BIJAYA KUMAR PATEL vs CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR,CANARA BANK,BENGALURU

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.A. No.1737 of 2024
CNR No. ODHC010439232024


th
(From the judgment dated 26 April 2024 passed by learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C) No. 12353 of 2016)



Bijaya Kumar Patel …. Appellant

-versus-

Canara Bank, Bengaluru and
others

Respondents
…


Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Appellant : Mr. Agasti Kanungo, Advocate

For Respondents : Mr. R.B. Das, Advocate


CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
HO’BLE MR.

HO’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO



JUDGMENT
th
28 October, 2026

B.P. Routray, J.
1
. Heard Mr. A. Kanungo, learned Counsel for the Appellant and
Mr. R.B. Das, learned Counsel for the Respondents.
2.
Present Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned
th
Single Judge dated 26 April 2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 12353 of
2016.
W.A. No.1737 of 2024
Page 1 of 9

3.
The case of present appellant, who was the writ petitioner, is that
he joined as a Probation Officer in Canara Bank on 05.02.1996 and
subsequently promoted to the post of Middle Management Grade Scale-
III. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him vide charge sheet
dated 08.06.2015 on the charges that he, while working as Senior
Manager at Canara Bank, Jagadalpur Branch, had misconducted in
exercising his discretion for enhancement of the OCC (Open Cash
Credit) limit to M/s. Behera Traders from 20 lakhs to 30 lakhs and
permitted ad-hoc Rs.6 lakhs on 25.04.2013 without any proper
justification and in contravention of the prevalent guidelines. The
Enquiry Officer was appointed and the inquiry report finding him guilty
was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority.
4.
The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 30.09.2015
(Annexure-8) imposed the punishment of reduction to lower stage in
time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative
effect during which he shall not earn increments of pay and on expiry of
said period, the reduction shall have effect of postponing future
increments of his pay, as envisaged under Regulations 4(f) of the Canara
Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976
(hereinafter referred as “1976 Regulations”) . The Petitioner then

W.A. No.1737 of 2024 Page 2 of 9

preferred appeal against said punishment order, which was dismissed
confirming the punishment. Against the same, Petitioner preferred
W.P.(C) No. 12353 of 2016 and the judgment passed therein dismissing
the writ petition is impugned in present appeal.
5.
It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the fundamental
Regulations depriving the appellant from examining his witness was
violated as the statement of two persons namely, B.K. Jena and Amitav
Sahoo, was relied on by the Enquiry officer to find the appellant guilty.
But the appellant was not permitted to examine Amitav Sahoo or B.K.
Jena as witnesses in his defence. According to the appellant, this part of
his submission was not taken into consideration by the learned Single
Judge while dismissing the writ petition.
6.
On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. Das, learned counsel for
the Bank, that all the principles envisaged in 1976 Regulations have been
followed while imposing the penalty against the appellant and all such
allegations made by him regarding violation of the established principles
are false and are not justified on record.
7.
We perused the 1976 Regulations. These Regulations prescribe the
procedure for imposing major penalties. Regulations 6(3) speaks that,

W.A. No.1737 of 2024 Page 3 of 9

when it is proposed to hold an inquiry definite charges shall be framed on
the basis of allegations made against the officer and shall be
communicated in writing to the officer requiring him to submit a written
statement thereof. A detailed procedure has been prescribed in
Regulation 6. Regulation 6(13) prescribes that oral/documentary
evidences, the witnesses, by which the charges are proposed to be
proved, shall be produced on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority by the
Presenting Officer. In the event of production of witness by the
Presenting Officer, the delinquent officer shall be permitted to cross-
examine the witness. Regulation 6(14) authorizes the Inquiring Authority
to permit the Delinquent Officer to produce his evidence including the
witness beyond the charge sheet. The delinquent Officer is also permitted
to bring new evidence in his support under Regulations 6(14), in the
interest of justice. Regulations 6(16) prescribes that the Delinquent
officer can examine himself on his behalf and also can produce witnesses
to be examined on his behalf.
8. On the backdrop of the prescribed Regulations applicable in
proceeding against the Delinquent Officer, the same are not allegedly
violated except to the extent that he was not permitted to examine one
witness namely, Amitav Sahoo on his behalf. After the inquiry report

W.A. No.1737 of 2024 Page 4 of 9

was submitted, a defence statement was called for from the appellant. We
also perused said defence statement of the appellant at Annexure-7.
9.
On perusal of said defence statement of the appellant, it reveals
that the appellant has stated at Paragraph-4 that there was lapse on the
part of the Prahallad Kar and M.K. Nath regarding grant of ad-hoc six
lakhs rupees by Amitav Sahoo in consultation with the circle office. But
the Delinquent Officer (Appellant) has never stated in his defence
statement regarding his objection as to non-examination of said Amitav
Sahoo by him. The appellant has also failed to produce any document on
record to justify his contention that he has prayed before the Enquiry
Officer in terms of Regulations 6(16) to examine said witness namely,
Amitav Sahoo on his behalf in his defence. Therefore, such submission
made at this stage is not found correct on record and cannot be
considered in favour of the appellant.
10.
In B. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 , it has
been made clear that, in the matter of judicial review against the order of
the Disciplinary Authority or Inquiry Officer, this Court cannot re-
appreciate or re-appraise the evidence led in the disciplinary proceeding
and the scope in that regard is very li mited. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
has observed as follows;-

W.A. No.1737 of 2024 Page 5 of 9

“ 12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a
review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of
judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives
fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the
authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court.
When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a
public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine
whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether
rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings
or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority
entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power
and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that
finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical
rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined
therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority
accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support
therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the
delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in
its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to
reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent
findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere
where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent
officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice
or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry
or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary
authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding
be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the
Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding,
and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of
each case.

W.A. No.1737 of 2024 Page 6 of 9

13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where
appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive
power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment.
In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and
findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of
evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be
canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C.
Goel this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon
consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary
authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of
the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari
could be issued.
18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the
disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority,
being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider
the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are
invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment
keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The
High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial
review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on
penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority
shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would
appropriately mould the relief, either directing the
disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty
imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional
and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent

reasons in support thereof.
”
11.
In the case at hand, the appellant prays for re-appreciation of the
evidence on the basis of his submission that he was prevented from

W.A. No.1737 of 2024 Page 7 of 9

examining the witness namely, Amitav Sahoo, whose statement has been
used against the appellant by the Enquiry Officer. But on perusal of the
inquiry report under Annexure-6, we do not find anything on record that
the statement of said Amitav Sahoo was relied on by the Enquiry Officer
to find the appellant guilty for the charge. No such exhibit was found
there in the inquiry report containing the statement of Amitav Sahoo as
submitted by the Petitioner.
12.
Upon thorough perusal of the entire record including 1976
Regulations, we do not find any procedural flaw in conducting the
departmental proceeding and moreover, the appellant either before this
Court or before learned Single Judge did not specifically allege violation
of any procedural formality envisaged in 1976 Regulations. It is not the
case of the appellant that he was deprived of the principles of natural
justice or opportunity of being heard. It is also not the case of the
appellant that he was not given opportunity to submit his reply to the
inquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority. The appellant also does
not question the quantum of punishment as disproportionate to the
charge. However, we examined the proportionality of punishment in
respect to the charge framed against the appellant. The appellant, who
was working as a Senior Manager in a responsible post, has mis-

W.A. No.1737 of 2024 Page 8 of 9

conducted himself to exceed his permitted limit of OCC and also granted
ad-hoc
Rs.6 lakhs in favour of a private party. This is certainly beyond
the expected conduct of the appellant as a Senior Manager of the Bank
and thus the punishment imposed on him by the Disciplinary Authority is
not found disproportionate to the charges framed against him, hardly
leaving any scope for interference by the Court on this score.
13. For the reasons stated and discussions made above, the Writ

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.

(B.P. Routray)
Judge



(Savitri Ratho)

Judge

Subhalaxmi/Madhusmita
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI
SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 31-Oct-2026 11:26:46

W.A. No.1737 of 2024 Page 9 of 9