Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Nilendu Dutta, S/o. Lt. Nikhil Ranjan Dutta – Appellant
Versus
Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Rep. By Its Chairman – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
The initiation of a disciplinary proceeding which has culminated in an order of penalty of dismissal from service dated 30.12.2013 is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. The attempt of the petitioner to have his grievances redressed by approaching the appellate authority in the Bank had also not yielded any favorable result as his appeal was rejected on 03.04.2014. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. The facts, bereft of details are that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1991 as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the erstwhile Cachar Gramin Vikas Bank which has subsequently merged and became the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (hereinafter the Bank). In discharge of his duties, in connection with a misconduct on 25.07.2011, the petitioner was placed under suspension pending drawl on a departmental proceeding. The same was followed by a show-cause notice dated 24.08.2011 which had three charges. All the three charges relate to misappropriation of Bank money of various amounts. The show-cause notice was replied to by the petitioner and thereafter a memorandum of charge was issued o
The seriousness of misappropriation of public money and the fiduciary duty of a Bank employee require a strict approach, and the refund of misappropriated amount after a considerable time does not ab....
Judicial review of disciplinary action is limited to procedural adherence and evidence evaluation; the court will not substitute its findings for the disciplinary authority's unless there is a signif....
The court upheld the disciplinary proceedings and the penalty imposed, but modified the penalty from removal from service to compulsory retirement, considering the nature of the petitioner's role and....
The admission of charges by an employee at multiple stages of disciplinary proceedings renders the enquiry unnecessary, and the punishment imposed may not be considered disproportionate.
The responsibility of the employee to maintain trust and the principles of natural justice were central to the court's decision.
Bank officials accused of serious financial misconduct are expected to discharge their duties with utmost integrity and honesty, and the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be sub....
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
Listen Article