Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 38060
EASWARAN S., J.
-----------------------------
W.P.(C) No.25646 of 2013
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.C. Priyamvadha
For the Respondents: M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, Pooja Menon, K.John Mathai
Disciplinary proceedings are vitiated if the enquiry officer relies on preliminary statements not included in the charge sheet or acts as a mouthpiece for the management, and the High Court may interfere with a dismissal penalty if it is found to be shockingly disproportionate and motivated.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Disciplinary proceedings - Judicial review -Scope of - Scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings by High Court is limited to procedural infirmities, violation of natural justice, or perverse findings based on no evidence - High Court can interfere if penalty is shockingly disproportionate (Paras 10, 11, 38).
(B) Departmental enquiry - Preliminary enquiry - Evidentiary value - Statements recorded during preliminary enquiry cannot be used as substantive evidence in regular departmental enquiry - Introducing such statements for the first time during the enquiry without disclosure in the charge sheet denies effective hearing and violates principles of natural justice (Paras 25-27, 30).
(C) Evidence - Quasi-judicial duty of enquiry officer - Enquiry officer must act as an independent adjudicator - Reliance on pre-existing statements for two charges while rejecting the same statements for three other charges is arbitrary and indicates predetermined bias (Paras 21, 31, 34).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Law Officer, challenged her dismissal from service following a disciplinary proceeding alleging use of unparliamentary language against superiors. She alleged the proceedings were motivated by her prior whistleblowing on bank corruption. The enquiry officer relied on preliminary statements not listed in the charge sheet and failed to produce independent corroborative evidence.
Findings of Court:
The court found the disciplinary proceedings were motivated and procedurally flawed, particularly noting the enquiry officer’s failure to independently assess evidence and the reliance on statements not supplied with the charge sheet. The court further held that the penalty of dismissal was grossly disproportionate to the charged misconduct.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary enquiry and findings were proper and whether the penalty of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate.
Ratio Decidendi: Disciplinary findings based solely on preliminary enquiry statements, without independent evidence, and marked by a lack of fair opportunity to cross-examine reflect a biased process; a dismissal penalty for unparliamentary language, in the absence of physical threat, shocks the judicial conscience.
Result: Writ petition allowed; orders of dismissal quashed; petitioner reinstated with 50% back wages.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background and procedural history of the disciplinary challenge. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. parties contended the fairness and legality of the enquiry. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. standards for quasi-judicial functions in internal enquires. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. admissibility of preliminary investigation reports and statements. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 6. consistency in findings regarding guilt across multiple charges. (Para 34 , 35) |
| 7. proportionality of punishment and consciousness-shocking penalties. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 8. appropriate relief and reinstatement following illegal termination. (Para 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT
The challenge in the present writ petition is directed against the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner while she was working as a Law Officer with the 1st respondent bank.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows: On 15.11.1999, the petitioner entered the service of Canara Bank as a Law Officer. While working as a Law Officer at the Mangalore Circle of the bank, it is alleged that she detected corruption alleged to have been committed by the higher officials of the bank in three loan accounts. Despite the best efforts of raising complaints against the officials of the bank, the grievance of the petitioner was not redressed. Later, it is alleged that the petitioner was transferred to the Securitization Cell. On 11.3.2010, the petitioner appears to have submitted a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Kathrikadavu, against various irregularities committed by the higher officials of the bank. It is alleged that the said complaint was not followed up. While so, on 6.8.2011, certain officers of the 1st respondent bank filed a complaint against the petitioner stating that she had used abusive language. The petitioner was put on notice regarding the allegations. Later, she was suspended from service on 12.10.2011. On 29.10.2011, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice stating that she had failed to comply with the orders of the superior and was therefore liable to be proceeded against. The show cause notice was replied to by the petitioner on 22.11.2011, and the disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 23.12.2011. Immediately on receipt of the complaint from the five officers, the 1st respondent bank appears to have appointed the Assistant General Manager, Circle Office, Chennai, who conducted a preliminary investigation and filed a report, which formed the basis of a memo of charge dated 23.12.2011 (Ext.P9). Along with Ext.P9, a copy of the preliminary investigation report and also the copies of the statements given by respondents 3 to 7 against the petitioner were enclosed. The petitioner showed cause to the allegations against her. Finding that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory, the 1st respondent bank proceeded to appoint an inquiry officer by proceedings dated 6.2.2012. The inquiring authority, after a full-fledged enquiry, concluded that the petitioner is guilty of the charges levelled against her and submitted a report on 24.11.2012, based on which, Ext.P16 was issued wherein the disciplinary authority, having found that the petitioner was guilty of the two out of the five charges levelled against her, imposed a punishment of dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order, which was also dismissed. A review, though attempted, met with a failure since the reviewing authority refused to review the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, as well as the appellate authority. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard Smt. M.C. Priyamvadha, who appeared in person, and Smt. Pooja Menon, the learned counsel representing Sri. M. Gopik
