SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 1658

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, VIJAY BISHNOI, JJ.
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank – Appellant
Versus
Ganganarasimhaiah – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 11461 of 2025 (Arising Out Of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20343 of 2022)
Decided On : 09-09-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, AOR Mr. Anant Gautam, Adv. Mr. Rishi Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Deepanjal Chudhary, Adv. Ms. Likvi K Jhakalu, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, Adv.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 11A - Labour law - Disciplinary proceedings - Judicial review - Appellate Authority upheld compulsory retirement for misconduct involving unauthorized transactions and tampering with records. Tribunal set aside punishment for lack of evidence, resulting in reinstatement without back wages. High Court affirmed this decision. (Paras 12, 30, 41)

(B) Principles of natural justice - The inquiry must comply with principles of natural justice and findings should be based on evidence. Strict rules of evidence do not apply. (Paras 30, 31)

(C) Judicial review standard - Courts may intervene where findings are based on no evidence or are perverse. Evidence must be evaluated on preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 30, 31, 39)

Table of Content
1. summary of respondent's service history and allegations. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. tribunal's findings on the fairness of the inquiry. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
3. appellant's arguments regarding procedural errors in the tribunal. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. respondent's defense against claims of misconduct. (Para 21 , 22)
5. court's analysis of misconduct and evidence presented. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
6. judicial standards for evaluating disciplinary proceedings. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
7. court’s final decision and rationale on the disciplinary action. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)

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.

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;

    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 ftnance 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 accou

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top