1. Bank employee — Disciplinary proceedings for unauthorized account entries and record tampering — Punishment of compulsory retirement — Challenge to the legality and proportionality of the punishment. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 11 )
Back
Next 
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.
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.
Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is not an appeal. Courts cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute their own findings unless the disciplinary authority's conclusion is perverse or based on no evidence. Misconduct is proved by a preponderance of probabilities, and strict rules of evidence do not apply to departmental enquiries.
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)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- labour law
Table of Contents
2. Appellant — Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence; Respondent — Punishment disproportionate due to lack of evidentiary proof and absence of expert handwriting opinion. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
3. Tribunal erroneously applied criminal standards of proof and acted as an appellate court instead of exercising limited judicial review over the disciplinary authority's findings. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 34 , 35 , 39 , 40 )
4. Judicial review of disciplinary findings is limited to checking for perversity or absence of evidence; proof is based on preponderance of probabilities, not strict legal evidence. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 37 )
5. Impugned orders set aside — Punishment of compulsory retirement affirmed — Respondent entitled to gratuity and pensionary benefits. (Para 41 )
6. What is the scope of judicial review when challenging a disciplinary authority's findings of misconduct?
Judicial review is not an appeal. Courts examine if the enquiry was held by a competent authority, if natural justice was followed, and if findings are perverse or based on no evidence. Courts cannot substitute their own findings for those of the disciplinary authority. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 )
7. What standard of proof is required to establish misconduct in departmental proceedings?
Strict rules of evidence applicable to judicial proceedings do not apply. Charges are proved based on the principle of preponderance of probabilities rather than the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 30 , 34 )
8. Is an expert handwriting opinion mandatory to prove unauthorized entries in bank records during a disciplinary enquiry?
No. Findings based on a bare comparison of signatures or entries by bank officers, referred to as the banker's eye, are acceptable as they possess experience in identifying signatures in routine practice. (Para 35 , 36 )
9. Does the punishment of compulsory retirement deprive an employee of their retiral benefits?
No. Compulsory retirement is distinct from dismissal. An employee compulsorily retired from service remains entitled to gratuity and other pensionary benefits in accordance with the law. (Para 40 , 41 )
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 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 de
