Back
M. S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, DEEPAK ROSHAN
Canara Bank through General Manager and Reviewing Authority – Appellant
Versus
Sanjeev Kumar, S/o Sri Jagat Narayan Prasad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.
1) This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/ Canara Bank challenging the judgment dt. 10.11.2023 in W.P.(S) No. 3050 of 2021.
2) The respondent had filed the said Writ Petition seeking quashing of order dt.31.3.2020 (Annexure -12) passed by the appellant no.3 imposing on the appellant the major penalty of “Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment”, and it’s confirmation vide order dt.30.12.2020 ( Annexure -14) in appeal by appellant no.2 and also by the Reviewing authority vide order dt.29.3.2021 ( Annexure -16).
The background facts
3) The respondent was employed as a Manager in the Canara Bank ( for short ‘the Bank’). During the period he had worked as Manager in charge in the Pithoria branch of the said Bank from 27.7.2017 to 7.10.2018, it was alleged by the Bank that complaints had been received against him from various customers and local public representatives that he was demanding bribe for sanctioning loans especially KCC/KMCC loans and that he was delaying sanction for such loans, when the bribe was not given by the loanee.
4) To find out the genuineness of the said allegations, a
Non-examination of a complainant in a disciplinary inquiry is not fatal if sufficient evidence supports the charges, and harsh penalties can be justified based on loss of confidence.
The punishment imposed must be proportionate and not unduly harsh, and the failure to examine vital witnesses can vitiate the departmental proceeding.
Disciplinary action in banking requires adherence to high standards of integrity, and loss of confidence justifies severe penalties, including removal from service.
(1) Disciplinary Enquiry – Rules of evidence which apply to a criminal trial are distinct from those which govern a disciplinary enquiry – Acquittal of accused in a criminal case does not debar emplo....
The power of judicial review, of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to....
The standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is based on preponderance of probabilities, and courts will not interfere unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.
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 ....
A disciplinary enquiry must be based on evidence; mere allegations or FIR production without witness examination cannot substantiate a finding of guilt.
The responsibility of the employee to maintain trust and the principles of natural justice were central to the court's decision.
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
