
Kambaiah on 03.04.2000;
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 707
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
On 03.04.2000 FGC 1/2000 for Rs. 25,000 has been granted
to Shri. Kambaiah S/o Shri Rangaiah, Nayakanapalya,
Magadi Taluk who is your father.
On 01.03.2000, Shri R. R. Hoover , the then Manager had
allowed a TOD for Rs. 10000/- in the SB Account No. 519
of Shri. Kambaiah. Again on 24.03.2000, you had requested
for a further finance of Rs. 25,000/- in your father’s account
informing the Mnagaer that your father would be visiting
the branch for executing the loan papers. At your behest
Shri. R. R. Hoover had prepared the debit and credit slips
far by debiting FGC account and crediting SB account No.
519 of Shri. Kambaiah. The slips for granting FGC loan
was prepared without even preparing the loan papers as
Shri. Kambaiah had not personally visited the branch for
executing loan papers.
You have posted the credit slips in SB 519 of Shri.
Kambaiah and withdrawn Rs. 15000/- from his SB account
on the same day i.e. on 24.03.2000. In order to set right
the unauthorised debit in FGC loan of your father, you
have on the next day i.e. on 25.03.2000 unauthorisedly
debited SB account 1550 of Shri. Ramakrishnaiah without
the knowledge of the Manager and without, preparing
any slips for debiting the account and without showing
any corresponding. Credit. You have debited the amount
in the 1edger sheet only and not made any entry in the
subsidiary sheet.
You have brought this unauthorised, transaction to
Manager’s knowledge only on 31.03.2000. Subsequently
Shri R. R. Hoover passed the slips on that day by debiting
SB 1550 of Shri Ramakrishnaiah. M and crediting FGC
subsidiary, without slips. By doing so, the entry pertaining -
to FGC loan granted in the absence of Shri Kambaiah on
24.03.2000 was reversed and the unauthorised debit in
SB 1550 of Shri Rsmakrishnaiah remained outstanding.
Subsequently to set right the transaction of unauthorized
debit in SB 1550 and crediting FGC head, Shri R. R. Hoover
had hurriedly sanctioned a loan FGC 1/2000 for Rs.25000/-
to Shri Kambaiah on 03.04.2000 by duly obtaining loan
708 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
papers and crediting the proceeds to SB 1550 of Shri
Ramakrishnaiah thus re-crediting the unauthorised debit.
You have posted the debit slip pertaining to the transaction.
You have knowingly made the unauthorised entries in
your father’s and Shri. Ramakrishnaiah’s accounts for
your personal gains.
Shri. Chennavenkataiah, P.T.E. of the branch had extracted
the balancings of Rs. 3,00,196/- before the debit of
Rs.25,000/- on 25.03.2000 i9n the SB balancing book.
You have deliberately made alterations in the balancing
book and altered the amount of Rs, 2,75,196/- to tally the
balancing book. You have also made alterations in SB
Control Register and the closing balance in the ledger
subsidiary to tally the books which amounts to tempering
and falsification of Bank’s records.
To conceal this unauthorizid debit in SB 1550 of Shri.
Ramakrishnaiah you have deliberately left out the debit
and credit entry while updating his pass book. You have
admitted having deliberately left out these entries in the
pass book.
Shri. Ramakrishnaiah had nothing to do with this transaction
and Manager has granted the loan for accommodation
purpose at your instance and as you had pressurized him
in granting the said loan.
Shri. R. R. Hoover, Manager had allowed TODs in SB
Account 2450 of Smt. Suvarmamma who is your wife, on
8 occasions during the period from 16.4.99 to 23.5.2000
totalling to Rs. 55,857/-. Apart from this, she was granted
with DPN RT 22/09 for Rs. 20000/-, DPN RT 31/99 for Rs.
25,000/-, ALS 15/03 for Rs. 25000/-. Further loans have
been granted to Shri. Kambaiah, your father, under ALS
10/02 for Rs. 25000/- and ALGL 98/03 for Rs. 25000/- for
which concurrence of controlling office were not been taken.
You have unauthorissdiy made debits in the SB Account
1550 for raising funds for personal gain. You have coerced
the Manager for sanctioning loans to your family members
for personal gains. You have tempered the Bank records
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 709
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
by making alterations in the balancing book, key register
and SB subsidiary sheets to keep the books tallied by
fraudulent means on account of unauthorized debits.
Our Staff Section (Officers), Circle Office, Bangalore, vide
their letter No- BLC/SSO/7023/EP dated 04.10.2004, has
called for your explanation into, the matter. The reply
submitted by you vide your letter dated 02.11.2004 is
neither convincing nor satisfactory.
You have by your above actions failed to discharge
your duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and
diligence and thus cant ravened the provisions of Chapter
XI, Regulation 2(A), (i) of Canara Bank Service Code and
committed a “Gross Misconduct”….”
7. On 07.06.2005, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer
and a Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer after conclusion of the
enquiry submitted a report on 09.01.2006, concluding that all the
charges levelled against the Respondent stands proved.
8. The copy of the Enquiry Report was supplied and in response to
that the Respondent submitted his submissions alleging that the
enquiry was not fair as two relevant witnesses were not examined.
9. The Disciplinary Authority issued “Show Cause Notice” dated
10.03.2006 to the Respondent proposing the punishment of compulsory
retirement. The Respondent was also afforded personal hearing by
the Disciplinary Authority. Finally on 15.03.2006, while agreeing with
the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority imposed
the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the Respondent.
10. Being aggrieved, the Respondent preferred an appeal before the
Appellate Authority which rejected the appeal preferred by the
Respondent vide Order dated 22.11.2006.
11. Further, pursuant to the dispute raised by the Respondent before the
Central Government, the Central Government made a reference to
the Tribunal, the terms of the reference read as follows:
“Whether the punishment of the compulsory retirement
imposed on Shri Ganganarasimahaiah by the management
of Canara Bank is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the workmen is entitled?”
710 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
12. The Tribunal framed a preliminary issue as to whether the domestic
enquiry held against the Respondent is fair and proper or not? On
behalf of the Respondent, following contentions were raised:
● Some key witnesses have not been examined and certain
relevant documents were not furnished to him;
● Sufficient opportunity was not provided to examine the
departmental witnesses; and
● The enquiry proceedings were not conducted in the Kannada
language but in English language which was inconvenient to
the Respondent and his defence representative to effectively
put forward the defence.
The Tribunal after dealing with the above contentions of the
Respondent and also considering the stand of the Appellant-Bank
vide Order dated 17.05.2013 had concluded that the enquiry was
fair. The operative portion of the order dated 17.05.2013, passed by
the Tribunal is reproduced herein under:-
“....Thus, I find no to say that fair and proper opportunity
was denied to the CSE or his defence Representative to put
forward their case. In the result while arriving at conclusion
of answering this issue in the affirmative holding that the
Domestic Enquiry held against the I Party by the II party
is fair and proper, I pass the following Order:
ORDER
The Preliminary issue is answered in the Affirmative holding
that the Domestic Enquiry held against the I Party by the
II party is fair and proper…”
It is to be noticed that the said order passed by the Tribunal dated
17.05.2013 has not been challenged by the Respondent and has
thus, attained finality.
13. The Tribunal vide order dated 25.09.2019, had passed the Final
Award and answered the reference in favour of the Respondent and
directed the Appellant to reinstate the workman into his original post
with continuity of service without back wages.
14. The Appellant thereafter preferred the impugned Writ Petition No.
1857 of 2020 (L-RES) before the High Court challenging the Final
Award dated 25.09.2019 passed by the Tribunal.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 711
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
15. The High Court vide the impugned Order dated 12.08.2022 dismissed
the Writ Petition and upheld the Award passed by the Tribunal.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
16. The learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the Tribunal while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes
Act had exceeded its jurisdiction and acted as a Court of Appeal. It
is contented that, though, the Tribunal vide order dated 17.05.2013
had held that the Disciplinary Enquiry against the Respondent was
fair and proper, had re-appreciated the evidence and had interfered
with the punishment order illegally.
17. The learned counsel has argued that the finding of the Tribunal, to the
effect that the management did not produce any evidentiary material
to prove the charges against the Respondent is perverse and bad in
law. It is contended that as many as 19 documents were produced
during the course of enquiry and the Enquiry Officer as well as the
Disciplinary Authority has dealt extensively with those documents
despite the fact that during the preliminary enquiry, the Respondent
had admitted his guilt. Learned Counsel has further argued that the
copies of the documents relied upon by the Appellant were supplied
to the Respondent and he was granted sufficient opportunity to cross-
examine the witnesses. In such circumstances, the Tribunal had
grossly erred in interfering with the punishment order passed by the
Disciplinary Authority and the High Court had also erred in affirming
the order passed by the Tribunal. Learned Counsel has further argued
that the Tribunal as well as the High Court were impressed only by the
fact that the Appellant had failed to prove that the Respondent was the
author of the entries whereby some irregular/illegal transactions were
carried out in the bank/loan accounts of one Shri Ramakrishnaiah,
the father of the Respondent, Shri Kambaiah and other customers of
the banks. It is further contended that the Tribunal despite observing
that it is highly possible that at the instance of the Respondent, the
manager committed the irregularities as alleged in the chargesheet
and also observing that the Respondent was the beneficiary of the
misconduct/loan sanction has illegally interfered with the punishment
order. It is argued that it is a settled position of law that strict rules
of evidence do not apply to the disciplinary proceedings and the
findings of the Disciplinary Authority are to be tested on the principle
of preponderance of probabilities.
712 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
18. Learned counsel for the Appellant has further argued that the
Tribunal has erred in observing that the punishment of compulsory
retirement on the Respondent is too harsh and disproportionate,
despite holding that he was benefitted on account of misconduct/
irregular loan sanction. The Tribunal has also wrongly observed that
if the Respondent is reinstated into service, then only he will get the
retiral benefits. It is contended that the Respondent being compulsorily
retired from this service would otherwise also be entitled to retiral
benefits because it is not a case of dismissal from the service. It
is further submitted that the other staff working at the relevant time
in the V.G. Doddi branch, namely, Shri R.R. Hoover and Shri N.
Govinda Raju were also subjected to disciplinary proceedings and
since the charges have been proved against them, punishment of
compulsory retirement had also been imposed upon them. Their
challenge to the punishment was rejected by the Appellate and
Reviewing Authority and thereafter, they have not made any further
challenge before any of the Authority and therefore, the punishment
inflicted upon them became final.
19. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has further argued that the
customers put their trust in the banks and deposit their money with
the belief that their money would be safe in the banks. In such a
condition, if an employee of the bank indulges in malpractices or
irregularities in maintaining the accounts of the customers, then
the faith of the general public would erode in the banking system.
It is contended that the Respondent was found indulged in making
unauthorized transactions in the bank account of strangers and
was also involved in making irregular transactions in the accounts
of his father and his wife and therefore, it is not desirable that such
employee would remain in the banking system. The irregularities
committed by the Respondent resulted in loss of confidence of the
employer and in such circumstances the Respondent had rightly
been compulsorily retired.
20. In support of the above submissions, the learned counsel for the
Appellant has relied upon the judgements passed by this Court in
Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) And Others vs.
Ajai Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612, Standard
Chartered Bank vs. R.C. Srivastava reported in (2021) 19 SCC
281 and Indian Overseas Bank and Others vs. Om Prakash Lal
Srivastava reported in (2022) 3 SCC 803.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 713
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
21. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has
opposed the appeal and has argued that the High Court had not
committed any illegality in passing the impugned order because the
Appellant did not produce any evidence to prove that the unauthorized
entries and tampering of the records were done by the Respondent.
The learned counsel for the Respondent further argued that the
Enquiry Officer also failed to examine two material witnesses, namely
Shri Ramakrishnaiah and Shri R.R. Hoover and the Enquiry Officer
did not obtain an expert opinion to verify whether the disputed entries
were made in the handwriting of the Respondent.
22. The learned counsel for the Respondent also contends that the
statement of admission of guilt by the Respondent, that are relied
upon by the Appellant, were involuntary as they were taken under
threat and coercion. It is asserted that the Respondent has only
studied till 7th standard and it is difficult to comprehend that he, not
being an educated person, had made the entries in the bank accounts
of his father or that of any other customers. It is contended that as
a matter of fact, the whole irregularities in the loan/bank accounts
of father of the Respondent and the other customers were done by
the then manager of the bank and the Respondent has been falsely
implicated.
23. It is further contended that the Appellant-bank has failed to produce
any evidence which suggests that the Respondent was directly
involved in the alleged misconduct, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly
held that the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon
the Respondent is too harsh and disproportionate.
24. We have heard the arguments advanced by both the parties and
pursued the material on record.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
25. The allegation against the Respondent is that when he was posted
as Sub-staff at the V.G. Doddi branch of the Appellant-bank, he had
committed certain irregularities. Pursuant to the same, the Respondent
was suspended on 19.08.2004 and thereafter a charge sheet was
served upon him on 28.04.2005. The Enquiry Officer submitted his
report concluding that the charges levelled against the Respondent
had been proved and as such he is guilty of misconduct. The copy
of the enquiry report was supplied to the Respondent, and his
714 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
explanation was sought wherein he had furnished his explanation.
The Disciplinary Authority after providing an opportunity of personal
hearing and considering his defence had concurred with the enquiry
report and vide Order dated 15.03.2006 had imposed the penalty of
compulsory retirement upon the Respondent. The order passed by
the Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of compulsory
retirement is reproduced hereunder:
“I have perused the Chargesheet, the Enquiry Proceedings,
relevant documents, findings of the Enquiring Officer and
submissions of the CSE.
Sri Ganganarasimhaih was working at our V.G. Doddi
Branch from 11.11.97 to 01.08.2004 prior to his joining
Bommasandra branch on 02.08.04 and he was placed
under suspension with effect from 19.08.04.
Serious discrepancies in the Advances Portfolio of V.G.
Doddi Branch was observed and an Investigation conduced
in the matter brought to the more certain irregularities/
fraudulent activities on his part.
The charges are morefully enumerated in the above
referred Chargesheot which shall be read as part and
parcel of this order.
Upon an enquiry, Sri Ganganarasimhaiah was found ‘guilty’
of the charges in the EO’s findings which was served upon
him and the CSE vide his letter dated 28.01.06 has made
his submissions.
On perusal of the records, I observe the following:
During the course of the enquiry 19 documents were
introduced as Management Exhibits and two witnesses
were examined. On behalf of the defence/ CSE one
document was introduced and no witnesses were produced.
Sri H N Ramesh, Manager and the Investigating Officer
was examined as MW-1. He has identified documents
MEx - 1 to MEx - 16. MEx - 1, the contents of which were
confirmed by MW1 reveals as follows:
On 03.05.2000, FGC Rs.25,000/- was granted to Sri
Kambaiah, father of the Chargesheeted Employee. The
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 715
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
debit slip was prepared for FGC 1/2000 and credit slip
was prepared for SB 1550 of Sri Ramakrishnaiah. In SB
1550, ledgersheet, there is a debit of Rs.25,000/- to FGC
1/2000 on 25.03.2000 and a credit of Rs.25,000/- is made
on 03.04.2000 by FGC. These ledger entries are in the
handwriting of CSE. There are no “corresponding debit and
credit slips in the slip bundle of 25.03.2000. In the slip bundle
of 31.03.2000, there is a debit slip for Rs.25,000/- debiting
SB 1550 of Sri Ramakrishnaiah with the narration towards
FGC 1/2000 and a Credit Slip for the equal amount for the
credit of FGC 1/2000. The debit slip bears the ledger folio
no 78.12 with initials of CSE and the slip was released
by Sri Robert R. Hoover, Manager. The balancing of SB
ledger was extracted by Sri Channavenkataiah, PTE. The
total balancing has been altered to Rs.275196/- and the
balancing tallied. The alterations in the SB balancing book
are admittedly in the handwriting of CSE. The SB key
register is also in the handwriting of the CSE. The final total
is altered by using white fluid and initialled by CSE. The CSE
has admitted debiting the account of Sri Ramakrishnaiah
without Manager’s knowledge On 31.03.2000. Sri Robert R.
Hoover, Manager, came to know of the debit to SB account
No 1550 on 25.03.2000 for Rs.25,000/-and alteration in SB
key register and in SB Balancing book. CSE pleaded for
mercy and as such the Manager had not written to CO.
Sri Robert R. Hoover to set right the above transaction
made transfer slips on 31.03.2000 debiting SB 1550 and
crediting FGC head. The CSE has written passbook of SB
1550 deliberately omitting the above two entries and CSE
has admitted this in writing.
[Emphasis Supplied]
The CSE admitted in his statement dt 24.07.2004 that he
got SB 2450 opened in the name of Smt Suvarnamma,
wife of CSE on 19.12.1997. She is not working and not
doing any busyness but she goes to tailoring training
class. He had taken the TODs in this account and repaid
the same. The CSE has posted the relevant slips in his
own handwriting.
[Emphasis Supplied]
716 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
The CSE has admitted having availed DPNRT 22/98
for Rs.20,000/-, DPNRT 31/99 for Rs.25,000/-and ALS
15/2003 for Rs.25,000/-in his wife’s name. The CSE has
admitted for having posted the slips of FGC 1/2000 in
SB ledger sheet of SB 519 & SB 1550. That there is no
relationship between SB 1550 of Sri Ramakrishnaiah and
FGC 1/2000 of his father. The fact of debiting SB 1550 with
Rs.25,000/- was not informed to Sri Ramakrishnaiah. The
CSE also admitted that Sri Ramakrishnaiah is deprived of
his own amount from 25.03.20010 & 03.04.2000. The CSE
in his statement dated 28.07.2004 has admitted for having
entered the pass book No 1550 deliberately leaving out the
details pertaining to FGC 1/2000. The CSE has admitted
having made entries in SB ledger sheet No 549518 of SB
2959 which pertains to Mr George Joseph.
It is brought on record through MEx-4 that Sri Robert R.
Hoover, at the instance of CSE allowed TOD of Rs.10,000/-
in the account of Sri Kambaiah SB 519. To clear TOD he
has prepared debit slip of FGC 1/2000. However CSE
debited SB account 1550. Sri Robert R. Hoover also
informed that CSE altered the figures in SB Balancing
and SB control register.
[Emphasis Supplied]
It is brought on record through MEx -7, 8, 13 and MEx -15
that debit entry of Rs.25,000/- made on 25.03.2000 in SB
1550 ledger sheet is not appearing in SB subsidiary sheet
of the day. SB pass book No 1550 does not show the
debit entry of Rs.25,000/-of 25.03.2000 and credit entry of
Rs.25000/- of 03.04.2000 which were made In the ledger
sheet of SB 1550. SB daily control register of 31.03.2000
debit entry pertaining to ledger no 2 is altered from Rs.68/-
to 25068/- and the number of slips from 1 to 2. But the total
number of slip is retained as 8 even though it comes to 9.
The closing balance for the ledger no 2 and the grand total
is also altered. The CSE in his statement dated 24.07.2004
has admitted for having made the alterations.
It is also brought on record though the deposition of MW 1
basing on MEx 16 that TODs were allowed in the SB
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 717
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
account No 2450 of Smt Suvamamma, W/o Chargesheeted
Employee on 16.04.99, 05.10.99, 11.10.99, 23.10.99,
08.11.99, 01.03.2000 and 03.04.2000.
MW 2 Sri Channavenkataiah PTE had extracted the
balancing in SB Ledger No as at 31.03.2000, he has
confirmed that the balance extracted by him in SB 1550 was
Rs.300196/- where as the altered figure was Rs.275196/-
the balancing was not tailed and the alterations in the
balance was not made by him and he had only extracted
the grand total in a rough 3heet since it was not tallied.
There were no operations in the SB A/c No 519 during
1998 and 1999. A TOD was allowed on 01.03.2000 to
an inoperative account, which is not a routine action of
the Branch Manager. Sri Kambaiah is the father of CSE
and hence, tho TOD allowed can be Justified for no
other purpose than the coersion of the CSE. TOD was
outstanding for more than 15 days and was adjusted by
posting an entry of Rs.25,000/- on 24.03.2000, as narration
“FGC 1/2000”. The entry Wall posted by CSE, though the
entry was illegible by the Manager. The FGC 1/2000 was
granted on 03.04.2000, and the CSE who posted the slips
on 24.03.2000, cannot claim ignorance and the CSE had
sufficient know 1 edge and knowingly he had posted the
slips with the connivance of the Manager.
MW 1 stated that the CSE has approached the Manageron
01.03.2000 and pressurized him for a TOD of Rs. 10,000/-
in his father’s account, which acoount, which he had
permitted to be cleared within 7 days. On 24.03.2000,
the CSE has again approached the Manager for a further
finance of Rs.25,000/-and coerced him to prepare the debit
& credit slip for Rs.25,000/- each to FGC and SB account
stating that his father would come to the branch on that
day for executing the loan papers. Sri Kambaiah did not
turn up and the amount was withdrawn and subsequently
on 25.03.2000 debited Rs.25,000/- to SB account 1550
of Sri Ramakrishnaiah, without the knowledge of the
Manager. There is no corresponding debit or credit slip
in the slip bundles. On 31.03.2000, there is a debit slip
718 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
for Rs.25,000/- to SB 1550 of Sri Ramakrishnaiah which
bears the ledger folio no 7812, with initials of the CSE.
It is on record that the TOD dt 01.03.2000, was allowed
by the Manager at the coercion of the CSE, and the debit
entries dated 25.03.2000 and 31.03.2000, were made by
the Chargesheeted Employee fraudulently and the defence
argument that the entries have been authenticated is not
true. On the other and the previous Manager advantage of
Manager and benef it hand all evidences show that both
the CSE colluded and the CSE had taken undue made
fraudulent entries to gain pecuniary.
The Submission of the defence that TOD dt 01.03.2000
and granting FGC 1/2000 on 03.04.2000 are made under
normal course of business, is not true. The evidences,
show involvement of the CSE and Sri Robert R. Hoover,
had obliged the Chargesheeted Employee on account of
coercion. Further as per MEx- 1, and MEx -13 & 14, the
SB control dt 24.03.2000, 25.03.2000 & 31.03.2000 are
in the handwritings of CSE. As per MEx - 8, the CSE had
debited Rs.25,000/-to SB 1550 on 25.03.2000 in the ledger
account only and not made entry in the Subsidiary (MEx-
14) and SB control register (MEx-13). If the entry in MEx -8
was authenticated as claimed by Defence Representative
the 3ame should have reflected in MEx- 13 and 14.
The debit entry dt 31.03.2000, of Rs.25,000/- was made
by the CSE in the SB Ledger 2 Subsidiary, i.e., MEx- 14,
In his own handwriting and no entry was made in the SB
1550 Ledger sheet.
After taking the balancing by MW 2, the balance in the SB
control register, MEx 13 was altered in the handwriting of
the CSE, which is visible to the naked eye and also the
balancing extract. DEx-1 was also altered in the handwriting
of the CSE and by putting the initial by the CSE.
[Emphasis Supplied]
As per deposition of MW 1 there more two initials in
MEx -13 and DEx -1 and one could be of the Supervisor.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 719
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
But it is true that, one initial is of the CSE and another
initial is of the Manager who has colluded with the CSE
and had admitted during Investigation that all-these entries
were madeat the request of the CSE to accommodate
him with funds.
The charge of unauthorised debits in SB 1550 & the
alteration in SB control register and SB Balancing book-
is not disproved / rebutted by the defence. Though
entries of closing balance on 31.03.2000 and balancing
on 31.03.2000 appears to be authenticated, the earlier
entries of 24.03.2000, 25.03.2000 & 31.03.2000 and the
FGC 1/2000 sanction on 03.04.2000 are all indicating
that the alterations on 31.03.2.000 were made to coverup
all the unauthorisded entries made by the CSE, for his,
personal gains.
It is brought 25.03.2000 and Ledger sheet 1550. During
branch on 28 03.04.2000, are on record that the debit
entry of Rs.25,000/- on credit entry ofRs.25,000/- on
03.04.2000, made in SB of SB 1550, are not shown in
the pass book of SB. It is brought on record that the debit
entry of Rs. 25,000/- on 25.03.2000 and credit entry of
Rs. 25,000/- on 03.04.2000, made in SB ledger sheet of
SB 1550, are not shown in the pass book of SB 1550.
During Investigation, Sri Ramakrishnaiah, was called at the
branch on 28.07.2004 & who reported that the entries of
25.03.2000 & not belonging to him. MWl in his Investigation
report has stated that the CSE had written the pass book
in his own handwriting. The CSE had admitted during
the Investigation for having written the pass book of SB
1550 of Sri Ramakrishnaiah by deliberately omitting the
above two entries. Sri Ramakrishnaiah has stated vide
MEx -9 that he had not demanded any FGC Loan either
on 25.03.2000 or on 03.04.2000 and he never availed any
loans from the Bank.
[Emphasis Supplied]
It is brought on record that the debit and credit entry
of Rs.26,000/-on 13.10.99, were not made in the pass
book i.e., MEx -.15. But as can be seen that, the branch
720 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
had debited Rs.100/-on 31.03.2000 towards processing
charges in respect of GL 168/99 sanctioned on 13.10.99.
However in the case of debit entry dt 25.03.2000;- the same
war. not entered in the SB Subsidiary on 25.03.2000, and
in the case of credit entry dt 03.04.2000, the loan FGC 1/00
was not sanctioned in the name of Sri Ramakrishnaiah. As
the CSE was knowing tho substantial credit of Rs.298937/-
to the SB account 1550, on 24.03.2000 and hence he had
debited Rs.25,000/- to the account without the knowledge
of the Manager. The defence has tried to bring on record
that the entries dt 13.10.99 was not reflected in the
pass book & accordingly, the entries dt 25.03.2000 L
03.04.2000 were also not reflected in the pass book and
the defence tried to bring that the action of the CSE was
not deliberate. However, as analysed above, the omitting of
entries dt 25.03.2000 & 03.04.2000 are deliberate and the
account holder i.e., Sri Ramakrishnaiah, had never made
any objection/ complaint about the entries dt 13.10.99,
31.03.00 in respect of GL 168/99 vide MEx- 9, and Sri
Ramakrishnaiah had nothing to do with the transactions
dt 25.03.2000 and 03.04.2000.
[Emphasis Supplied]
The CSE in his statement dt 24.07.04 had admitted that,
he has got opened SB account 2450 in the name of his
wife Smt Suvarnamma, who is neither working any where
nor doing any business, but she was attending tailoring
training class. On “8” occasions TODs were taken by him
in the said account & repaid. The CSE had also admitted
for having availed loan DPN(RT) 22/98 for Rs. 20,000/-
DPN (RT) 31/99 for for Rs.25,000/- and ALS 15/2003 for
Rs. 72570007- in the name of his wife. It is charged that,
the concurrence of the controlling office was not taken for
the above TODs/Loans. [Emphasis Supplied]
The defence has argued that the CSE is not responsible
for non obtention of concurrence from Circle Office. The
guidelines issued by the Bank with regard to obtention of
concurrence from controlling office for the loans/ advances
granted to close relatives of the employees are applicable to
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 721
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
all the employees of the bank. Though it is the responsibility
of the Branch Manager to obtain concurrence the from the
controlling office, before granting loans to close relatives
of the employees, the concerned employee has also to
take interest /initiative in this regard and to see that the
Manager has obtained the concurrence or not, for the best
interest of himself.
In this case, the defence has made an allegation that
the management has made right allegation on a wrong
employee. The defence ha3 not produced any evidence to
show that, the CSE had also took initiative to remind the
manager to obtain concurrence as a responsible employee
of the Bank. When the CSE had took initiative in availing
various facilities in the name of his wife, he should have
shown the same interest to get the concurrence from the
controlling office.
The evidence on record show that the CSE has
unauthorised1y made debits in the SB account 1550, for
raising funds for persona) gain. He had has coerced the
Manager for sanctioning of loana to his family members
for personal gains. He has tampered the Bank records, by
making alterations in the SB control register, SB subsidiary
sheets and SB Balancing book to keep the book tallied
by fraudulent means on account of unauthorised debits.
The CSE had availed loans/ TODs in tho-name of his
wife, for which he has not initiated any steps for obtaining
concurrence from controlling off ice.
I observe that all the contention of the CSE are covered by
the Enquiring Officer in his findings dated 09.01.2006 and
the CSE hats not brought any valid grounds for review of
the findings of the EO - which merit consideration. Hence,
while agreeing with the findings of the Enquiring Officer
and for the reasons stated above. I hold the CSE guilty
of the charges as enumerated in this order and I order
accordingly.
A copy of this order shall be communicated to Sri
Gangrasimhaiah
Place: CO, Bangalore
722 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Date: 15.03.2006
Sd/-
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
“CANARA BANK
Ref: BLC:DAC:4421:E-37:2006
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
CIRCLE OFFICE BANGALORE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
Sub: In the natter of alleged misconduct on the part of Sri
Gangrasimhaiah (61633), Sub-Staff(U/s), Canara Bank,
Bomnasandra Branch.
Ref: 1. Chargesheet No. BLC:DAC:3038:E-37:CH-25/2005
dated 28.04.2005.
2. Suspension Proceedings No.
BLC:SSW:10813:EP:E.37:2004 dated 18.08.2004.
WHEREAS, departmental proceedings were initiated
against the subject employee by serving on him the above
referred Chargesheat;
WHEREAS, an Enquiring Officer was appointed by the
Disciplinary Authority to conduct an enquiry into the- above
referred Chargesheet;
WHEREAS, the Enquiring Officer after conducting an
enquiry submitted his findings holding the employee “Guilty”
of the charges levelled against him as enumerated in his
findings;
WHEREAS, a copy of the findings was forwarded to the
Chargesheeted Employee vide letter No. BLCs -DACs
31:2006 dated 09.01.2006 and the Chargesheeted
Employee has made his submissions on the findings vide
his letter dated 28.01.2006;
WHEREAS, after analyzing the findings of the Enquiring
Officer, the submissions made by the chargesheeted
employee on the findings of Enquiring Officer and other
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 723
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
connected records, the Disciplinary Authority concurred
with the findings of the Enquiring Officer;
WHEREAS, after taking into consideration the gravity of
misconduct, circumstances of the case, the punishment
of “Compulsory Retirement” Was proposed to be imposed
on the Chargesheeted Employee and a personal hearing
in this -regard was given by the Disciplinary Authority on
15.03 .2006;
REF: NO. BLC:DAC:4421:E-37:2005 DATED 15.05.2006
NOW THEREFORE, taking into consideration the
submissions made by the Chargesheeted Employee
during the personal hearing, the gravity of the misconduct,
connected records, the circumstances of the case, agreeing
with the findings of the Enquiring Officer and holding
the Chargesheeted Employee “guilty’ of the charges as
enumerated in the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, the
punishment of
“COMPULSORY RETIREMENT”
as envisaged under Chapter XI, Regulation 4, Clause (b)
of Canara Bank Service Code is hereby imposed on the
subject employee.
The period of suspension shall not be reckoned for any
purpose whatsoever and also the increment for the period
of suspension shall not be released.
A copy of the order of the Disciplinary Authority is enclosed.
CIRCLE OFFICE BANGALORE
DATE :15.03.2006”
26. Thereafter, the Respondent had preferred an appeal before the
Appellate Authority, i.e., General Manager of the Canara Bank and
the Appellate Authority after considering the grounds taken in the said
appeal had dismissed the said appeal vide Order dated 22.11.2006.
The Order passed by the Appellate authority is as under:-
Perused the memorandum of appeal, proceedings of the
enquiry, findings of the Enquiry Officer and other connected
records.
724 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Sri.Ganganarasimhaiah was given a personal hearing on
02/11/2006 at Head Office, Bangalore and his submissions
were heard and recorded.
Shri. Ganganarasimhaiah was working at our V.G.Doddi
branch from 11.11.1997 to 01.08.2004 prior to his joining
Bommasandra branch on 02.08.2004 and he was placed
under suspension on 19.08.2004.
Serious discrepancies in the Advances Portfolio of our
V.G.Doddi branch was observed and an investigation
conducted into the matter has revealed that Shri.
Ganganarasimhaiah has unauthorisedly made debits in
the SB Account 1550 for raising funds for personal gain.
He has coerced the Manager for sanctioning loans to his
family members for personal gains. He has tampered the
Bank records by making alterations in the balancing book,
key register and SB subsidiary sheets to keep the books
tallied by fraudulent means on account of unauthorised
debits.
He has by his above actions failed to discharge his duties
with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence.
The charges are fully enumerated in the above referred
chargesheet.
Upon enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings
holding the appellant guilty of the charges. Agreeing with
the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority
has imposed the subject punishment.
Aggrieved by the imposition of -the above punishment,
Sri. Ganganarasimhaiah has preferred the instant appeal
which has been duly taken into consideration.
On a perusal of the records, I observe the following:
On 3/4/2000, an FGC loan ofRs.25000/- was granted to Sri.
Kambaiah, who is reported to be father of the appellant. The
debit slip was prepared for FGC 1/2000 and corresponding
credit slip was prepared for SB 1550 of Sri.Ramakrishnaiah.
It has been revealed that in SB 1550, ledger sheet, there
was a debit of Rs.25000/- “To FGC 172000” on 25/3/2000,
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 725
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
and a credit of Rs.25000/- is made on 3/4/2000 as “By
FGC”. All the ledger entries are made in the handwritings
of appellant. There were no corresponding debit or credit
slips in the slip bundle of 25/3/2000. In the slip bundle of
31/3/2000, there was a debit slip for Rs.25000/- debiting SB
1550, of Sri. Ramakrishnaiah, with the narration “towards
FGC 1/2000” and a credit slip for the equal amount for
the credit of FGC 1/2000. The debit slip bears the ledger
folio No. 7812, with the initials of the appellant and the
slip was released by Shri. R. R. Hoover. The balancing of
SB ledger was extracted by Sri.Channavenkataiah, PTE
of the branch. The total balancing has been altered to
Rs.275196/- and balancing tallied. The relevant alterations
in the SB balancing book are admittedly in the handwriting
of the appellant, SB key register was also written in the
handwriting of the appellant and the final total has been
altered by applying white fluid and initialled by the appellar
The appellant has admitted for having wrongly debited the
account of Sri.Ramakrishnaiah without the knowledge of
the Manager. The debit of SB account 1550 on 25/3/2000
for Rs.25000/- and alteration i.e. SB key register and SB
balancing book came to the knowledge of Sri.Robert R
Hoover on 31/3/2000. Sri. Robert R Hoover has stated
that the matter was not reported to Circle Office as the
appellant had pleaded for mercy ... To- set right the above
transactions, Sri. Robert R Hoover had made the transfer
slips on 31/3/2000 by debiting the SB 1550 and crediting
FGC head.l The appellant had Written the pass-book of
SBT550 by deliberately omitting the above two entries,
which he had admitted in writing.
The Appellant admitted in his statement dt. 24.07.2004 that
he got SB 2450 opened in the name of Smt. Suvarnamma,
wife of Appellant-on 19.12.1997. She is not working and
not doing any business but she goes to tailoring training
class. He had taken the TODs in this account and repaid
the same. The Appellant has posted the relevant slips in
his own handwriting. The Appellant has admitted-having
availed DPNRT 22/98 for Rs.20,000/-, DPNRT 31/99 for
Rs.25.000/-and ALS 15/2003 for Rs.25.000/- in his wife’s
726 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
name. The Appellant has admitted for having posted the
slips of FGC 1/2000 in SB ledger sheet of SB 519 (of
Sri Kambaiah, father of the appellant) & SB 1550 and
that there is no relationship between SB 1550 of Sri
Ramakrishnaiah and FGC 1/2000 of his father and the fact
of debiting SB 1550 with Rs.25,000/- was not informed
to Sri Ramakrishnaiah. The Appellant also admitted that
Sri. Ramakrishnaiah is deprived of his own amount from
25.03.2000 to 03.04.2000. The Appellant in his statement
dated 28.07.2004 has admitted for having entered the
pass book No 1550 deliberately leaving out the details
pertaining to FGC 1/2000. The Appellant has admitted for
having made entries in SB ledger sheet No 549518 of SB
2959 which pertains to Mr George Joseph.
It is brought on record through MEx -4 that Sri Robert
RHoover, at the instance of Appellant allowed TOD of
Rs.10,000/- in the account of Sri Kambaiah SB 519. To
clear TOD he has prepared debit slip of FGC 1/2000.
However Appellant debited SB account 1550. Sri Robert
R. Hoover also informed that Appellant altered the figures
in SB Balancing and SB control register.
TOD was outstanding for more than 15 days and was
adjusted by posting an entry of Rs.25,000/- on 24.03.2000,
as narration “FGC 1/2000”. The entry was posted by
Appellant, though the entry was initialled by the Manager.
It has come on record that the Appellant has approached
the Manager on 01.03.2000 and pressurised him for a
TOD of Rs.10,000/-in his father’s account, which he had
permitted to be cleared within 7 days. On 24.03.2000//\ the
Appellant has again approached the Manager for further
finance of Rs.25,000/- and coerced him to prepare the debit
& credit slip for Rs.25,000/- each to FGC and SB account
stating that, his father would come to the branch on that
day for executing the loan papers. Sri. Kambaiah did not
turn up and the amount was withdrawn and subsequently
on 25.03.2000 debited Rs.25,000/- to SB account 1550
of Sri. Ramakrishnaiah, without the knowledge of the
Manager. There is no corresponding debit or credit slip
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 727
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
in the slip bundles. On 31.03.2000, there is a debit slip
for Rs.25,000/- to SB 1550 of Sri. Ramakrishnaiah which
bears the ledger folio no 7812, with initials of the Appellant.
All evidences show that both the Appellant and Sri R R
Hoover the then Manager colluded and made fraudulent
entries to gain pecuniary benefit. In view of the above, the
contentions of the appellant has no merit.
The charges levelled against the Appellant are proved
by oral/ documentary evidence. Merely because Shri.
Ramakrishnaiah and Shri.R.R. Hoover were not examined
in the enquiry, the same will not invalidate the evidence
brought on record through MEx-4 and MEx-9 (the
statements given by the above persons).
The Appellant himself has recorded the statements (i.e.,
MEx-2 and MEx-3) in his own handwriting and all his
statements are addressed to Shri. H. N. Ramesh, Manager
(Investigating Officer). The defence has also failed to
introduce any evidence either Oral and documentary in
the enquiry to prove their stand that the investigation in
the matter was not conducted in a fair manner and the
report is a fabricated one.
The guidelines issued by the Bank with regard to obtention
of concurrence from controlling office for the loans/
advances granted to close relatives of the employees are
applicable to all the employees of the bank. Though it is
the responsibility of the Branch Manager to obtain the
concurrence from the controlling office, before granting
loans to close relatives of the employees, the concerned
employee has also to take interest/ initiative in this regard
and to see that the Manager has obtained the concurrence
or not, for the best interest of himself.
The punishment imposed on Appellant commensurates
with the gravity of the misconduct. The Appellant has not
raised any valid grounds / contentions in his appeal which
will merit reconsideration of the orders of the Disciplinary
Authority. The appeal lacks merit. Hence, the appeal may
be rejected.
728 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
In view of the foregoing, I do not find any reason to interfere
either with the findings of the Enquiry Officer or with the
orders of the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, I confirm the
punishment and the appeal shall stand rejected accordingly.
A copy of this order shall communicated to Sri
Gangrasimhaiah
Sd/-
GENERAL MANAGER
APPELLATE AUTHORITY
22.11.2006
27. As already noted, the Tribunal vide Order dated 17.05.2013, while
deciding the preliminary enquiry, had concluded that the enquiry
against the Respondent was fair and the said order had attained
finality. However, while passing the Final Award dated 25.09.2019,
the Tribunal has re-appreciated the evidence adduced during the
departmental proceedings against the Respondent. The relevant
portion of final award is reproduced hereunder.
“…On a perusal of the evidence placed before the
Enquiry Officer, it is obvious that there was no evidence
pointing towards the CSE for causing entries in any of the
Management documents exhibited. None of his colleagues
were brought before the Enquiry Officer to depose
that he is the Author of the entries in the Management
documents. The statements of the witnesses recorded
by the Investigating Officer do not serve by themselves
as evidence. These statements since not subjected for
cross examination, they are not worth considering as
evidentiary material. What is established by the evidence
of MW-2 is, Part time employee has also made entries in
the record and the total pertaining to SB A/c 1550 did not
tally on 31.03.2000 and subsequently the entry is corrected
by someone. He has never stated having seen the 1st
Party handling the records of the Bank. The 1st Party
workman is a Sub Staff with the education qualification
of 7th Standard. No attempt is made to procure expert
opinion that, the disputed entries are authored by the 1st
Party workman. He has disputed the so called statement
recorded by the Investigating Officer. Being a Sub Staff,
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 729
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
it is a wild imagination to say that he was in a dominant
position to harass his Superior Officer / the Bank Manager
to sanction Loans by violating the procedure. Now it is
submitted on his behalf that, all the Loan sanctioned in
favour of his father and wife are cleared. His father is
living separately from him and his wife earns her own
income. I am unable to subscribe to this submission, if
really that was the factuality; he ought to have examined
his father and wife as his witnesses during the enquiry.
Subsequent to the adjudication of the Preliminary issue he
has adduced evidence contending that his Parent’s and
wife are dependent on him. There is contraction between
his own evidence and argument.
9. Let us peruse the charge segment wise, though, his
father Sh. Kambaiah was sanctioned Rs. 25,000/-(Twenty
Five Thousand Rupees Only) Loan on 03.04.2000, the 1st
Party requested for further Loan of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty
Five Thousand Rupees). Without executing Loan papers,
the 1st Party posted the credit slips in the SB A/c 519 of Sh.
Kambaiah and withdrew Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand
Rupees Only) from the said account on 24.03.2000, it is
not shown that the entry in the SB A/c is made by the
1st Party. In the usual course the entries in the SB A/c
should have been authored by the concerned Clerk. If at
all the 1st Party had made such entry the witness to speak
in the record was either the Manager or the concerned
Clerk. The cheque leaf / withdrawal slip pertaining to Rs.
15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand Rupees Only) is not produced.
On 25.03.2000 he unauthorisedly debited SB A/c 1550
of Sh. Rama Krishnaiah, the credit slip and debit slip of
25.03.2000 and daily control register are not produced.
Again, it is not established that the relevant entry in SB
A/c statement/Mex-8 is that of 1st Party workman.
he has not made corresponding entry in the subsidiary
sheet - but that is not the duty of a Sub Staff.
the above transaction was brought to the notice of the
Manager by the 1st Party on 31.03.2000 on which the
730 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Manager passed the slips on 31:03.2000 by debiting
the SB. A/c of Sh. Rama Krishna and debiting the FGC
Subsidiary- but same is not substantiated by the evidence.
That the debit slip was posted by him to Loan account
Mex-12 of Sh. Kambaiah for his personal gain. It is not
proved that the 1st Party is the Author of the entries in Ex
Mex-12, though probably he might have enjoyed the Loan
amount sanctioned. He made alterations in the balancing
book and deliberately made alterations to Rs. 2,75,196/-
(Two Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand One Hundred and
Ninety Six Rupees Only) to tally the balance. He made
alterations in SB control registers, closing balance in the
subsidiary ledger to tally the book - but SB control register,
balancing book and subsidiary ledger were not produced
during the enquiry.
With a motive to conceal unauthorised debit in SB A/c of
Sh. Rama Krishnaiah, the 1st Party left out debit and credit
entry while updating the Passbook- not only that the 1st
Party has no authority, to make entry in the Passbook but
also, it is not proved that he was the author of the entries
in the passbook of Rama Krishna.
The TOD’s in the SB A/c of Smt. Suvarnamma was allowed
and Loan granted to Sh. Kambaiah without concurrence
of controlling office the responsibility of the omission is
directly on the Manager.
The outcome of the entire evidence was, irregularly Loan
was sanctioned to the father and Wife of the 1st Party
workman. Both being the members of the family of the 1st
Party it is highly possible that at the insistence of the 1st
Party the Manager committed the irregularities as alleged
in the Charge Sheet. However, there was no complaint
against the 1st Party nor did the Bank suffered any financial
loss from the alleged incident. Mere suspension with or
without proof cannot take over the seat of legal evidence.
In the absence of any evidentiary material establishing the
complicity of the 1 Party workman in the manipulation of
the Bank records, the finding of the Enquiry Officer that,
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 731
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
(i) He unauthorizedly made debit in SB A/c 1550,
(ii) He coerced the manager for sanction of Loans,
(iii) He tampered the Bank records,
without the foundation of evidentiary material, is perverse.
Wherefore, the Punishment order passed on the basis of
such imperfect and fragile finding is illegal.
10. Having said so, now the focus is on the nature of
relief to be moulded. The 1st Party though was not directly
involved in the alleged misconduct, it is obvious that he was
the beneficiary of the misconduct / irregular Loan sanction.
The punishment of compulsory retirement on the 1st Party
workman who was in the midway of his carrier and had
the responsibility of raising a family on such petty reason
is too harsh and disproportionate. The workman probably
has few more years of service if reinstated into service,
he is enjoying retirement benefits. Having observed that,
he was an interested Party in the alleged misconduct in
my considered opinion reinstatement with continuity of
service without back wages is the appropriate Award that
would meet the situation.
AWARD
The reference is accepted. The order of the 2nd Party
Canara Bank in imposing punishment of Compulsory
Retirement from service dated 15.3.2006 against the 1st
Party workman Sh. Ganaganarasimaiah is set aside.
The 2nd Party is directed to reinstate the workman into his
original post with
continuity of service without back wages.”
28. From the scrutiny of the Final Award, it appears that the Tribunal
was mainly influenced by the fact that the department had failed to
produce evidence to the fact that the Respondent was the author of
the entries made in the bank/loan accounts, for which chargesheet
had been served to him. The Tribunal had also emphasized that
no attempt was made by the bank to procure expert opinion to
ascertain that the disputed entries were authored by the Respondent.
732 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
However, the Tribunal has observed that it is highly possible that
the irregularities as alleged in the chargesheet were committed by
the Manager at the instance of the Respondent. The Tribunal then
went on to record that in the absence of any evidentiary material in
respect of complicity of the Respondent with regards to manipulation
of bank record, the findings of the Enquiry Officer regarding making
entries of unauthorized debit in disputed SB account, coercion on
the part of the Respondent upon the manager for sanctioning of
loan and tampering of books of record cannot be sustained. The
Tribunal had also observed that though the Respondent was the
beneficiary of the misconduct/irregular loan sanction but since there is
no evidence that he was directly involved in the alleged misconduct,
the punishment of compulsory retirement on the Respondent was
too harsh and disproportionate.
29. Surprisingly, the High Court had confirmed the order of the Tribunal
by adding its own reason that the charges levelled against the
Respondent are absurd and since the father of the Respondent was
eligible for sanction of loan and the same has been sanctioned by the
competent authority, it cannot be concluded that there is any illegality
in sanctioning the loan in favour of the father of the Respondent.
Strangely, the High Court had not taken into consideration the charge
regarding the illegal disbursement of loans advanced in favour of the
wife of the Respondent. The High Court was also impressed with
the fact that since no financial loss has been occurred to the bank,
no case for interference is made out.
30. We are at pain to say that the Tribunal as well as the High Court
had failed to take into consideration the settled principal of law in
respect of judicial review in disciplinary matters. It is well settled
that when a Disciplinary Enquiry against a delinquent for alleged
misconduct is initiated and in the said Disciplinary Enquiry, he/she
is found guilty and subsequently punished, the court before which
a challenge is made by the delinquent, is required to examine and
determine the following aspects: -
(i) Whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority?
(ii) Rule of natural justice has been complied with or not;
(iii) The conclusions arrived by the Disciplinary Authority are based
on no evidence or the findings are perverse.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 733
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
It is also equally settled that strict rules of evidence are not applicable
in the departmental proceedings and the charge against the delinquent
can be proved on preponderance of probabilities.
31. This Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and
Others reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749, a three-judges Bench has
held has under: -
12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a
review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power
of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual
receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion
which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the
eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges
of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is
concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by
a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are
complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are
based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the
power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority
to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding
must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical
rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as
defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the
authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives
support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to
hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The
Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act
as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and
to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence.
The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held
the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner
inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of
statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the
conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority
is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be
such as no reasonable person would have ever reached,
the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the
finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate
to the facts of each case.
[Emphasis supplied]
734 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts.
Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has
coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the
nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict
proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence
are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of
evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the
Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel this Court
held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration
of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is
perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the
record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari
could be issued.
14. In Union of India v. S.L. Abbas when the order of
transfer was interfered with by the Tribunal, this Court
held that the Tribunal was not an appellate authority which
could substitute its own judgment to that bona fide order
of transfer. The Tribunal could not, in such circumstances,
interfere with orders of transfer of a government servant. In
Administrator of Dadra & Nagar Haveli v. H.P. Vora it was
held that the Administrative Tribunal was not an appellate
authority and it could not substitute the role of authorities
to clear the efficiency bar of a public servant. Recently, in
State Bank of India v. Samarendra Kishore Endow a Bench
of this Court of which two of us (B.P. Jeevan Reddy and
B.L. Hansaria, JJ.) were members, considered the order
of the Tribunal, which quashed the charges as based on
no evidence, went in detail into the question as to whether
the Tribunal had power to appreciate the evidence while
exercising power of judicial review and held that a tribunal
could not appreciate the evidence and substitute its own
conclusion to that of the disciplinary authority. It would,
therefore, be clear that the Tribunal cannot embark upon
appreciation of evidence to substitute its own findings of
fact to that of a disciplinary/appellate authority.
This judgment has been consistently followed in various cases.
32. This Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank vs. R.C.
Srivastava reported in (2021) 19 SCC 281 has held that in the
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 735
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
disciplinary proceedings, the tribunal cannot convert itself into court
of appeal and also cannot revisit the evidence and in excess of
its jurisdiction conferred by Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. Relevant Paragraphs of the Judgment are reproduced
hereunder:
9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that after
the domestic enquiry was held to be fair and proper, the
Tribunal has a limited scope to interfere with the findings
recorded in the domestic enquiry and unless the finding
is perverse and not supported by a piece of evidence,
it was not open for the tribunal to interfere within the
scope of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter being referred to as “the 1947 Act”).
10. However, in the instant case, the Tribunal converted
itself into a court of appeal and has not only revisited the
evidence in toto but has proceeded on the assumption
that the management has to prove the charges beyond
reasonable doubt and despite the material evidence of
three officers, who were abused by respondent workman
in drunkenness condition, have been completely disowned
on the premise that one Watchman (DW 1) and an ex-
employee of the Bank (DW 2) have stated in their deposition
that such incident has not occurred and to justify it, a
document was placed on record i.e. the attendance register
of the time in question and to confront it further with the
fact that the delinquent had not appeared in the domestic
enquiry and still a finding has been recorded by the Tribunal
that such incidence has not occurred is something which
has appeared from blue and without there being any iota
of the factual foundation, the interference made by the
Tribunal in the finding of guilt recorded in the course of
enquiry is not only perverse but is unsustainable in law.
11. The scope of judicial review in the matter of domestic
enquiry is to examine whether the procedure in holding
domestic enquiry has been violated or the principles of
natural justice has been complied with, or any perversity in
the finding of guilt recorded during the course of domestic
enquiry has been committed. The basic error which was
736 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
committed by the Tribunal in its impugned award has not
been appreciated even by the High Court and dismissed
the writ petition without appreciating the finding recorded
in the domestic enquiry keeping into consideration the
principles laid down by this Court of preponderance of
probabilities while holding guilt in the domestic enquiry
and exceeded in its jurisdiction defined under Section 11-A
of the 1947 Act. To the contrary, the officers with whom
the alleged occurrence of gross misconduct has been
committed have been put to notice that their allegation
on the face of it is unfounded, baseless and has not at all
occurred which is something beyond imagination. More
so, when it was established during the course of enquiry
after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent
respondent, enquiry officer held the charges proved and
confirmed by the disciplinary authority followed with the
penalty of dismissal upon the respondent.
33. This Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Heem
Singh reported in (2021) 12 SCC 569 on the issue of judicial review
or disciplinary matters has held as under: -
37. In exercising judicial review in disciplinary matters,
there are two ends of the spectrum. The first embodies
a rule of restraint. The second defines when interference
is permissible. The rule of restraint constricts the ambit of
judicial review. This is for a valid reason. The determination
of whether a misconduct has been committed lies primarily
within the domain of the disciplinary authority. The Judge
does not assume the mantle of the disciplinary authority. Nor
does the Judge wear the hat of an employer. Deference to
a finding of fact by the disciplinary authority is a recognition
of the idea that it is the employer who is responsible for
the efficient conduct of their service. Disciplinary enquiries
have to abide by the rules of natural justice. But they are
not governed by strict rules of evidence which apply to
judicial proceedings. The standard of proof is hence not
the strict standard which governs a criminal trial, of proof
beyond reasonable doubt, but a civil standard governed
by a preponderance of probabilities. Within the rule of
preponderance, there are varying approaches based on
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 737
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
context and subject. The first end of the spectrum is founded
on deference and autonomy — deference to the position
of the disciplinary authority as a fact-finding authority
and autonomy of the employer in maintaining discipline
and efficiency of the service. At the other end of the
spectrum is the principle that the court has the jurisdiction
to interfere when the findings in the enquiry are based on
no evidence or when they suffer from perversity. A failure
to consider vital evidence is an incident of what the law
regards as a perverse determination of fact. Proportionality
is an entrenched feature of our jurisprudence. Service
jurisprudence has recognised it for long years in allowing
for the authority of the court to interfere when the finding
or the penalty are disproportionate to the weight of the
evidence or misconduct. Judicial craft lies in maintaining
a steady sail between the banks of these two shores
which have been termed as the two ends of the spectrum.
Judges do not rest with a mere recitation of the hands-off
mantra when they exercise judicial review. To determine
whether the finding in a disciplinary enquiry is based on
some evidence an initial or threshold level of scrutiny is
undertaken. That is to satisfy the conscience of the court
that there is some evidence to support the charge of
misconduct and to guard against perversity. But this does
not allow the court to reappreciate evidentiary findings in a
disciplinary enquiry or to substitute a view which appears
to the Judge to be more appropriate. To do so would offend
the first principle which has been outlined above. The
ultimate guide is the exercise of robust common sense
without which the Judges’ craft is in vain.
[Emphasis Supplied]
34. In the light of the law laid down in the above referred cases, if we
analyze the Final Award passed by the Tribunal, it is apparent that
the Tribunal had acted in a manner as if it was hearing an appeal
against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Tribunal
had failed to take into account that it is a settled law that in the
departmental proceedings strict rules of evidence, as applicable in the
judicial proceedings, cannot be applied and a charge of misconduct
738 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
is to be proved only on preponderance of probabilities. The Tribunal,
despite recording a finding that it is highly possible that irregular
entries in the bank/loan accounts were made at the insistence of the
Respondent and that he was the beneficiary of those irregularities,
had interfered with the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority merely on the ground that the department had failed to
prove that the Respondent was the author of the disputed entries.
The Tribunal had even gone to the extent of observing that the
opinion of the handwriting expert had not been obtained to prove
the signatures of the Respondent. The Tribunal had dealt the case
with a pre-conceived notion that in the disciplinary proceeding strict
rules of evidence, as applicable in a criminal case, are applicable
whereas the position of law is altogether contrary to it.
35. It is also to be noticed that the Enquiry Officer as well as the
Disciplinary Authority had recorded a finding that from the naked
eyes, it can be ascertained that the author of the disputed entries
in the bank/loan accounts is the Respondent and other documents
were also altered in the handwriting of him by putting his initial.
We cannot ignore the fact that the Enquiry Officer as well as the
Disciplinary Authority were bank officers and they might be in practice
of comparing the signature of customers with naked eyes in routine
and therefore, could have gained sufficient experience in identifying
the signatures of customers and their fellow employees from the
perspective of “banker’s eye”.
36. This Court in the case of Indian Overseas Bank and Others vs.
Om Prakash Lal Srivastava reported in (2022) 3 SCC 803 dealing
with the similar situation has held as under:-
“17. We would like to emphasise at the threshold that there
are certain inherent legal limitations to the scrutiny of an
award of a Tribunal by the High Court while exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We
may refer to the judgment of this Court in GE Power India
Ltd. v. A. Aziz. If there is no jurisdictional error or violation
of natural justice or error of law apparent on the face of
the record, there is no occasion for the High Court to get
into the merits of the controversy as an appellate court.
That too, on the aspect of an opinion formed in respect
of two sets of signatures where the inquiry was held by
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 739
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
an officer of the Bank who came to an opinion on a bare
comparison of the signatures that there is a difference in
the same. It has been looked at from the perspective of
a “banker’s eye”...”
37. This Court in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs. Nemi
Chand Nalwaya reported in (2011) 4 SCC 584 while dealing with
the case wherein the Disciplinary Authority has imposed punishment
of dismissal on a bank employee who was guilty of committing
irregularities in the bank records, has held as under:-
7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as
an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the
domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another
view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry
has been fairly and properly held and the findings are
based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the
evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be
grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental
enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings
of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where
such findings are based on no evidence or where they
are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is
to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have
arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on
record. The courts will however interfere with the findings
in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or
statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is
found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on
extraneous considerations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union
of India, Union of India v. G. Ganayutham, Bank of India v.
Degala Suryanarayana and High Court of Judicature at
Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil.
8. When a court is considering whether the punishment of
“termination from service” imposed upon a bank employee
is shockingly excessive or disproportionate to the gravity
of the proved misconduct, the loss of confidence in the
employee will be an important and relevant factor. When
an unknown person comes to the bank and claims to be
the account-holder of a long inoperative account, and a
740 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
bank employee, who does not know such person, instructs
his colleague to transfer the account from “dormant” to
“operative” category (contrary to the instructions regulating
dormant accounts) without any kind of verification, and
accepts the money withdrawal form from such person,
gets a token and collects the amount on behalf of such
person for the purpose of handing it over to such person,
he in effect enables such unknown person to withdraw
the amount contrary to the banking procedures; and
ultimately, if it transpires that the person who claimed to
be the account-holder was an impostor, the bank cannot
be found fault with if it says that it has lost confidence in
the employee concerned. A bank is justified in contending
that not only the employees who are dishonest, but those
who are guilty of gross negligence, are not fit to continue
in its service.
[Emphasis Supplied]
9. Several witnesses were examined to prove the charge.
One of them was H.S. Sharma who conducted the
preliminary enquiry and to whom the respondent had made
a statement broadly admitting the facts which constituted
the subject-matter of the second charge. I.M. Rawal,
who was the cashier and I.C. Ojha, the officiating Branch
Manager were also examined. Based upon their evidence,
the enquiry officer found the respondent to be guilty of
the second charge and that has been accepted by the
disciplinary authority. The High Court has interfered with the
said finding without expressly holding that the said finding
of guilt was erroneous. The High Court has proceeded as
if it was sitting in appeal over the departmental enquiry and
interfered with the finding on a vague assumption that the
respondent must have acted bona fide in an “increasing
customer-friendly atmosphere”. There was no justification
for the Division Bench to interfere with the finding of guilt.
10. The fact that the criminal court subsequently acquitted
the respondent by giving him the benefit of doubt, will not
in any way render a completed disciplinary proceeding
invalid nor affect the validity of the finding of guilt or
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 741
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
consequential punishment. The standard of proof required
in criminal proceedings being different from the standard
of proof required in departmental enquiries, the same
charges and evidence may lead to different results in the
two proceedings, that is, finding of guilt in departmental
proceedings and an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt
in the criminal proceedings. This is more so when the
departmental proceedings are more proximate to the
incident, in point of time, when compared to the criminal
proceedings. The findings by the criminal court will have
no effect on previously concluded domestic enquiry. An
employee who allows the findings in the enquiry and the
punishment by the disciplinary authority to attain finality
by non-challenge, cannot after several years, challenge
the decision on the ground that subsequently, the criminal
court has acquitted him.
11. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court was
not justified in quashing the punishment and directing
reinstatement with back wages and consequential benefits.
In fact, the order of the High Court directing back wages
amounts to rewarding a person who has been found guilty
of a misconduct. However, having regard to the fact that
the proven charge did not involve either misappropriation
or fraudulent conduct and the other circumstances of the
case, we are of the view that the punishment of dismissal
should be substituted by compulsory retirement, which
does not involve reinstatement.
38. Emphasising on the conduct of a bank employee, the three-judge
Bench of this Court in the case of ‘Deputy General Manager
(Appellate Authority) and Others vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava’
reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612 has held as under:-
42. Before we conclude, we need to emphasise that in
banking business absolute devotion, integrity and honesty
is a sine qua non for every bank employee. It requires the
employee to maintain good conduct and discipline and he
deals with money of the depositors and the customers and
if it is not observed, the confidence of the public/depositors
would be impaired. It is for this additional reason, we
are of the opinion that the High Court has committed an
742 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
apparent error in setting aside the order of dismissal of
the respondent dated 24-7-1999 confirmed in departmental
appeal by order dated 15-11-1999.
[Emphasis Supplied]
39. In the present case, the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary
Authority had taken into consideration the evidence available on
record and had come to the conclusion that the Respondent was
found guilty on the charges levelled against him. The Appellate
Authority had also revisited the evidence and concurred with the
Disciplinary Authority. After careful scrutiny of the order passed
by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, it
cannot be said that the said orders were based on no evidence or
are perverse in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence. The
Tribunal had acted as an Appellate Authority and despite concluding
that it is highly possible that the irregularities as alleged in the
chargesheet were committed by the manager at the insistence of
the Respondent, and he was the direct beneficiary of the irregular
loan sanction, had illegally interfered with the punishment order
passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Tribunal had also erred in
observing that the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed
upon the Respondent is too harsh and disproportionate as it may
result in denial of the retirement benefit to him.
40. It is well settled that compulsory retirement of an employee from the
services does not mean that the employee is not entitled to retirement
benefits, which can only be denied in a case of dismissal from service.
Unfortunately, the High Court without taking into consideration the
settled principle of law in the matter of judicial review in the disciplinary
proceedings, and while adding its irrelevant reasons, confirmed the
order passed by the Tribunal.
41. In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that the
impugned Order passed by the Tribunal as well as the High Court
cannot be sustained and therefore, the same are set aside. The writ
petition filed by the Appellant before the High Court is allowed and
the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is affirmed. However,
as punishment of compulsory retirement is imposed upon the
Respondent, he is entitled for gratuity and other pensionary benefits
in accordance with law.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 743
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
42. With these observations, the present appeal is disposed of.
43. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Compulsory retirement"Sign in to search