Satyendra Kumar Sinha vs The Employer in relation to the management of Canara Bank

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1964 of 2023
CNR No. BRHC011050242022
======================================================
Satyendra Kumar Sinha Son of Late Basudeo Narain Sinha, Resident of
Village-Jaijore, P.O. and P.S.-Andra, District-Siwan (Bihar), at present-
Shrivastava Nagar (Khurmabad), P.S.-Siwan Muffasil, District- Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Employer in relation to the management of Canara Bank
2. The Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank, Circle Office, D.A. Cell, Lav
Kush Tower, Exhibition Road, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajan Ghoshrave, Advocate
Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-10-2026
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and
learned Counsel for the Canara Bank.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner to set aside the Award dated 24.11.2008 passed by the
Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. I,
Dhanbad, in Reference No.229 of 2000, by which action of the
Management of Canara Bank in dismissing the services of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.1964 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
2/13
petitioner with effect from 28.07.1998 has been justified and it
has been held that the workman is not entitled for any relief and
further request for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
has been made to reinstate the services of the petitioner with
back wages and grant other consequential benefits for which the
petitioner is entitled in accordance with law.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner was appointed in the Canara Bank and joined
the service as Clerk on regular basis, in Canara Bank, Siwan
Branch, on 31.08.1986 and started his duty with the full
satisfaction of the superiors. Counsel submits that during his
posting at Siwan Branch of Canara Bank, a departmental
proceeding was initiated against him by serving him charge
sheet dated 23.08.1997 alleging fraudulent withdrawal of rupees
thirty thousand by the petitioner from S.B. Account No.24389
belonging to Indrashan Prasad of village Jaijore, Siwan. In the
said departmental enquiry, Sri H.R. Mishra, Senior Manager of
the Bank was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Sri Sanjay
Kumar Singh, Law Officer of the Bank, was appointed as
Presenting Officer. It has been submitted that after receiving of
the charge sheet dated 23.08.1997, the petitioner has requested
the authority for grant of time to file his explanation through

Patna High Court CWJC No.1964 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
3/13
representation dated 09.09.1997, but time has not been granted
to the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer has fixed the date of
enquiry proceeding for 06.02.1998 but subsequently, changed
the nature of enquiry from regular enquiry to preliminary
enquiry and fixed a date for holding enquiry for 09.02.1998 and
also changed the venue of holding enquiry from Siwan to Patna.
Counsel submits that the petitioner has appeared in the alleged
preliminary enquiry, denied the charges leveled against him. He
submits that during course of enquiry there was no presenting
officer, no witnesses, no documentary evidence to prove for the
charges leveled against him. Counsel submits that even the
person from whose account the amount is alleged to have been
withdrawn has not been examined as there was no complaint
from the said customer for the fraudulent withdrawal of money
from his account. Counsel submits that the petitioner was under
impression that authorities are going to exonerate him from the
charges, he signed on a paper without disclosing consent, but
subsequently order of exoneration has not been passed; rather he
has received the order dated 23.07.1998 passed by the
disciplinary authority Awarding punishment of dismissal to the
petitioner from service. The petitioner requested to supply the
preliminary enquiry report then only an enquiry report dated

Patna High Court CWJC No.1964 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
4/13
01.09.1998 has been provided to him, i.e., much after the final
order of dismissal. Counsel submits that the finding of the
Enquiry Officer was totally false as there was no proceeding of
the preliminary enquiry and in absence of the presenting officer,
the entire proceeding has been conducted. Counsel further
submits that the petitioner was denied the right of
representation. He further submits that against the order of
dismissal dated 09.02.1998, petitioner has preferred appeal
before the appellate authority in which he has taken all the
points that prior to passing final order there was non-
application of mind, violation of natural justice and lacking of
reasonable opportunity but his appeal was again dismissed by
the appellate authority in mechanical manner vide order dated
27.03.1999 (Annexure-5).
4. Learned Counsel further submits that being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with both the orders, petitioner had
preferred application before the Labour Commissioner, Patna,
under the Industrial Disputes Act, where matter has been
referred under the reference and the question of reference has
been framed as under:
“Whether the action of the
management of the Canara Bank in dismissing the
services of Shri Satyendra Kumar Sinha, Clerk,

Patna High Court CWJC No.1964 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
5/13
with effect from 28.07.1998 is justified? If not,
what relief the workman is entitled to?
Learned Counsel submits that the said reference
was numbered as Reference No.229 of 2000, in which the
management filed written statement on the basis of the
document which was proved in the Disciplinary Proceeding
Exts.-M-1 to M-6 and Exts.-W-1 to W-17. He submits that in
reference case Award was passed on 24.11.2008 in which the
reference was decided in favour of the Bank.
5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
Award, the petitioner has preferred writ petition bearing WP (L)
NO.1163 of 2011 before Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court at
th
Ranchi, but the same was finally decided on 16 March, 2022
by way of dismissal as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner
to approach before the competent Court of law having
jurisdiction. Thereafter, the petitioner has challenged the order
passed under reference before this Hon’ble Court in the present
writ petition. The order dated 16.03.2022 passed in W.P. (L)
No.1163 of 2011 is annexed as Annexure-7. Learned Counsel
for the petitioner submits that counter affidavit has been filed in
the present writ petition. He submits that the legal points are in
favour of the petitioner. He submits that he has been punished
without departmental proceeding. He further submits that

Patna High Court CWJC No.1964 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
6/13
petitioner was not granted any reasonable opportunity to defend
himself as no witness was examined. He submits that petitioner
was not given opportunity to cross-examine and the entire
proceeding was conducted in illegal and arbitrary manner in
gross violation of principles of natural justice.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support
of his argument further submits that enquiry report has been
provided to the petitioner after serving the final order. In support
of his argument, learned Counsel further submits that the
judgment of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank
reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 is absolutely in his favour.
7. Counsel further submits that in this case the
punishment has been made on the basis of the confession
without evidence which was set aside by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India. Learned Counsel further relied on other
judgments of Rahul Kumar Gautam passed in CWJC
No.8728 of 2018, which is completely based on Roop Singh
Negi case (supra) as well as the State of Uttar Pradesh Vs.
Ram Prakash Singh reported in 2025 INSC 555 :: 2025 (2)
PLJR (SC) 331 . Counsel further relied on the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Managing Director ECIL
Hyderabad ETC. Vs. B. Karunakar Etc. passed in Appeal

Patna High Court CWJC No.1964 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
7/13
(Civil) No.3056 of 1991 whose paragraph-7 is relevant.
8. With a view to adjudicate this matter, it is
necessary to quote the relevant paragraphs of the judgment on
which the petitioner relied. Paragraph 10 of the Roop Singh
Negi case (supra) on which order of Rahul Kumar Gautam
(supra) has been passed, which states as follows:
“ 10. The appellant made a
representation against the said order before
the appellate authority. The appellate
authority noticed his contentions in detail.
Inter alia, on the premise that the appellant
had been given an opportunity of personal
hearing, the appeal was dismissed, opining:
“In view of the above, the submissions
made by the appellant in his appeal dated 23-
2-2001 and his verbal submissions made
during personal hearing are devoid of merits.
As such I find no reasons to interfere or alter
the order of the disciplinary authority.
Thus, keeping in view the
nature and gravity of the proven charges,
punishment of ‘dismissal from bank service’,
imposed upon Shri Negi by the disciplinary
authority vide its order dated 24-1-2001 is
hereby confirmed and appeal of Shri Negi is
rejected.””
Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the

Patna High Court CWJC No.1964 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
8/13
finding of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Managing Director ECIL
Hyderabad Etc. (supra), extract of paragraph-7 states as
follows:
“...Hence, in all cases where
the Inquiry Officer’s report is not furnished
to the delinquent employee in the
disciplinary proceedings, the Courts and
Tribunals should cause the copy of the
report to be furnished to the aggrieved
employee if he has not already secured it
before coming to the Court! Tribunal, and
give the employee an opportunity to show
how his or her case was prejudiced because
of the non-supply of the report. If after
hearing the parties, the Court, Tribunal
comes to the conclusion that the non-supply
of the report would have made no difference
to the ultimate findings and the punishment
given, the Court/Tribunal should not
interfere with the order of punishment…..”
9. Learned Counsel for the Bank submits that the
writ petition itself is not maintainable and even if it shall be
allowed, petitioner could not be granted any relief due to the
reason that there are three orders against the petitioner, i.e., the
order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the order passed by
the Appellate Authority and the order passed in Reference case.
From the prayer made in the writ petition, the petitioner has

Patna High Court CWJC No.1964 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
9/13
challenged only order of reference, but has not challenged the
order of original authority and appellate authority. He further
submits that the basis of passing order against the petitioner is
only the confession of his guilt made by him. He submits that
law is very clear that when in the departmental proceeding, the
delinquent accepts his guilt then there is no need of conduction
of departmental proceeding in the established procedure. He
submits that the procedure on which the Counsel for the
petitioner is relying is applicable in the criminal jurisprudence
where even if the accused has confessed is guilt it is the duty of
the Court to conduct the Trial, but in the Departmental
Proceeding there is no such jurisprudence as the standard of
proof is the preponderance of probability and not the proof
beyond all reasonable doubts. He submits that those judgments
on which petitioner relied shall not attract in the case of the
petitioner as the case of the petitioner is absolutely on different
footing with those that has been discussed by the Counsel for
the petitioner.
10. This Court further finds that the orders
passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority
and the Labour Tribunal had been passed upon the fact; that the
petitioner had made a confession before the Enquiry Officer

Patna High Court CWJC No.1964 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
10/13
with regard to the charges levelled against him. This Court finds
that the facts of Roop Singh Negi (supra) are entirely
distinguishable from those of the present case. In the said case,
the confession was made before the police and not before the
Enquiry Officer or during the disciplinary proceedings. Rather,
the Enquiry Officer had relied upon the confession made before
the police, on the basis of which the punishment was imposed.
In the present case, however, the situation is entirely different,
as the petitioner had admitted his guilt in writing before the
Enquiry Officer. It is well settled that a confession made before
the police cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof of
guilt in criminal jurisprudence, wherein the standard of proof is
that of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Statements made before
the police are subject to the limitations prescribed under the law
of evidence and cannot be treated as substantive evidence of
guilt in the manner of a confession made before a competent
authority. Therefore, the contention that the decision in Roop
Singh Negi (supra) is applicable to the present case is
misconceived, as the said judgment was rendered in an entirely
different factual context. In the present case, the petitioner had
voluntarily admitted his guilt in writing before the Enquiry
Officer. Moreover, the standard of proof applicable to

Patna High Court CWJC No.1964 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
11/13
disciplinary proceedings in service jurisprudence is that of
preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable
doubt.
11. This Court further finds that there is not even
a whisper in the entire writ petition explaining the fundamental
grounds or reasons on which the three orders passed against the
petitioner, namely, the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the
order of the Appellate Authority and the Award passed in the
Reference Case, are sought to be assailed. The petitioner has
challenged only the Award passed in the Reference Case and has
not challenged either the original order passed by the
Disciplinary Authority or the subsequent order passed by the
Appellate Authority. This Court, therefore, finds that the facts
and circumstances of the present case are entirely
distinguishable from those involved in Roop Singh Negi
(supra). Accordingly, the principles laid down in the said
judgment have no application to the facts of the present case.
Similarly, the judgment in Rahul Kumar Gautam (supra) is also
distinguishable on facts and is, therefore, not applicable to the
present case. Likewise, the decisions in State of Uttar Pradesh
v. Ram Prakash Singh (supra) and Managing Director, ECIL,
Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors. (supra) are also

Patna High Court CWJC No.1964 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
12/13
distinguishable and have no application to the present case, as
the factual circumstances involved in those cases are materially
different from those of the present case. In the present case, the
petitioner had admitted his guilt in writing before the Enquiry
Officer, whereas no such factual circumstance existed in the
aforesaid decisions.
12. After hearing the parties and upon perusal of
the materials available on record, this Court finds that there are
three orders relevant to the adjudication of the present matter.
The first is the order dated 23.07.1998 passed by the
Disciplinary Authority; the second is the order dated 06.09.1998
passed by the Appellate Authority; and the third is the Award
dated 24.11.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central
Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, in Reference Case
No. 229 of 2000. This Court is surprised to note that, in the
present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged only the
Award passed in the Reference Case without challenging either
the original order passed by the Disciplinary Authority or the
subsequent order passed by the Appellate Authority, for reasons
best known to the petitioner.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the present writ

Patna High Court CWJC No.1964 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
13/13
petition. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Mkr./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 04.11.2026
Transmission Date NA