GOVINDAN. G vs CANARA BANK
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP(MD) No. 17696 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 23.09.2026
Pronounced on 03.11.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJNISH PATHIYIL
WP(MD) No. 17696 of 2021
and
WMP(MD) No. 14600 of 2021
CNR:{HCMD010750282021}
Govindan. G
Ex-Senior Manager,
Canara Bank,
Duraisamy Nagar,
Madurai - 625016.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Canara Bank,
Rep., by its Managing Director and C.E.O.,
Head office,
112, J.C.Road,
Bangaluru - 560002.
2. The General Manager,
Canara bank,
Personnel Management Section,
Human Resources Wing,
Head office,
112, J.C.Road,
Bengaluru - 560002.
3. The Deputy General Manager / Appellate
Authority,
Canara Bank,
Industrial Relations Section,
Human Resources Wing,
Head Office,
112,J.C.Road,Bengaluru – 560002.
__________
Page 1 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:58:01 pm )
WP(MD) No. 17696 of 2021
4. The Assistant General Manager / Disciplinary
Authority
Canara Bank,
Human resources Management Section,
East Veli Street,
Madurai - 625001.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: S-15. To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for
the records pertaining to the Impugned Order in Punishment Proceedings
Ref.No.MDUC HRM 3626/2020 Dated 29/01/2020 on the file of
Respondent No.4 and the consequential impugned order dated
29/12/2020 on the file of Respondent No.3 , and quash the same as illegal
and consequently for a direction , direction the Respondents to reinstate
the petitioner notionally from the date of dismissal , and to confer all
terminal benefits from his retirement dated viz., 31/01/2020 , and pass
such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper
in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For M/s.Roy and Roy Associates
For R1 to R4: Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh
Standing Counsel
__________
Page 2 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:58:01 pm )
WP(MD) No. 17696 of 2021
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the
order of dismissal in Ref.No.MDUC HRM 3626/2020 dated 29.01.2020
th
passed by the 4 respondent/Disciplinary Authority, and the
consequential order dated 29.12.2020 passed by the 3rd
respondent/Appellate Authority, to quash the same as illegal, and for a
direction to reinstate the petitioner notionally from the date of dismissal
and to confer all terminal benefits reckoned from his date of retirement,
viz., 31.01.2020.
2. The petitioner joined the respondent Bank as a Clerk on
25.02.1985 and thereafter, having risen up the ladder, was serving as
Senior Manager at the Thirunagar-Madurai Branch from 12.11.2018 and
worked there till his suspension on 01.11.2019, holding the first set of
double lock keys of the Safe Deposit Locker during his tenure. The
second set was held by other officers of the branch.
__________
Page 3 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:58:01 pm )
WP(MD) No. 17696 of 2021
3. On 24.01.2019, Sri K.Velmurugan, Armed Guard of the branch,
found a purse of gold and silver articles that was left behind by a
customer at the strong room and handed it over to Sri. Sathish Kumar,
one of the key holders. The articles weighed at 385.90 grams in the
presence of the two key holders, Sri. Sathish Kumar and Smt.Suganya D,
were placed in the safe custody locker under Sl.No.SC/01/2019, along
with a letter dated 25.01.2019 recording the weight. On 25.09.2019, the
customer, Sri N.Nagaprakasam, holder of Locker No.A-18, lodged a
complaint stating that he had misplaced gold and silver items while
operating his locker on 24.01.2019. On opening the safe custody packet
pursuant to the complaint, the articles were found to weigh only 38.50
grams, the weight recorded in the accompanying letter having been
altered from 385.90 grams to 38.50 grams. The petitioner was on leave
from 29.09.2019 to 08.10.2019 and rejoined duty on 09.10.2019. A
search conducted over three days preceding his return did not locate the
articles, and the petitioner was directed by the Chief Manager to trace the
original packet after he returned.
__________
Page 4 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:58:01 pm )
WP(MD) No. 17696 of 2021
4. On 09.10.2019, though the petitioner had sought permission to
visit the Taluk Office, he instead operated his personal locker at another
branch. On 14.10.2019, he produced a packet from the double lock room,
representing that the missing article had been traced. On enquiry, he
admitted to having substituted the article with his own jewels, and, by
two letters dated 29.10.2019, admitted the substitution and sought return
of his own jewels weighing 38.50 grams. The original articles were
returned to the customer on 29.10.2019.
5. On these findings, the petitioner was issued a charge memo
dated 09.01.2020 (Ref.No.MDUC HRM CS-02/2020), with two charges
which are extracted hereunder:-
“1. Sri G Govindan was holding the 1st set of keys on
various dates during his tenure in the branch. Sri G
Govindan had taken advantage of holding the 1st set of
double lock keys and had taken out the unclaimed
articles of 385.90 grams kept in the safe custody locker;
replaced it with his own jewels of lesser weight of 38.50
grams by altering the weight mentioned in one of the
letters enclosed /annexure to Safe deposit unclaimed
article, which is dated 25.01.2018 (prepared on
25.01.2019) kept along with the safe custody article. Sri
G Govindan had falsified the records with a dishonest
intention to gain pecuniary benefits.
2. Sri G. Govindan had not ensured compliance with the
guidelines stipulated for handling unclaimed articles and
other items found in the of ice premises.”
__________
Page 5 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:58:01 pm )
WP(MD) No. 17696 of 2021
6. A departmental enquiry was held on 20.01.2020, in which 23
documents were marked and 4 witnesses were examined. This was
followed by the Presenting Officer's brief on 21.01.2020, the Defence
Representative's reply on 23.01.2020, and the Inquiring Authority's
findings on 24.01.2020 holding both charges proved. The petitioner's
th
representation was submitted on 28.01.2020, and the 4
respondent/Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of dismissal,
by order dated 29.01.2020, served on the petitioner on 30.01.2020, one
day prior to his scheduled retirement. The petitioner preferred an appeal
on 12.03.2020 which was rejected by the 3rd respondent/Appellate
Authority by order dated 29.12.2020, and his subsequent request for
review on 19.02.2021, was also rejected by the Reviewing Authority by
order dated 16.04.2021. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present
writ petition.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that the charge is untenable since
the locker could not be opened with the first set of keys alone, and the
second key holder was never investigated. The learned counsel for the
petitioner contends that the admission letters, both dated 29.10.2019, on
which the finding of guilt rests, were extracted from him under coercion
__________
Page 6 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:58:01 pm )
WP(MD) No. 17696 of 2021
and that the letters are inconsistent with his own statement dated
15.10.2019. He further contends that the entire process, from the
commencement of the enquiry to the order of dismissal, was completed in
nine calendar days, in breach of Regulation 6(21)(i) of the Canara Bank
Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976
(hereinafter ‘the Regulations’), and is squarely covered by the decision of
a Division Bench of this Court in The General Manager, Canara Bank
and Others v. S.V.Mothilal, (W.A. (MD) No.932 of 2021, dated
28.03.2025) , involving the same respondent Bank, deprecating a
disciplinary proceeding concluded in a similarly short span. The relevant
part of the judgment is extracted hereunder:-
“9. ...The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision
reported in (2024) 1 SCC 632 (Aureliano Fernandes v.
State of Goa) had used the expression “whirlwind
proceedings” since the entire process had been wrapped
up by the authority concerned in flat 39 days. It was
further noted that the undue haste demonstrated by the
Committee for bringing the enquiry to a closure, cannot
justify curtailment of the right of the appellant to a fair
hearing. In the case on hand, the entire proceedings
were concluded within two weeks. The expression
“ whirlwind proceedings ” used by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court would aptly apply to the case on hand also.
10. From the sequence of events, we are led to conclude
that some sort of assurance would have been given to
the petitioner that if he cooperates, he would be let of
lightly. Otherwise, no delinquent would willingly
participate in the enquiry proceedings even without
submitting his defence statement. The fact that the reply
__________
Page 7 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:58:01 pm )
WP(MD) No. 17696 of 2021
was submitted to the enquiry of icer immediately also
goes to show that some sort of persuasion was exercised
on the delinquent. The writ petitioner has been led like a
lamb to be mercilessly slaughtered. We are of the view
that the principle of estoppel by conduct cannot be
invoked against the delinquent. When it comes to
adherence to principles of procedural fairness, we
would expect the employer to be an exemplar. They
cannot take advantage of the acquiescence on the part
of the employee. By no stretch of imagination can the
process that had taken place in this case held to be fair.
On this sole ground, interference is justified.” (emphasis
supplied)
8. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Bank's own Staff
Accountability Guidelines under Circular No.72 of 2012, bar disciplinary
action for a mere procedural lapse absent fraud or mala fides, and no such
finding was recorded, the customer having received his articles in full
with no loss to the Bank. The petitioner further contends that the
Appellate Authority's order dated 29.12.2020 extracted a finding
regarding “wrongly credited proceeds of other regular bills to fake bills”
(at page number 2 of the order), a charge that was never levelled against
the petitioner, showing non-application of mind under Regulation 17(4)
of the Regulations to consider whether the penalty was proportionate. The
petitioner further contends that the punishment of dismissal, imposed a
day before retirement after 35 years of service and after the jewels had
been traced and returned to the customer's satisfaction, is disproportionate
and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and that a finding
__________
Page 8 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:58:01 pm )
WP(MD) No. 17696 of 2021
of guilt cannot rest on an admission alone, relying on Article 20(3) of the
Constitution, Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
9. Per Contra, the learned counsel for respondents would submit
that the petitioner's service was not without blemish, he having earlier
been punished with reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for
one year with cumulative effect, by order dated 07.05.2018, for some
irregularities while he was posted at the Vilangudi Branch and that the
petitioner as the Senior Manager was holding the first set of keys and had
access to the double lock even in the absence of the second key holder, as
shown by his unaccompanied access on 14.10.2019 and his visit to his
personal locker at another Branch on 09.10.2019 under the pretext of
visiting the Taluk Office. He further contends that the jewel appraiser, Sri
Raja, confirmed that the substituted articles of 38.50 grams had earlier
been given to him by the petitioner for weighing, and a cover containing
thread, needle, candle, matchbox, wax seal, and a bunch of keys was
found in the petitioner's table drawer. He further contends that the
admission letters dated 29.10.2019 were voluntary and that no objection
as to coercion was raised at any stage, the plea of coercion being an
afterthought. The learned counsel would further submit that the standard
of proof in a disciplinary proceeding is one of preponderance of
__________
Page 9 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:58:01 pm )
WP(MD) No. 17696 of 2021
probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt, relying on Suresh
Pathrella v. Oriental Bank of Commerce, (2006) 10 SCC 572.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents would further contend
that the reference to “fake bills” in the Appellate Authority's order is a
typographical error and the same does not vitiate the order, since the
Appellate Authority has otherwise specifically dealt with the charges and
grounds of appeal and that this Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 226, does not re-appreciate evidence recorded in a domestic
enquiry, relying on B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749
and that, given the gravity of the charges touching upon the petitioner's
honesty and integrity, and his prior disciplinary record, the punishment of
dismissal is proportionate and cannot be one which would shock the
conscience of the Court.
11. I have perused the affidavit, counter-affidavits and typed set of
papers and given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by
the learned counsel on either side.
__________
Page 10 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:58:01 pm )
WP(MD) No. 17696 of 2021
12. At the outset, it must be borne in mind that a departmental
enquiry is not a criminal trial. The standard of proof required to establish
a charge in disciplinary proceedings is not proof beyond reasonable
doubt, but one of preponderance of probabilities. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Suresh Pathrella v. Oriental Bank of Commerce (supra),
observed thus:
“11. ... It is a well settled principle of law that the yardstick
and standard of proof in a criminal case is dif erent from
the disciplinary proceeding. While the standard of proof in
a criminal case is a proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the
proof in a departmental proceeding is preponderance of
probabilities.”
Equally, the strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, do not govern a
domestic enquiry. In State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, (1977) 2 SCC
491 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
“4. It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict
and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian
Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are
logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible.…”
The question, therefore, is whether the material before the Inquiring
Authority, taken as a whole, makes it more probable than not that the
petitioner committed the misconduct alleged.
__________
Page 11 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:58:01 pm )
WP(MD) No. 17696 of 2021
13. I am unable to accept the contention that the finding of
misconduct rests solely on the two admission letters dated 29.10.2019.
The petitioner's visit to his locker at the Gnanavolipuram Branch on
09.10.2019, backed by the CCTV footage, under the stated pretext of
visiting the Taluk Office, and his production of the traced packet from the
double lock room on 14.10.2019, to which he alone had access on that
occasion, are circumstances independent of the admission letters. The
jewel appraiser's confirmation that the substituted jewels had earlier been
handed to him by the petitioner for weighing is a further circumstance of
the same kind. Article 20(3) of the Constitution protects a person from
being compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution,
and Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, excludes a confession
made to a police officer from being proved against the accused in such a
prosecution. Neither provision governs the appreciation of evidence in a
departmental enquiry, and regardless, the finding here does not rest solely
on the admission letters.
14. The plea that the admission letters were extracted under
coercion was also not raised at any stage of the enquiry, where the letters
were marked with the petitioner's own consent. I am not persuaded, on
the material on record, that the admission was involuntary. The
__________
Page 12 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:58:01 pm )
WP(MD) No. 17696 of 2021
petitioner's further contention that the second key holder was never
identified or investigated does not support him either. This was not put
forward as a specific defence before the Inquiring Authority, and, in any
event, it is the petitioner's own unaccompanied access to the double lock
on 14.10.2019 that stands established on the record. I accordingly find no
reason to interfere with the finding that the petitioner was responsible for
the substitution of the unclaimed articles with jewels of lesser weight.
15. That, however, does not conclude the matter. The charge memo
is dated 09.01.2020, and the enquiry commenced and concluded in a
single sitting on 20.01.2020, in which 23 documents were marked and 4
witnesses were examined. The Regulations command a different
trajectory. Regulation 6(8) requires the Inquiring Authority to ask the
officer employee whether he pleads guilty. Where he does not,
Regulation 6 (9) requires the Inquiring Authority to adjourn the case to a
later date not exceeding 30 days. Regulation 6 (10) further requires the
Inquiring Authority, while adjouring, to record an order enabling the
officer employee to prepare his defence, to complete inspection of the
documents listed against him, to submit a list of the documents and
witnesses he wants for the inquiry, and to seek discovery or production of
those documents.
__________
Page 13 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:58:01 pm )
WP(MD) No. 17696 of 2021
16. It is not the respondents' case that the petitioner pleaded guilty
before the Inquiring Authority as such. On the contrary, evidence was
recorded and the charges were contested. Yet the case was not adjourned
at all. The petitioner was thus denied the time and opportunity that is
contemplated under the Regulations in order to inspect the documents
relied on against him, to gather his own evidence and to prepare his
defence. The mere fact that the petitioner and his Defence Representative
went along with this course does not absolve/expiate the defect as also
laid down in the case of S.V.Mothilal (supra) , the employer cannot take
undue advantage of the acquiescence on the part of the employee.
17. In order to set the timelines in proper perspective, the dates and
events are tabulated below:
Sl.No Date Event Days from
charge memo
1. 09.01.2020 Charge memo issued (Ref.No.MDUC
-
HRM CS-02/2020)
th
11 day
2. 20.01.2020 Enquiry commenced and concluded in a
single sitting; 23 documents marked
and 4 witnesses examined
th
3. 21.01.2020 Brief of the Presenting Officer 12 day
th
4. 23.01.2020 Reply of the Defence Representative 14 day
5. 24.01.2020 Findings of the Inquiring Authority
th
15 day
holding both charges proved
th
19 day
6. 28.01.2020 Representation of the petitioner on the
findings
th
20 day
7. 29.01.2020 Order of dismissal passed by the 4th
respondent
st
21 day
8. 30.01.2020 Order of dismissal served on the
petitioner
nd
9. 31.01.2020 Date of the petitioner's superannuation 22 day
__________
Page 14 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:58:01 pm )
WP(MD) No. 17696 of 2021
The above table provides a very clear picture. The entire process, from
the charge memo to the order of dismissal, was completed in twenty days.
The inquiry proper was disposed of in a single sitting. The order of
dismissal was passed the day after the petitioner's representation was
received, and it was served on him a day before he was to retire. It is
therefore irrefutably clear that the proceedings were concluded in
absolute haste.
18. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, in The General
Manager, Canara Bank and Others v. S.V.Mothilal (supra), was
confronted with the same respondent Bank's conduct of concluding a
disciplinary proceeding within two weeks, and this Court held, adopting
the expression used by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aureliano
Fernandes v. State of Goa, (2024) 1 SCC 632 , that such proceedings
amounted to “ whirlwind proceedings ”, and that undue haste in bringing
an enquiry to a close cannot justify curtailment of the delinquent's right to
a fair hearing. This applies with equal force in the present case.
Nonetheless, the present case differs from S.V.Mothilal (supra) in one
material aspect. In S.V.Mothilal (supra), the finding of guilt was in itself
the product of the hurried inquiry that was conducted. In the present case,
__________
Page 15 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:58:01 pm )
WP(MD) No. 17696 of 2021
the finding also rests on the letters given on 29.10.2019, more than two
months before the charge memo was issued, and in any event, the finding
is independently supported by the circumstantial evidence which were
weighed in the inquiry which have been mentioned in paragraph 13. The
haste with which the proceedings were conducted does not, therefore,
vitiate the finding of guilt. It does however have a direct bearing on the
punishment, as the process concluded within twenty days, and on the eve
of retirement, there was no real room for the Disciplinary Authority to
consider if the dismissal was the appropriate penalty.
19. As regards the order of the Appellate Authority dated
29.12.2020, apart from the reference to proceeds of regular bills having
been credited to fake bills (at page number 2 of the order), a matter
wholly extraneous to the charges, the order otherwise deals with the
charges and the grounds of appeal raised by the petitioner. I accept the
respondents’ explanation that the particular reference to fake bills is in
fact a typographical error, and it does not, by itself, vitiate the order.
20. That, however, does not dispose of the question whether the
punishment of dismissal is proportionate to the misconduct proved, to
which I now turn. Regulation 4 of the Canara Bank Officer Employees'
__________
Page 16 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:58:01 pm )
WP(MD) No. 17696 of 2021
(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 sets out the penalties that may
be imposed on an officer employee for acts of misconduct. It does not
prescribe a particular penalty for a particular misconduct, but provides a
graded range of penalties from which the Disciplinary Authority must
choose. Regulation 4 reads as follows:-
“4. PENALTIES:
The following are the penalties, which may be imposed
on an officer employee, for acts of misconduct or for any
other good and/or sufficient reasons.
MINOR PENALTIES:
(a) Censure;
(b) Withholding of increments of pay with or without
cumulative effect;
(c) Withholding of promotion;
(d) Recovery from pay or such other amount as may be
due to him of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss
caused to the Bank by negligence or breach of orders;
(e) Reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay for a
period not exceeding 3 years, without cumulative effect
and not adversely affecting the officer’s pension.
MAJOR PENALTIES:
(f) Save as provided for in (e) above, reduction to a lower
stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period, with
further directions as to whether or not the officer will
earn increments of pay during the period of such
reduction and whether on expiry of such period the
reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing
the future increments of his pay;
(g) Reduction to a lower grade or post;
(h) Compulsory retirement;
(i) Removal from service, which shall not be a
disqualification for future employment;
__________
Page 17 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:58:01 pm )
WP(MD) No. 17696 of 2021
(j) Dismissal, which shall ordinarily be a disqualification
for future employment.…”
Dismissal is thus the last and the most severe of the penalties under the
Regulations. Though dismissal is a permissible penalty, it does not,
however, mean that it must follow upon every misconduct that is proved.
In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to a recent judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Surekha Domaji Bele v. Executive Engineer, Testing
Division, MSEDCL, 2026 INSC 639 , where it was held as follows:
“106. Dismissal from service is the severest form of penalty
which can be inflicted on a delinquent employee in service
jurisprudence. It brings the relationship of employer and
employee to an end permanently, and ordinarily deprives the
employee of the incidents of past service, including retiral
benefits. It does not lead merely to the loss of the existing
source of income for the employee but also for the dependent
family members. Thus, it will have a devastating effect not
only on the dismissed employee but also on all those who are
dependant on the employee. Because of the severity of its
impact not only on the employee but also to his dependents,
the disciplinary authority must be very careful in seeking to
impose the severest form of punishment of dismissal.
...
109. Even where the Regulations include dismissal as one of
the permissible punishments for acts of misconduct, the
authority is not relieved of its duty to consider all relevant
factors to see whether the facts of the case truly warrant the
most extreme form of penalty. The mere fact that a proved act
falls within the broad category of ‘misconduct’ under the
Regulations does not mean that dismissal must follow as a
matter of
course.”
__________
Page 18 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:58:01 pm )
WP(MD) No. 17696 of 2021
21. Though this Court is conscious of the fact that the scope of
interference by a Court in matters relating to punishment is limited, and
that interference is warranted only when the punishment imposed shocks
the conscience of the Court, I am of the view that, in the present case, the
punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate. The articles in
question were in fact found and restored to the customer's full
satisfaction, no loss was occasioned to the Bank, and the petitioner had,
by then, rendered 35 years of service. Moreover, the order of dismissal
recites that it “ shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future
employment ”. A consequence of this severity, imposed one day before
retirement, in the opinion of this Court is shockingly disproportionate.
22. It is true that the petitioner's service was not without blemish.
By order dated 07.05.2018, he was punished with reduction to a lower
stage in the time scale of pay for one year with cumulative effect, for
monetary irregularity at the Vilangudi Branch. This circumstance weighs
against him and distinguishes his case from one of an otherwise clean
record cut short on the eve of retirement. However, the same cannot be
held against him to the extent that the punishment is skewed to the capital
punishment of dismissal from service, that too, one day prior to his
retirement.
__________
Page 19 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:58:01 pm )
WP(MD) No. 17696 of 2021
23. Notwithstanding the finding of misconduct, which this Court is
not inclined to disturb, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be
served by setting aside the punishment of dismissal and remitting the
question of the appropriate quantum of punishment to the 4th respondent
Disciplinary Authority for fresh consideration. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India (supra), while holding that a
writ court does not re-appreciate evidence recorded in a domestic
enquiry, has also recognised that where a punishment is found to be
disproportionate, the appropriate course is ordinarily to remit the matter
to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the penalty, rather than
for the Court itself to substitute a penalty of its own, though in certain
circumstances this Court can substitute the punishment.
24. The petitioner has also crossed the date on which he would
ordinarily have retired, and reinstatement in service is accordingly no
th
longer a viable option. The 4 respondent, in reconsidering the quantum
of punishment, shall bear this in mind and consider a punishment short of
dismissal that is capable of being given effect to notwithstanding the
petitioner's retirement.
__________
Page 20 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:58:01 pm )
WP(MD) No. 17696 of 2021
25. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed.
(a) The punishment of dismissal imposed on the petitioner by the 4th
respondent by order dated 29.01.2020 (Ref.No.MDUC HRM
3626/2020), as confirmed by the 3rd respondent by order dated
29.12.2020, is set aside.
(b)The finding that the petitioner committed the misconduct alleged
against him under Charge 1 of the charge memo dated 09.01.2020
is not disturbed.
(c) The matter is remitted to the 4th respondent to reconsider the
quantum of punishment to be imposed on the petitioner, having
regard to his 35 years of service and the age of the petitioner. The
4th respondent shall pass fresh orders within a period of eight (8)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(d)There shall be no order as to costs.
03.11.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
rgm
__________
Page 21 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:58:01 pm )
WP(MD) No. 17696 of 2021
To
1. Canara Bank,
Rep., by its Managing Director and C.E.O.,
Head office,
112, J.C.Road,
Bangaluru - 560002.
2. The General Manager,
Canara bank,
Personnel Management Section,
Human Resources Wing,
Head office,
112, J.C.Road,
Bengaluru - 560002.
3. The Deputy General Manager / Appellate
Authority,
Canara Bank,
Industrial Relations Section,
Human Resources Wing,
Head Office,
112,J.C.Road,
Bengaluru – 560002.
4. The Assistant General Manager / Disciplinary Authority
Canara Bank,
Human resources Management Section,
East Veli Street,
Madurai - 625001.
__________
Page 22 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:58:01 pm )
WP(MD) No. 17696 of 2021
RAJNISH PATHIYIL, J.
rgm
Pre-Devlivery Judgment in
WP(MD) No. 17696 of 2021
and
WMP(MD) No. 14600 of 2021
03.11.2026
__________
Page 23 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:58:01 pm )