Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, CJ. and PARTHA SARTHY, J.
LPA No.487 of 2022 in CWJC No.6694
of 2008
(5.12.2024)
Canara Bank ... Appellant
vs.
Ajay Kumar Singh ... Respondents
Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 – Regulation 12(2)(a) – Imposition of punishment – Standard of proof in a domestic inquiry and criminal proceedings is quite distinct and different; while in a criminal proceeding there should be proof beyond reasonable doubt, in a disciplinary inquiry standard is of preponderance of probability – Appellant Bank was perfectly within its authority to have initiated inquiry and continued with it – Enquiry was not conducted in a proper manner – Presenting Officer, if intending to produce documents, should have produced it before Inquiry Officer with a list of documents and list of witnesses to be examined, to prove such documents, along with explanation as to why there was delay occasioned – No reason to sustain inquiry which is bereft of any sustainable evidence – Entire disciplinary proceedings were flawed and defective for reason of Management having not conducted it in accordance with Regulations and in accordance with principles regulating disciplinary proceedings as also that of natural justice – Management had conducted a defective inquiry and this ensures to benefit of delinquent officer – Prejudice caused is to Management, which was by its own fault, especially since Management had resources and had also appointed Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer; both employees of Bank itself, to conduct inquiry – Absolutely no reason to interfere with Judgment of Single Judge – Respondent would have to be restored in service from the date of his suspension; paid up entire dues of salary and allowances eligible to him till his retirement, minus subsistence allowance – Respondent shall also be entitled to entire retirement benefits due to him – Appeal stands dismissed. (Paras 8, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 26)
K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.—The appellant is a nationalized bank, aggrieved with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which interfered with the punishment awarded to an employee, in pursuance of a disciplinary inquiry conducted, wherein the Charge-sheeted Officer (CSO) was found guilty of the misconduct alleged. The respondent, the CSO, stood suspended pending inquiry; a charge-sheet having been issued to him dated 08.11.2005. The suspension period was also treated as period spent not on duty.
2. The facts leading to the misconduct alleged were that, the CSO, while he was employed as Manager at the Regional Office, Muzaffarpur, he was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and detained in custody from 09.08.2005 in connection with a criminal charge/offence committed by him while working as Manager at Bokaro Steel City Branch, Bokaro. His suspension was as per Regulation 12(2)(a) of Canara Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (for brevity ‘Regulations’ hereinafter), which mandated that if an employee is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours, he shall be placed under suspension. The misconduct alleged against the CSO, which is seen from Annexure-4, was that while he was the custodian of one set of double lock keys of the branch at the Bokaro Steel City, the Central Board of Secondary Education (for short ‘CBSE’) had sent the question papers of All India CBSE Pre- Medical Test/Pre-Dental Test, 2003 in sealed packets to the said branch for safe custody; apart from other branches of the Bank. The sealed packets were received on 10.04.2003 and kept in safe custody under double lock of the branch; of which lock, one key was in the possession of the CSO and the examinations were to be held on 27.04.2003. It was alleged that the CSO had taken out one packet of question papers from the double lock on 19.04.2003, having connived with outsiders, and facilitated copying of the question papers, leading to its leakage and placed the original question papers, re-packed and sealed in the original condition under double lock, on 21.04.2003.
3. The statement of imputations alleged that on 19.04.2003, a Saturday, when cash was taken out, one packet of the question paper was taken out without the knowledge of Shri V.K. Srivastav, Officer who was the other key-holder, and the CSO, clandestinely carried the packet of question paper in an envelope outside the strong room and kept the packet in his table drawer for the whole day. On the next day, i.e. 20.04.2003, a Sunday, he opened the branch premises and took out the cover containing the question papers and reached Reliance Hotel at around 11:00 A.M. where he met Shri Rajeev Jha, Shri Shiv Nandan Singh and Shri Amrendra, who opened and copied the questions in the presence of the CSO, which was subsequently re-packed, sealed and handed over back to the CSO. The CSO kept back the packet of question paper inside the double lock on 21.04.2003, again clandestinely, when one Shri Vinod Kumar was holding the second set of keys.
4. The inquiry was conducted wherein three Management Witnesses (for short ‘MWs’) were examined as MW-1, MW-2 and MW-3. The CSO was found guilty of the offences based on the evidence led at the inquiry, which resulted in the punishment of dismissal and the further order of the Disciplinary Authority that the period of suspension would be treated as one spent, not on duty for any purposes including for increment for the period, which would not be released. The dismissal was also stated to be a disqualification for future employment.
5. The CSO challenged the order before this Court in a writ petition, in which the learned Single Judge interfered with the punishment and observed that since the writ-petitioner had crossed the age of superannuation, there could be no resumption of the inquiry; also since the charge-memo was issued as early as in 2005. It was also observed that ther
Procedural irregularities in disciplinary proceedings do not automatically invalidate the inquiry unless they result in prejudice to the employee's ability to defend themselves.
Disciplinary proceedings were upheld as valid; delay and procedural flaws were insufficient to overturn dismissal for misconduct.
The Disciplinary Authority can order further enquiry only if serious defects exist in the initial enquiry; it cannot do so after a finding of exoneration.
The court reaffirmed that disciplinary proceedings must strictly adhere to procedural requirements, including proper approval of chargesheets and the necessity of oral enquiries, to ensure fairness a....
Grant of reinstatement - Court will not ordinarily interfere in the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings to substitute its own conclusion on penalty except where the punishment imposed ....
Distinct allegations against employee charged in the same transaction would be justified being based on a valid classification and no perversity or arbitrariness can be alleged in the process.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
