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.

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, an investigation/preliminary inquiry was conducted, in which, according to the Bank, statements of employees, customers and middlemen were taken; and certain video and audio clips were secured which supported the allegation against the respondent that he had sought bribe for sanction of loans and had also pressurized the AEO to clear the said KCC/KMCC loans at the earliest.

5) The following 3 charges had been levelled against the respondent by the Bank vide Annexure-3 Charge Memo dt.16.8.2019 :

(i) The respondent was pressurizing the AEO to do the KCC/KMCC loan proposals which were routed through middlemen;

(ii) The respondent was taking bribe from the loanee customers for sanction of KCC/KMCC loans through middlemen;

(iii) A video clip was also showing that the respondent was accepting bribe from middlemen. The respondent was furnished the copy of the preliminary investigation/inquiry report dt.1.11.2018.

6) The respondent submitted explanation dt.29.8.2019 denying the charges.

7) The Disciplinary authority, i.e the Assistant General Manager of the Bank appointed (vide Annexure -5) a Divisional Manager of the Bank on 29.8.2019 as Inquiry Officer to conduct disciplinary inquiry against the respondent and also a Presenting Officer in terms of the Canara Bank Officers Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations , 1976 ( for short the ‘Regulations’).

8) Both the Bank and the respondent examined witnesses in support of their respective stands in the disciplinary inquiry.

9) The Inquiry Authority submitted an inquiry report (Annexure 9) dt.21.3.2020 holding that all the 3 charges were proved against the respondent.

10) Thereafter copy of the inquiry report was furnished to the respondent vide Annexure-10 dt.21.3.2020 and he was asked to submit his representation on the findings of the Inquiry Officer by the Disciplinary Authority i.e., The Assistant General Manager.

11) The respondent submitted his representation dt.31.3.2020 (Annexure-11) to the Disciplinary Authority disputing the findings of the Inquiry Officer against him.

12) After considering the same, the Disciplinary Authority passed order dt.31.3.2020 (Annexure-12) imposing punishment of “Removal from Service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment” on the respondent.

13) The respondent submitted appeal dt.12.5.2020 (Annexure-13) to the Deputy General Manager, who was the Appellate Authority under the Regulations, contending that the said punishment is harsh and also raised contentions questioning the findings recorded by the Inquiry officer.

14) The Appellate Authority rejected the Appeal submitted by the respondent vide order dt.30.12.2020 (Annexure -14) after giving the respondent a personal hearing on 19.10.2020.

15) The respondent then filed a Review petitiondt.21.1.2021 (Annexure 15)