The General Manager (P) Canara Bank vs. Ganganarasimhaiah

REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1088
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO………………….……OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 20343 of 2022)
THE GENERAL MANAGER (P)
CANARA BANK …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
GANGANARASIMHAIAH …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIJAY BISHNOI, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant challenging the
Judgment dated 12.08.2022 passed in Writ Petition No. 1857
of 2020 (L-RES) by the High Court of Karnataka. The Division
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Gulshan Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.09.09
17:30:28 IST
Reason:
Bench of the High Court, thereby affirmed the Award passed
by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court
1

5. A preliminary enquiry was conducted into the said irregularities
and the Respondent, in the said enquiry, on 24.07.2004
admitted that certain loans were advanced to his wife which
were availed by coercing the manager and without obtaining
any sanction from the Controlling Officer. The Respondent
also accepted that he made unauthorized entries in the bank
accounts of one Shri Ramakrishnaiah and his father, Shri
Kambaiah, thereby tampering with the official records.
6. The Respondent was then put under suspension on 19.08.2004
because of contemplation to initiate the disciplinary
proceeding, and thereafter a chargesheet dated 28.04.2005
was issued to the Respondent in respect of the charges. The
chargesheet is reproduced herein below for easy reference:-
“… CHARGE
You were working at our V.G. Doddi branch from 11.11.1997 to
01.00.2004 prior to your joining Bommasandra Branch on
02.08.2004 and you were placed under suspension on
19.08.2004.
Serious discrepancies in the Advances Portfolio of our V.G.
Doddi branch was observed and an investigation conducted
into the matter has brought to fore the following irregularities/
fraudulent acts on your part;
FGC 1/2000 for Rs. 25000/- for Rs. 25,000/- to Shri Kambaiah
on 03.04.2000;

On 03.04.2000 FGC 1/2000 for Rs. 25,000 has been granted to
Shri. Kambaiah S/o Shri Rangaiah, Nayakanapalya, Magadi
Taluk who is your father.
3

On 01.03.2000, Shri R. R. Hoover , the then Manager had
allowed a TOD for Rs. 10000/- in the SB Account No. 519 of
Shri. Kambaiah. Again on 24.03.2000, you had requested for a
further finance of Rs. 25,000/- in your father's account
informing the Mnagaer that your father would be visiting the
branch for executing the loan papers. At your behest Shri. R. R.
Hoover had prepared the debit and credit slips far by debiting
FGC account and crediting SB account No. 519 of Shri.
Kambaiah. The slips for granting FGC loan was prepared
without even preparing the loan papers as Shri. Kambaiah had
not personally visited the branch for executing loan papers.

You have posted the credit slips in SB 519 of Shri. Kambaiah
and withdrawn Rs. 15000/- from his SB account on the same
day i.e. on 24.03.2000. In order to set right the unauthorised
debit in FGC loan of your father, you have on the next day i.e.
on 25.03.2000 unauthorisedly debited SB account 1550 of Shri.
Ramakrishnaiah without the knowledge of the Manager and
without, preparing any slips for debiting the account and
without showing any corresponding. Credit. You have debited
the amount in the 1edger sheet only and not made any entry in
the subsidiary sheet.
You have brought this unauthorised, transaction to Manager's
knowledge only on 31.03.2000. Subsequently Shri R. R. Hoover
passed the slips on that day by debiting SB 1550 of Shri
Ramakrishnaiah. M and crediting FGC subsidiary, without
slips. By doing so, the entry pertaining - to FGC loan granted in
the absence of Shri Kambaiah on 24.03.2000 was reversed
and the unauthorised debit in SB 1550 of Shri Rsmakrishnaiah
remained outstanding. Subsequently to set right the transaction
of unauthorized debit in SB 1550 and crediting FGC head, Shri
R. R. Hoover had hurriedly sanctioned a loan FGC 1/2000 for
Rs.25000/- to Shri Kambaiah on 03.04.2000 by duly obtaining
loan papers and crediting the proceeds to SB 1550 of Shri
Ramakrishnaiah thus re-crediting the unauthorised debit. You
have posted the debit slip pertaining to the transaction. You
have knowingly made the unauthorised entries in your father's
and Shri. Ramakrishnaiah's accounts for your personal gains.
Shri. Chennavenkataiah, P.T.E. of the branch had extracted the
balancings of Rs. 3,00,196/- before the debit of Rs.25,000/- on
25.03.2000 i9n the SB balancing book. You have deliberately
made alterations in the balancing book and altered the amount
of Rs, 2,75,196/- to tally the balancing book. You have also
made alterations in SB Control Register and the closing balance
4

in the ledger subsidiary to tally the books which amounts to
tempering and falsification of Bank's records.
To conceal this unauthorizid debit in SB 1550 of Shri.
Ramakrishnaiah you have deliberately left out the debit and
credit entry while updating his pass book. You have admitted
having deliberately left out these entries in the pass book.
Shri. Ramakrishnaiah had nothing to do with this transaction
and Manager has granted the loan for accommodation purpose
at your instance and as you had pressurized him in granting
the said loan.
Shri. R. R. Hoover, Manager had allowed TODs in SB Account
2450 of Smt. Suvarmamma who is your wife, on 8 occasions
during the period from 16.4.99 to 23.5.2000 totalling to Rs.
55,857/-. Apart from this, she was granted with DPN RT 22/09
for Rs. 20000/-, DPN RT 31/99 for Rs. 25,000/-, ALS 15/03 for
Rs. 25000/-. Further loans have been granted to Shri.
Kambaiah, your father, under ALS 10/02 for Rs. 25000/- and
ALGL 98/03 for Rs. 25000/- for which concurrence of
controlling office were not been taken.
You have unauthorissdiy made debits in the SB Account 1550
for raising funds for personal gain. You have coerced the
Manager for sanctioning loans to your family members for
personal gains. You have tempered the Bank records by making
alterations in the balancing book, key register and SB
subsidiary sheets to keep the books tallied by fraudulent
means on account of unauthorized debits.
Our Staff Section (Officers), Circle Office, Bangalore, vide their
letter No- BLC/SSO/7023/EP dated 04.10.2004, has called for
your explanation into, the matter. The reply submitted by you
vide your letter dated 02.11.2004 is neither convincing nor
satisfactory.
You have by your above actions failed to discharge your duties
with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and thus
cant ravened the provisions of Chapter XI, Regulation 2(A), (i) of
Canara Bank Service Code and committed a "Gross
Misconduct"….”

7. On 07.06.2005, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an
Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer
5

after conclusion of the enquiry submitted a report on
09.01.2006, concluding that all the charges levelled against
the Respondent stands proved.
8. The copy of the Enquiry Report was supplied and in response to
that the Respondent submitted his submissions alleging that
the enquiry was not fair as two relevant witnesses were not
examined.
9. The Disciplinary Authority issued “Show Cause Notice” dated
10.03.2006 to the Respondent proposing the punishment of
compulsory retirement. The Respondent was also afforded
personal hearing by the Disciplinary Authority. Finally on
15.03.2006, while agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry
Officer, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of
compulsory retirement upon the Respondent.
10. Being aggrieved, the Respondent preferred an appeal before
the Appellate Authority which rejected the appeal preferred by
the Respondent vide Order dated 22.11.2006.
6

11. Further, pursuant to the dispute raised by the Respondent
before the Central Government, the Central Government
made a reference to the Tribunal, the terms of the reference
read as follows:
“ Whether the punishment of the compulsory retirement
imposed on Shri Ganganarasimahaiah by the management of
Canara Bank is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the
workmen is entitled?”
12. The Tribunal framed a preliminary issue as to whether the
domestic enquiry held against the Respondent is fair and
proper or not? On behalf of the Respondent, following
contentions were raised:
●Some key witnesses have not been examined and certain
relevant documents were not furnished to him;
●Sufficient opportunity was not provided to examine the
departmental witnesses; and
●The enquiry proceedings were not conducted in the
Kannada language but in English language which was
inconvenient to the Respondent and his defence
representative to effectively put forward the defence.
The Tribunal after dealing with the above contentions of the
Respondent and also considering the stand of the Appellant-
Bank vide Order dated 17.05.2013 had concluded that the
7

enquiry was fair. The operative portion of the order dated
17.05.2013, passed by the Tribunal is reproduced herein
under:-
“....Thus, I find no to say that fair and proper opportunity was
denied to the CSE or his defence Representative to put forward
their case. In the result while arriving at conclusion of
answering this issue in the affirmative holding that the
Domestic Enquiry held against the I Party by the II party is fair
and proper, I pass the following Order:
ORDER
The Preliminary issue is answered in the Affirmative holding
that the Domestic Enquiry held against the I Party by the II
party is fair and proper…”
It is to be noticed that the said order passed by the
Tribunal dated 17.05.2013 has not been challenged by the
Respondent and has thus, attained finality.
13. The Tribunal vide order dated 25.09.2019, had passed the
Final Award and answered the reference in favour of the
Respondent and directed the Appellant to reinstate the
workman into his original post with continuity of service
without back wages.
14. The Appellant thereafter preferred the impugned Writ Petition
No. 1857 of 2020 (L-RES) before the High Court challenging
the Final Award dated 25.09.2019 passed by the Tribunal.
8

the fact that during the preliminary enquiry, the Respondent
had admitted his guilt. Learned Counsel has further argued
that the copies of the documents relied upon by the Appellant
were supplied to the Respondent and he was granted
sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. In
such circumstances, the Tribunal had grossly erred in
interfering with the punishment order passed by the
Disciplinary Authority and the High Court had also erred in
affirming the order passed by the Tribunal. Learned Counsel
has further argued that the Tribunal as well as the High
Court were impressed only by the fact that the Appellant had
failed to prove that the Respondent was the author of the
entries whereby some irregular/illegal transactions were
carried out in the bank/loan accounts of one Shri
Ramakrishnaiah, the father of the Respondent, Shri
Kambaiah and other customers of the banks. It is further
contended that the Tribunal despite observing that it is highly
possible that at the instance of the Respondent, the manager
committed the irregularities as alleged in the chargesheet and
also observing that the Respondent was the beneficiary of the
10

misconduct/loan sanction has illegally interfered with the
punishment order. It is argued that it is a settled position of
law that strict rules of evidence do not apply to the
disciplinary proceedings and the findings of the Disciplinary
Authority are to be tested on the principle of preponderance
of probabilities.
18. Learned counsel for the Appellant has further argued that the
Tribunal has erred in observing that the punishment of
compulsory retirement on the Respondent is too harsh and
disproportionate, despite holding that he was benefitted on
account of misconduct/irregular loan sanction. The Tribunal
has also wrongly observed that if the Respondent is reinstated
into service, then only he will get the retiral benefits. It is
contended that the Respondent being compulsorily retired
from this service would otherwise also be entitled to retiral
benefits because it is not a case of dismissal from the service.
It is further submitted that the other staff working at the
relevant time in the V.G. Doddi branch, namely, Shri R.R.
Hoover and Shri N. Govinda Raju were also subjected to
disciplinary proceedings and since the charges have been
11

proved against them, punishment of compulsory retirement
had also been imposed upon them. Their challenge to the
punishment was rejected by the Appellate and Reviewing
Authority and thereafter, they have not made any further
challenge before any of the Authority and therefore, the
punishment inflicted upon them became final.
19. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has further argued that
the customers put their trust in the banks and deposit their
money with the belief that their money would be safe in the
banks. In such a condition, if an employee of the bank
indulges in malpractices or irregularities in maintaining the
accounts of the customers, then the faith of the general
public would erode in the banking system. It is contended
that the Respondent was found indulged in making
unauthorized transactions in the bank account of strangers
and was also involved in making irregular transactions in the
accounts of his father and his wife and therefore, it is not
desirable that such employee would remain in the banking
system. The irregularities committed by the Respondent
resulted in loss of confidence of the employer and in such
12

circumstances the Respondent had rightly been compulsorily
retired.
20. In support of the above submissions, the learned counsel for
the Appellant has relied upon the judgements passed by this
Court in Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority)
And Others vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2
SCC 612 , Standard Chartered Bank vs. R.C. Srivastava
reported in (2021) 19 SCC 281 and Indian Overseas Bank

and Others vs. Om Prakash Lal Srivastava reported in
.
(2022) 3 SCC 803
21. Per contra , the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
has opposed the appeal and has argued that the High Court
had not committed any illegality in passing the impugned
order because the Appellant did not produce any evidence to
prove that the unauthorized entries and tampering of the
records were done by the Respondent. The learned counsel for
the Respondent further argued that the Enquiry Officer also
failed to examine two material witnesses, namely Shri
Ramakrishnaiah and Shri R.R. Hoover and the Enquiry
13

Officer did not obtain an expert opinion to verify whether the
disputed entries were made in the handwriting of the
Respondent.
22. The learned counsel for the Respondent also contends that
the statement of admission of guilt by the Respondent, that
are relied upon by the Appellant, were involuntary as they
were taken under threat and coercion. It is asserted that the
th
Respondent has only studied till 7 standard and it is difficult
to comprehend that he, not being an educated person, had
made the entries in the bank accounts of his father or that of
any other customers. It is contended that as a matter of fact,
the whole irregularities in the loan/bank accounts of father of
the Respondent and the other customers were done by the
then manager of the bank and the Respondent has been
falsely implicated.
23. It is further contended that the Appellant-bank has failed to
produce any evidence which suggests that the Respondent
was directly involved in the alleged misconduct, therefore, the
Tribunal has rightly held that the punishment of compulsory
14

15.03.2006 had imposed the penalty of compulsory
retirement upon the Respondent. The order passed by the
Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of
compulsory retirement is reproduced hereunder:
“I have perused the Chargesheet, the Enquiry Proceedings,
relevant documents, findings of the Enquiring Officer and
submissions of the CSE.
Sri Ganganarasimhaih was working at our V.G. Doddi Branch
from 11.11.97 to 01.08.2004 prior to his joining Bommasandra
branch on 02.08.04 and he was placed under suspension with
effect from 19.08.04.
Serious discrepancies in the Advances Portfolio of V.G. Doddi
Branch was observed and an Investigation conduced in the
matter brought to the more certain irregularities/ fraudulent
activities on his part.
The charges are morefully enumerated in the above referred
Chargesheot which shall be read as part and parcel of this
order.
Upon an enquiry, Sri Ganganarasimhaiah was found 'guilty' of
the charges in the EO's findings which was served upon him
and the CSE vide his letter dated 28.01.06 has made his
submissions.
On perusal of the records, I observe the following:
During the course of the enquiry 19 documents were introduced
as Management Exhibits and two witnesses were examined.
On behalf of the defence/ CSE one document was introduced
and no witnesses were produced.
Sri H N Ramesh, Manager and the Investigating Officer was
examined as MW-1. He has identified documents MEx - 1 to
MEx - 16. MEx - 1, the contents of which were confirmed by
MW1 reveals as follows:
On 03.05.2000, FGC Rs.25,000/- was granted to Sri
Kambaiah, father of the Chargesheeted Employee. The debit
slip was prepared for FGC 1/2000 and credit slip was
prepared for SB 1550 of Sri Ramakrishnaiah. In SB 1550,
ledgersheet, there is a debit of Rs.25,000/- to FGC 1/2000 on
16

25.03.2000 and a credit of Rs.25,000/- is made on 03.04.2000
by FGC. These ledger entries are in the handwriting of CSE.
There are no "corresponding debit and credit slips in the slip
bundle of 25.03.2000. In the slip bundle of 31.03.2000, there is
a debit slip for Rs.25,000/- debiting SB 1550 of Sri
Ramakrishnaiah with the narration towards FGC 1/2000 and
a Credit Slip for the equal amount for the credit of FGC 1/2000.
The debit slip bears the ledger folio no 78.12 with initials of
CSE and the slip was released by Sri Robert R. Hoover,
Manager. The balancing of SB ledger was extracted by Sri
Channavenkataiah, PTE. The total balancing has been altered
to Rs.275196/- and the balancing tallied. The alterations in the
SB balancing book are admittedly in the handwriting of CSE.
The SB key register is also in the handwriting of the CSE. The
final total is altered by using white fluid and initialled by CSE.
The CSE has admitted debiting the account of Sri
Ramakrishnaiah without Manager's knowledge On 31.03.2000.
Sri Robert R. Hoover, Manager, came to know of the debit to SB
account No 1550 on 25.03.2000 for Rs.25,000/-and alteration
in SB key register and in SB Balancing book. CSE pleaded for
mercy and as such the Manager had not written to CO. Sri
Robert R. Hoover to set right the above transaction made
transfer slips on 31.03.2000 debiting SB 1550 and crediting
FGC head. The CSE has written passbook of SB 1550
deliberately omitting the above two entries and CSE has
admitted this in writing. [Emphasis
Supplied]
The CSE admitted in his statement dt 24.07.2004 that he got
SB 2450 opened in the name of Smt Suvarnamma, wife of CSE
on 19.12.1997. She is not working and not doing any busyness
but she goes to tailoring training class. He had taken the TODs
in this account and repaid the same. The CSE has posted the
relevant slips in his own handwriting. [Emphasis
Supplied]
The CSE has admitted having availed DPNRT 22/98 for
Rs.20,000/-, DPNRT 31/99 for Rs.25,000/-and ALS 15/2003
for Rs.25,000/-in his wife's name. The CSE has admitted for
having posted the slips of FGC 1/2000 in SB ledger sheet of SB
519 & SB 1550. That there is no relationship between SB 1550
of Sri Ramakrishnaiah and FGC 1/2000 of his father. The fact
of debiting SB 1550 with Rs.25,000/- was not informed to Sri
Ramakrishnaiah. The CSE also admitted that Sri
Ramakrishnaiah is deprived of his own amount from
25.03.20010 & 03.04.2000. The CSE in his statement dated
28.07.2004 has admitted for having entered the pass book No
17

1550 deliberately leaving out the details pertaining to FGC
1/2000. The CSE has admitted having made entries in SB
ledger sheet No 549518 of SB 2959 which pertains to Mr
George Joseph.
It is brought on record through MEx-4 that Sri Robert R. Hoover,
at the instance of CSE allowed TOD of Rs.10,000/- in the
account of Sri Kambaiah SB 519. To clear TOD he has prepared
debit slip of FGC 1/2000. However CSE debited SB account
1550. Sri Robert R. Hoover also informed that CSE altered the
figures in SB Balancing and SB control register.
[Emphasis
Supplied]
It is brought on record through MEx -7, 8, 13 and MEx -15 that
debit entry of Rs.25,000/- made on 25.03.2000 in SB 1550
ledger sheet is not appearing in SB subsidiary sheet of the day.
SB pass book No 1550 does not show the debit entry of
Rs.25,000/-of 25.03.2000 and credit entry of Rs.25000/- of
03.04.2000 which were made In the ledger sheet of SB 1550.
SB daily control register of 31.03.2000 debit entry pertaining to
ledger no 2 is altered from Rs.68/- to 25068/- and the number
of slips from 1 to 2. But the total number of slip is retained as 8
even though it comes to 9. The closing balance for the ledger no
2 and the grand total is also altered. The CSE in his statement
dated 24.07.2004 has admitted for having made the
alterations.
It is also brought on record though the deposition of MW 1
basing on MEx 16 that TODs were allowed in the SB account
No 2450 of Smt Suvamamma, W/o Chargesheeted Employee on
16.04.99, 05.10.99, 11.10.99, 23.10.99, 08.11.99, 01.03.2000
and 03.04.2000.
MW 2 Sri Channavenkataiah PTE had extracted the balancing
in SB Ledger No as at 31.03.2000, he has confirmed that the
balance extracted by him in SB 1550 was Rs.300196/- where
as the altered figure was Rs.275196/-the balancing was not
tailed and the alterations in the balance was not made by him
and he had only extracted the grand total in a rough 3heet
since it was not tallied.
There were no operations in the SB A/c No 519 during 1998
and 1999. A TOD was allowed on 01.03.2000 to an inoperative
account, which is not a routine action of the Branch Manager.
Sri Kambaiah is the father of CSE and hence, tho TOD allowed
can be Justified for no other purpose than the coersion of the
CSE. TOD was outstanding for more than 15 days and was
18

adjusted by posting an entry of Rs.25,000/- on 24.03.2000, as
narration "FGC 1/2000". The entry Wall posted by CSE, though
the entry was illegible by the Manager. The FGC 1/2000 was
granted on 03.04.2000, and the CSE who posted the slips on
24.03.2000, cannot claim ignorance and the CSE had sufficient
know 1 edge and knowingly he had posted the slips with the
connivance of the Manager.
MW 1 stated that the CSE has approached the Manageron
01.03.2000 and pressurized him for a TOD of Rs. 10,000/- in
his father's account, which acoount, which he had permitted to
be cleared within 7 days. On 24.03.2000, the CSE has again
approached the Manager for a further finance of Rs.25,000/-
and coerced him to prepare the debit & credit slip for
Rs.25,000/- each to FGC and SB account stating that his father
would come to the branch on that day for executing the loan
papers. Sri Kambaiah did not turn up and the amount was
withdrawn and subsequently on 25.03.2000 debited
Rs.25,000/- to SB account 1550 of Sri Ramakrishnaiah,
without the knowledge of the Manager. There is no
corresponding debit or credit slip in the slip bundles. On
31.03.2000, there is a debit slip for Rs.25,000/- to SB 1550 of
Sri Ramakrishnaiah which bears the ledger folio no 7812, with
initials of the CSE.
It is on record that the TOD dt 01.03.2000, was allowed by the
Manager at the coercion of the CSE, and the debit entries dated
25.03.2000 and 31.03.2000, were made by the Chargesheeted
Employee fraudulently and the defence argument that the
entries have been authenticated is not true. On the other and
the previous Manager advantage of Manager and benef it hand
all evidences show that both the CSE colluded and the CSE had
taken undue made fraudulent entries to gain pecuniary.
The Submission of the defence that TOD dt 01.03.2000 and
granting FGC 1/2000 on 03.04.2000 are made under normal
course of business, is not true. The evidences, show
involvement of the CSE and Sri Robert R. Hoover, had obliged
the Chargesheeted Employee on account of coercion. Further as
per MEx- 1, and MEx -13 & 14, the SB control dt 24.03.2000,
25.03.2000 & 31.03.2000 are in the handwritings of CSE. As
per MEx - 8, the CSE had debited Rs.25,000/-to SB 1550 on
25.03.2000 in the ledger account only and not made entry in
the Subsidiary (MEx- 14) and SB control register (MEx-13). If the
entry in MEx -8 was authenticated as claimed by Defence
Representative the 3ame should have reflected in MEx- 13 and
14.
19

The debit entry dt 31.03.2000, of Rs.25,000/- was made by
the CSE in the SB Ledger 2 Subsidiary, i.e., MEx- 14, In his
own handwriting and no entry was made in the SB 1550
Ledger sheet.
After taking the balancing by MW 2, the balance in the SB
control register, MEx 13 was altered in the handwriting of the
CSE, which is visible to the naked eye and also the balancing
extract. DEx-1 was also altered in the handwriting of the CSE
and by putting the initial by the CSE. [Emphasis
Supplied]
As per deposition of MW 1 there more two initials in MEx -13
and DEx -1 and one could be of the Supervisor. But it is true
that, one initial is of the CSE and another initial is of the
Manager who has colluded with the CSE and had admitted
during Investigation that all-these entries were madeat the
request of the CSE to accommodate him with funds.
The charge of unauthorised debits in SB 1550 & the alteration
in SB control register and SB Balancing book- is not disproved /
rebutted by the defence. Though entries of closing balance on
31.03.2000 and balancing on 31.03.2000 appears to be
authenticated, the earlier entries of 24.03.2000, 25.03.2000 &
31.03.2000 and the FGC 1/2000 sanction on 03.04.2000 are
all indicating that the alterations on 31.03.2.000 were made to
coverup all the unauthorisded entries made by the CSE, for his,
personal gains.
It is brought 25.03.2000 and Ledger sheet 1550. During branch
on 28 03.04.2000, are on record that the debit entry of
Rs.25,000/- on credit entry ofRs.25,000/- on 03.04.2000,
made in SB of SB 1550, are not shown in the pass book of SB.
It is brought on record that the debit entry of Rs. 25,000/- on
25.03.2000 and credit entry of Rs. 25,000/- on 03.04.2000,
made in SB ledger sheet of SB 1550, are not shown in the pass
book of SB 1550. During Investigation, Sri Ramakrishnaiah,
was called at the branch on 28.07.2004 & who reported that
the entries of 25.03.2000 & not belonging to him. MWl in his
Investigation report has stated that the CSE had written the
pass book in his own handwriting. The CSE had admitted
during the Investigation for having written the pass book of SB
1550 of Sri Ramakrishnaiah by deliberately omitting the above
two entries. Sri Ramakrishnaiah has stated vide MEx -9 that he
had not demanded any FGC Loan either on 25.03.2000 or on
03.04.2000 and he never availed any loans from the Bank.
[Emphasis Supplied]
20

It is brought on record that the debit and credit entry of
Rs.26,000/-on 13.10.99, were not made in the pass book i.e.,
MEx -.15. But as can be seen that, the branch had debited
Rs.100/-on 31.03.2000 towards processing charges in respect
of GL 168/99 sanctioned on 13.10.99. However in the case of
debit entry dt 25.03.2000;- the same war. not entered in the
SB Subsidiary on 25.03.2000, and in the case of credit entry dt
03.04.2000, the loan FGC 1/00 was not sanctioned in the
name of Sri Ramakrishnaiah. As the CSE was knowing tho
substantial credit of Rs.298937/- to the SB account 1550, on
24.03.2000 and hence he had debited Rs.25,000/- to the
account without the knowledge of the Manager. The defence
has tried to bring on record that the entries dt 13.10.99 was not
reflected in the pass book & accordingly, the entries dt
25.03.2000 L 03.04.2000 were also not reflected in the pass
book and the defence tried to bring that the action of the CSE
was not deliberate. However, as analysed above, the omitting of
entries dt 25.03.2000 & 03.04.2000 are deliberate and the
account holder i.e., Sri Ramakrishnaiah, had never made any
objection/ complaint about the entries dt 13.10.99, 31.03.00 in
respect of GL 168/99 vide MEx- 9, and Sri Ramakrishnaiah
had nothing to do with the transactions dt 25.03.2000 and
03.04.2000.
[Emphasis
Supplied]
The CSE in his statement dt 24.07.04 had admitted that, he
has got opened SB account 2450 in the name of his wife Smt
Suvarnamma, who is neither working any where nor doing any
business, but she was attending tailoring training class. On "8"
occasions TODs were taken by him in the said account &
repaid. The CSE had also admitted for having availed loan
DPN(RT) 22/98 for Rs. 20,000/- DPN (RT) 31/99 for for
Rs.25,000/- and ALS 15/2003 for Rs. 72570007- in the name
of his wife. It is charged that, the concurrence of the controlling
office was not taken for the above TODs/Loans.
[Emphasis Supplied]

The defence has argued that the CSE is not responsible for non
obtention of concurrence from Circle Office. The guidelines
issued by the Bank with regard to obtention of concurrence from
controlling office for the loans/ advances granted to close
relatives of the employees are applicable to all the employees of
the bank. Though it is the responsibility of the Branch Manager
to obtain concurrence the from the controlling office, before
granting loans to close relatives of the employees, the concerned
employee has also to take interest /initiative in this regard and
21

to see that the Manager has obtained the concurrence or not, for
the best interest of himself.
In this case, the defence has made an allegation that the
management has made right allegation on a wrong employee.
The defence ha3 not produced any evidence to show that, the
CSE had also took initiative to remind the manager to obtain
concurrence as a responsible employee of the Bank. When the
CSE had took initiative in availing various facilities in the name
of his wife, he should have shown the same interest to get the
concurrence from the controlling office.
The evidence on record show that the CSE has unauthorised1y
made debits in the SB account 1550, for raising funds for
persona) gain. He had has coerced the Manager for sanctioning
of loana to his family members for personal gains. He has
tampered the Bank records, by making alterations in the SB
control register, SB subsidiary sheets and SB Balancing book to
keep the book tallied by fraudulent means on account of
unauthorised debits.
The CSE had availed loans/ TODs in tho-name of his wife, for
which he has not initiated any steps for obtaining concurrence
from controlling off ice.
I observe that all the contention of the CSE are covered by the
Enquiring Officer in his findings dated 09.01.2006 and the CSE
hats not brought any valid grounds for review of the findings of
the EO - which merit consideration. Hence, while agreeing with
the findings of the Enquiring Officer and for the reasons stated
above. I hold the CSE guilty of the charges as enumerated in
this order and I order accordingly.
A copy of this order shall be communicated to Sri
Gangrasimhaiah
Place: CO, Bangalore
Date: 15.03.2006


Sd/-
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
“CANARA BANK
Ref: BLC:DAC:4421:E-37:2006
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
22

CIRCLE OFFICE BANGALORE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
Sub: In the natter of alleged misconduct on the part of Sri
Gangrasimhaiah (61633), Sub-Staff(U/s), Canara Bank,
Bomnasandra Branch.
Ref: 1. Chargesheet No. BLC:DAC:3038:E-37:CH-25/2005
dated 28.04.2005.
2. Suspension Proceedings No. BLC:SSW:10813:EP:E.37:2004
dated 18.08.2004.
WHEREAS, departmental proceedings were initiated against
the subject employee by serving on him the above referred
Chargesheat;
WHEREAS, an Enquiring Officer was appointed by the
Disciplinary Authority to conduct an enquiry into the- above
referred Chargesheet;
WHEREAS, the Enquiring Officer after conducting an enquiry
submitted his findings holding the employee "Guilty" of the
charges levelled against him as enumerated in his findings;
WHEREAS, a copy of the findings was forwarded to the
Chargesheeted Employee vide letter No. BLCs -DACs 31:2006
dated 09.01.2006 and the Chargesheeted Employee has made
his submissions on the findings vide his letter dated
28.01.2006;
WHEREAS, after analyzing the findings of the Enquiring Officer,
the submissions made by the chargesheeted employee on the
findings of Enquiring Officer and other connected records, the
Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings of the
Enquiring Officer;
WHEREAS, after taking into consideration the gravity of
misconduct, circumstances of the case, the punishment of
"Compulsory Retirement" Was proposed to be imposed on the
Chargesheeted Employee and a personal hearing in this -regard
was given by the Disciplinary Authority on 15.03 .2006;
REF: NO. BLC:DAC:4421:E-37:2005 DATED 15.05.2006
NOW THEREFORE, taking into consideration the submissions
made by the Chargesheeted Employee during the personal
hearing, the gravity of the misconduct, connected records, the
circumstances of the case, agreeing with the findings of the
Enquiring Officer and holding the Chargesheeted Employee
23

"guilty' of the charges as enumerated in the orders of the
Disciplinary Authority, the punishment of
“COMPULSORY RETIREMENT"
as envisaged under Chapter XI, Regulation 4, Clause (b) of
Canara Bank Service Code is hereby imposed on the subject
employee.
The period of suspension shall not be reckoned for any purpose
whatsoever and also the increment for the period of suspension
shall not be released.
A copy of the order of the Disciplinary Authority is enclosed.
CIRCLE OFFICE BANGALORE
DATE :15.03.2006”
26. Thereafter, the Respondent had preferred an appeal before
the Appellate Authority, i.e., General Manager of the Canara
Bank and the Appellate Authority after considering the
grounds taken in the said appeal had dismissed the said
appeal vide Order dated 22.11.2006. The Order passed by
the Appellate authority is as under:-
Perused the memorandum of appeal, proceedings of the
enquiry, findings of the Enquiry Officer and other connected
records.
Sri.Ganganarasimhaiah was given a personal hearing on
02/11/2006 at Head Office, Bangalore and his submissions
were heard and recorded.
Shri. Ganganarasimhaiah was working at our V.G.Doddi
branch from 11.11.1997 to 01.08.2004 prior to his joining
Bommasandra branch on 02.08.2004 and he was placed under
suspension on 19.08.2004.
Serious discrepancies in the Advances Portfolio of our V.G.Doddi
branch was observed and an investigation conducted into the
matter has revealed that Shri.Ganganarasimhaiah has
unauthorisedly made debits in the SB Account 1550 for raising
funds for personal gain. He has coerced the Manager for
24

sanctioning loans to his family members for personal gains. He
has tampered the Bank records by making alterations in the
balancing book, key register and SB subsidiary sheets to keep
the books tallied by fraudulent means on account of
unauthorised debits.
He has by his above actions failed to discharge his duties with
utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence. The charges
are fully enumerated in the above referred chargesheet.
Upon enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings
holding the appellant guilty of the charges. Agreeing with the
findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority has
imposed the subject punishment.
Aggrieved by the imposition of -the above punishment, Sri.
Ganganarasimhaiah has preferred the instant appeal which
has been duly taken into consideration.
On a perusal of the records, I observe the following:
On 3/4/2000, an FGC loan ofRs.25000/- was granted to
Sri.Kambaiah, who is reported to be father of the appellant. The
debit slip was prepared for FGC 1/2000 and corresponding
credit slip was prepared for SB 1550 of Sri.Ramakrishnaiah. It
has been revealed that in SB 1550, ledger sheet, there was a
debit of Rs.25000/- "To FGC 172000" on 25/3/2000, and a
credit of Rs.25000/- is made on 3/4/2000 as "By FGC". All the
ledger entries are made in the handwritings of appellant. There
were no corresponding debit or credit slips in the slip bundle of
25/3/2000. In the slip bundle of 31/3/2000, there was a debit
slip for Rs.25000/- debiting SB 1550, of Sri. Ramakrishnaiah,
with the narration "towards FGC 1/2000" and a credit slip for
the equal amount for the credit of FGC 1/2000. The debit slip
bears the ledger folio No. 7812, with the initials of the appellant
and the slip was released by Shri. R. R. Hoover. The balancing
of SB ledger was extracted by Sri.Channavenkataiah, PTE of
the branch. The total balancing has been altered to
Rs.275196/- and balancing tallied. The relevant alterations in
the SB balancing book are admittedly in the handwriting of the
appellant, SB key register was also written in the handwriting
of the appellant and the final total has been altered by applying
white fluid and initialled by the appellar The appellant has
admitted for having wrongly debited the account of
Sri.Ramakrishnaiah without the knowledge of the Manager.
The debit of SB account 1550 on 25/3/2000 for Rs.25000/-
and alteration i.e. SB key register and SB balancing book came
to the knowledge of Sri.Robert R Hoover on 31/3/2000. Sri.
25

Robert R Hoover has stated that the matter was not reported to
Circle Office as the appellant had pleaded for mercy ... To- set
right the above transactions, Sri. Robert R Hoover had made the
transfer slips on 31/3/2000 by debiting the SB 1550 and
crediting FGC head.l The appellant had Written the pass-book
of SBT550 by deliberately omitting the above two entries, which
he had admitted in writing.
The Appellant admitted in his statement dt. 24.07.2004 that he
got SB 2450 opened in the name of Smt. Suvarnamma, wife of
Appellant-on 19.12.1997. She is not working and not doing any
business but she goes to tailoring training class. He had taken
the TODs in this account and repaid the same. The Appellant
has posted the relevant slips in his own handwriting. The
Appellant has admitted-having availed DPNRT 22/98 for
Rs.20,000/-, DPNRT 31/99 for Rs.25.000/-and ALS 15/2003
for Rs.25.000/- in his wife's name. The Appellant has admitted
for having posted the slips of FGC 1/2000 in SB ledger sheet of
SB 519 (of Sri Kambaiah, father of the appellant) & SB 1550
and that there is no relationship between SB 1550 of Sri
Ramakrishnaiah and FGC 1/2000 of his father and the fact of
debiting SB 1550 with Rs.25,000/- was not informed to Sri
Ramakrishnaiah. The Appellant also admitted that Sri.
Ramakrishnaiah is deprived of his own amount from
25.03.2000 to 03.04.2000. The Appellant in his statement
dated 28.07.2004 has admitted for having entered the pass
book No 1550 deliberately leaving out the details pertaining to
FGC 1/2000. The Appellant has admitted for having made
entries in SB ledger sheet No 549518 of SB 2959 which
pertains to Mr George Joseph.
It is brought on record through MEx -4 that Sri Robert RHoover,
at the instance of Appellant allowed TOD of Rs.10,000/- in the
account of Sri Kambaiah SB 519. To clear TOD he has prepared
debit slip of FGC 1/2000. However Appellant debited SB
account 1550. Sri Robert R. Hoover also informed that
Appellant altered the figures in SB Balancing and SB control
register.
TOD was outstanding for more than 15 days and was adjusted
by posting an entry of Rs.25,000/- on 24.03.2000, as narration
"FGC 1/2000". The entry was posted by Appellant, though the
entry was initialled by the Manager.
It has come on record that the Appellant has approached the
Manager on 01.03.2000 and pressurised him for a TOD of
Rs.10,000/-in his father's account, which he had permitted to
/\
be cleared within 7 days. On 24.03.2000/ the Appellant has
26

again approached the Manager for further finance of
Rs.25,000/- and coerced him to prepare the debit & credit slip
for Rs.25,000/- each to FGC and SB account stating that, his
father would come to the branch on that day for executing the
loan papers. Sri. Kambaiah did not turn up and the amount
was withdrawn and subsequently on 25.03.2000 debited
Rs.25,000/- to SB account 1550 of Sri. Ramakrishnaiah,
without the knowledge of the Manager. There is no
corresponding debit or credit slip in the slip bundles. On
31.03.2000, there is a debit slip for Rs.25,000/- to SB 1550 of
Sri. Ramakrishnaiah which bears the ledger folio no 7812, with
initials of the Appellant.
All evidences show that both the Appellant and Sri R R Hoover
the then Manager colluded and made fraudulent entries to gain
pecuniary benefit. In view of the above, the contentions of the
appellant has no merit.
The charges levelled against the Appellant are proved by oral/
documentary evidence. Merely because Shri.Ramakrishnaiah
and Shri.R.R. Hoover were not examined in the enquiry, the
same will not invalidate the evidence brought on record through
MEx-4 and MEx-9 (the statements given by the above persons).
The Appellant himself has recorded the statements (i.e., MEx-2
and MEx-3) in his own handwriting and all his statements are
addressed to Shri. H. N. Ramesh, Manager (Investigating
Officer). The defence has also failed to introduce any evidence
either Oral and documentary in the enquiry to prove their stand
that the investigation in the matter was not conducted in a fair
manner and the report is a fabricated one.
The guidelines issued by the Bank with regard to obtention of
concurrence from controlling office for the loans/ advances
granted to close relatives of the employees are applicable to all
the employees of the bank. Though it is the responsibility of the
Branch Manager to obtain the concurrence from the controlling
office, before granting loans to close relatives of the employees,
the concerned employee has also to take interest/ initiative in
this regard and to see that the Manager has obtained the
concurrence or not, for the best interest of himself.
The punishment imposed on Appellant commensurates with the
gravity of the misconduct. The Appellant has not raised any
valid grounds / contentions in his appeal which will merit
reconsideration of the orders of the Disciplinary Authority. The
appeal lacks merit. Hence, the appeal may be rejected.
27

In view of the foregoing, I do not find any reason to interfere
either with the findings of the Enquiry Officer or with the orders
of the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, I confirm the
punishment and the appeal shall stand rejected accordingly.
A copy of this order shall communicated to Sri Gangrasimhaiah
Sd/-
GENERAL MANAGER
APPELLATE AUTHORITY
22.11.2006
27. As already noted, the Tribunal vide Order dated 17.05.2013,
while deciding the preliminary enquiry, had concluded that
the enquiry against the Respondent was fair and the said
order had attained finality. However, while passing the Final
Award dated 25.09.2019, the Tribunal has re-appreciated the
evidence adduced during the departmental proceedings
against the Respondent. The relevant portion of final award is
reproduced hereunder.
“…On a perusal of the evidence placed before the Enquiry
Officer, it is obvious that there was no evidence pointing
towards the CSE for causing entries in any of the Management
documents exhibited. None of his colleagues were brought
before the Enquiry Officer to depose that he is the Author of the
entries in the Management documents. The statements of the
witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer do not serve by
themselves as evidence. These statements since not subjected
for cross examination, they are not worth considering as
evidentiary material. What is established by the evidence of
MW-2 is, Part time employee has also made entries in the
record and the total pertaining to SB A/c 1550 did not tally on
31.03.2000 and subsequently the entry is corrected by
st
someone. He has never stated having seen the 1 Party
28

handling the records of the Bank. The 1st Party workman is a
Sub Staff with the education qualification of 7 th Standard. No
attempt is made to procure expert opinion that, the disputed
st
entries are authored by the 1 Party workman. He has disputed
the so called statement recorded by the Investigating Officer.
Being a Sub Staff, it is a wild imagination to say that he was in
a dominant position to harass his Superior Officer / the Bank
Manager to sanction Loans by violating the procedure. Now it is
submitted on his behalf that, all the Loan sanctioned in favour
of his father and wife are cleared. His father is living separately
from him and his wife earns her own income. I am unable to
subscribe to this submission, if really that was the factuality;
he ought to have examined his father and wife as his witnesses
during the enquiry. Subsequent to the adjudication of the
Preliminary issue he has adduced evidence contending that his
Parent's and wife are dependent on him. There is contraction
between his own evidence and argument.
9. Let us peruse the charge segment wise, though, his father
Sh. Kambaiah was sanctioned Rs. 25,000/-(Twenty Five
st
Thousand Rupees Only) Loan on 03.04.2000, the 1 Party
requested for further Loan of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five
st
Thousand Rupees). Without executing Loan papers, the 1
Party posted the credit slips in the SB A/c 519 of Sh. Kambaiah
and withdrew Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand Rupees Only)
from the said account on 24.03.2000, it is not shown that the
st
entry in the SB A/c is made by the 1 Party. In the usual
course the entries in the SB A/c should have been authored by
st
the concerned Clerk. If at all the 1 Party had made such entry
the witness to speak in the record was either the Manager or
the concerned Clerk. The cheque leaf / withdrawal slip
pertaining to Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand Rupees Only) is
not produced.
On 25.03.2000 he unauthorisedly debited SB A/c 1550 of Sh.
Rama Krishnaiah, the credit slip and debit slip of 25.03.2000
and daily control register are not produced.
Again, it is not established that the relevant entry in SB A/c
st
statement/Mex-8 is that of 1 Party workman.
29

he has not made corresponding entry in the subsidiary sheet -
but that is not the duty of a Sub Staff.
the above transaction was brought to the notice of the Manager
st
by the 1 Party on 31.03.2000 on which the Manager passed
the slips on 31:03.2000 by debiting the SB. A/c of Sh. Rama
Krishna and debiting the FGC Subsidiary- but same is not
substantiated by the evidence.
That the debit slip was posted by him to Loan account Mex-12
of Sh. Kambaiah for his personal gain. It is not proved that the
st
1 Party is the Author of the entries in Ex Mex-12, though
probably he might have enjoyed the Loan amount sanctioned.
He made alterations in the balancing book and deliberately
made alterations to Rs. 2,75,196/- (Two Lakhs Seventy Five
Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Six Rupees Only) to tally
the balance. He made alterations in SB control registers, closing
balance in the subsidiary ledger to tally the book - but SB
control register, balancing book and subsidiary ledger were not
produced during the enquiry.
With a motive to conceal unauthorised debit in SB A/c of Sh.
st
Rama Krishnaiah, the 1 Party left out debit and credit entry
st
while updating the Passbook- not only that the 1 Party has no
authority, to make entry in the Passbook but also, it is not
proved that he was the author of the entries in the passbook of
Rama Krishna.
The TOD's in the SB A/c of Smt. Suvarnamma was allowed
and Loan granted to Sh. Kambaiah without concurrence of
controlling office the responsibility of the omission is directly on
the Manager.
The outcome of the entire evidence was, irregularly Loan was
st
sanctioned to the father and Wife of the 1 Party workman.
st
Both being the members of the family of the 1 Party it is highly
st
possible that at the insistence of the 1 Party the Manager
committed the irregularities as alleged in the Charge Sheet.
st
However, there was no complaint against the 1 Party nor did
the Bank suffered any financial loss from the alleged incident.
Mere suspension with or without proof cannot take over the seat
of legal evidence. In the absence of any evidentiary material
30

establishing the complicity of the 1 Party workman in the
manipulation of the Bank records, the finding of the Enquiry
Officer that,
(i) He unauthorizedly made debit in SB A/c 1550,
(ii) He coerced the manager for sanction of Loans,
(iii) He tampered the Bank records,
without the foundation of evidentiary material, is perverse.
Wherefore, the Punishment order passed on the basis of such
imperfect and fragile finding is illegal.
10. Having said so, now the focus is on the nature of relief to be
st
moulded. The 1 Party though was not directly involved in the
alleged misconduct, it is obvious that he was the beneficiary of
the misconduct / irregular Loan sanction. The punishment of
compulsory retirement on the 1st Party workman who was in
the midway of his carrier and had the responsibility of raising a
family on such petty reason is too harsh and disproportionate.
The workman probably has few more years of service if
reinstated into service, he is enjoying retirement benefits.
Having observed that, he was an interested Party in the alleged
misconduct in my considered opinion reinstatement with
continuity of service without back wages is the appropriate
Award that would meet the situation.
AWARD
nd
The reference is accepted. The order of the 2 Party Canara
Bank in imposing punishment of Compulsory Retirement from
st
service dated 15.3.2006 against the 1 Party workman Sh.
Ganaganarasimaiah is set aside.
nd
The 2 Party is directed to reinstate the workman into his
original post with
continuity of service without back wages.”
28. From the scrutiny of the Final Award, it appears that the
Tribunal was mainly influenced by the fact that the
department had failed to produce evidence to the fact that the
Respondent was the author of the entries made in the
bank/loan accounts, for which chargesheet had been served
to him. The Tribunal had also emphasized that no attempt
31

was made by the bank to procure expert opinion to ascertain
that the disputed entries were authored by the Respondent.
However, the Tribunal has observed that it is highly possible
that the irregularities as alleged in the chargesheet were
committed by the Manager at the instance of the Respondent.
The Tribunal then went on to record that in the absence of
any evidentiary material in respect of complicity of the
Respondent with regards to manipulation of bank record, the
findings of the Enquiry Officer regarding making entries of
unauthorized debit in disputed SB account, coercion on the
part of the Respondent upon the manager for sanctioning of
loan and tampering of books of record cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal had also observed that though the Respondent
was the beneficiary of the misconduct/irregular loan sanction
but since there is no evidence that he was directly involved in
the alleged misconduct, the punishment of compulsory
retirement on the Respondent was too harsh and
disproportionate.
29. Surprisingly, the High Court had confirmed the order of the
Tribunal by adding its own reason that the charges levelled
32

against the Respondent are absurd and since the father of the
Respondent was eligible for sanction of loan and the same has
been sanctioned by the competent authority, it cannot be
concluded that there is any illegality in sanctioning the loan
in favour of the father of the Respondent. Strangely, the High
Court had not taken into consideration the charge regarding
the illegal disbursement of loans advanced in favour of the
wife of the Respondent. The High Court was also impressed
with the fact that since no financial loss has been occurred to
the bank, no case for interference is made out.
30. We are at pain to say that the Tribunal as well as the High
Court had failed to take into consideration the settled
principal of law in respect of judicial review in disciplinary
matters. It is well settled that when a Disciplinary Enquiry
against a delinquent for alleged misconduct is initiated and in
the said Disciplinary Enquiry, he/she is found guilty and
subsequently punished, the court before which a challenge is
made by the delinquent, is required to examine and determine
the following aspects: -
33

(i) Whether the enquiry was held by the competent
authority?
(ii) Rule of natural justice has been complied with or not;
(iii) The conclusions arrived by the Disciplinary Authority
are based on no evidence or the findings are perverse.
It is also equally settled that strict rules of evidence are not
applicable in the departmental proceedings and the charge
against the delinquent can be proved on preponderance of
probabilities.
31. This Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of
India and Others reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 , a three-
judges Bench has held has under: -
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
34

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.
[Emphasis supplied]
The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where
13.
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.
In Union of India v. S.L. Abbas when the order of transfer
14.
was interfered with by the Tribunal, this Court held that the
Tribunal was not an appellate authority which could substitute
its own judgment to that bona fide order of transfer. The
Tribunal could not, in such circumstances, interfere with orders
of transfer of a government servant. In Administrator of Dadra
& Nagar Haveli v. H.P. Vora it was held that the Administrative
Tribunal was not an appellate authority and it could not
substitute the role of authorities to clear the efficiency bar of a
public servant. Recently, in State Bank of India v. Samarendra
Kishore Endow a Bench of this Court of which two of us (B.P.
Jeevan Reddy and B.L. Hansaria, JJ.) were members,
considered the order of the Tribunal, which quashed the
charges as based on no evidence, went in detail into the
question as to whether the Tribunal had power to appreciate
the evidence while exercising power of judicial review and held
that a tribunal could not appreciate the evidence and substitute
its own conclusion to that of the disciplinary authority. It would,
therefore, be clear that the Tribunal cannot embark upon
appreciation of evidence to substitute its own findings of fact to
that of a disciplinary/appellate authority.
35

11. The scope of judicial review in the matter of domestic
enquiry is to examine whether the procedure in holding
domestic enquiry has been violated or the principles of natural
justice has been complied with, or any perversity in the finding
of guilt recorded during the course of domestic enquiry has been
committed. The basic error which was committed by the
Tribunal in its impugned award has not been appreciated even
by the High Court and dismissed the writ petition without
appreciating the finding recorded in the domestic enquiry
keeping into consideration the principles laid down by this
Court of preponderance of probabilities while holding guilt in the
domestic enquiry and exceeded in its jurisdiction defined under
Section 11-A of the 1947 Act. To the contrary, the officers with
whom the alleged occurrence of gross misconduct has been
committed have been put to notice that their allegation on the
face of it is unfounded, baseless and has not at all occurred
which is something beyond imagination. More so, when it was
established during the course of enquiry after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the delinquent respondent, enquiry
officer held the charges proved and confirmed by the
disciplinary authority followed with the penalty of dismissal
upon the respondent .
33. This Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Others vs.
Heem Singh reported in (2021) 12 SCC 569 on the issue of
judicial review or disciplinary matters has held as under: -
37. In exercising judicial review in disciplinary matters, there
are two ends of the spectrum. The first embodies a rule of
restraint. The second defines when interference is permissible.
The rule of restraint constricts the ambit of judicial review. This
is for a valid reason. The determination of whether a
misconduct has been committed lies primarily within the
domain of the disciplinary authority. The Judge does not
assume the mantle of the disciplinary authority. Nor does the
Judge wear the hat of an employer. Deference to a finding of
fact by the disciplinary authority is a recognition of the idea that
it is the employer who is responsible for the efficient conduct of
their service. Disciplinary enquiries have to abide by the rules of
natural justice. But they are not governed by strict rules of
evidence which apply to judicial proceedings. The standard of
proof is hence not the strict standard which governs a criminal
trial, of proof beyond reasonable doubt, but a civil standard
governed by a preponderance of probabilities. Within the rule of
37

preponderance, there are varying approaches based on context
and subject. The first end of the spectrum is founded on
deference and autonomy — deference to the position of the
disciplinary authority as a fact-finding authority and autonomy
of the employer in maintaining discipline and efficiency of the
service. At the other end of the spectrum is the principle that the
court has the jurisdiction to interfere when the findings in the
enquiry are based on no evidence or when they suffer from
perversity. A failure to consider vital evidence is an incident of
what the law regards as a perverse determination of fact.
Proportionality is an entrenched feature of our jurisprudence.
Service jurisprudence has recognised it for long years in
allowing for the authority of the court to interfere when the
finding or the penalty are disproportionate to the weight of the
evidence or misconduct. Judicial craft lies in maintaining a
steady sail between the banks of these two shores which have
been termed as the two ends of the spectrum. Judges do not
rest with a mere recitation of the hands-off mantra when they
exercise judicial review. To determine whether the finding in a
disciplinary enquiry is based on some evidence an initial or
threshold level of scrutiny is undertaken. That is to satisfy the
conscience of the court that there is some evidence to support
the charge of misconduct and to guard against perversity. But
this does not allow the court to reappreciate evidentiary findings
in a disciplinary enquiry or to substitute a view which appears
to the Judge to be more appropriate. To do so would offend the
first principle which has been outlined above. The ultimate
guide is the exercise of robust common sense without which the
Judges' craft is in vain. [Emphasis
Supplied]
34. In the light of the law laid down in the above referred cases, if
we analyze the Final Award passed by the Tribunal, it is
apparent that the Tribunal had acted in a manner as if it was
hearing an appeal against the order passed by the
Disciplinary Authority. The Tribunal had failed to take into
account that it is a settled law that in the departmental
38

proceedings strict rules of evidence, as applicable in the
judicial proceedings, cannot be applied and a charge of
misconduct is to be proved only on preponderance of
probabilities. The Tribunal, despite recording a finding that it
is highly possible that irregular entries in the bank/loan
accounts were made at the insistence of the Respondent and
that he was the beneficiary of those irregularities, had
interfered with the punishment order passed by the
Disciplinary Authority merely on the ground that the
department had failed to prove that the Respondent was the
author of the disputed entries. The Tribunal had even gone to
the extent of observing that the opinion of the handwriting
expert had not been obtained to prove the signatures of the
Respondent. The Tribunal had dealt the case with a pre-
conceived notion that in the disciplinary proceeding strict
rules of evidence, as applicable in a criminal case, are
applicable whereas the position of law is altogether contrary
to it.
35. It is also to be noticed that the Enquiry Officer as well as the
Disciplinary Authority had recorded a finding that from the
39

naked eyes, it can be ascertained that the author of the
disputed entries in the bank/loan accounts is the Respondent
and other documents were also altered in the handwriting of
him by putting his initial. We cannot ignore the fact that the
Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority were
bank officers and they might be in practice of comparing the
signature of customers with naked eyes in routine and
therefore, could have gained sufficient experience in
identifying the signatures of customers and their fellow
employees from the perspective of “ banker’s eye ”.
36. This Court in the case of Indian Overseas Bank and Others
vs. Om Prakash Lal Srivastava reported in (2022) 3 SCC
803 dealing with the similar situation has held as under:-
“17. We would like to emphasise at the threshold that there are
certain inherent legal limitations to the scrutiny of an award of
a Tribunal by the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We may refer to the
judgment of this Court in GE Power India Ltd. v. A. Aziz. If there
is no jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice or error of
law apparent on the face of the record, there is no occasion for
the High Court to get into the merits of the controversy as an
appellate court. That too, on the aspect of an opinion formed in
respect of two sets of signatures where the inquiry was held by
an officer of the Bank who came to an opinion on a bare
comparison of the signatures that there is a difference in the
same. It has been looked at from the perspective of a “banker's
eye”...”
40

a token and collects the amount on behalf of such person for the
purpose of handing it over to such person, he in effect enables
such unknown person to withdraw the amount contrary to the
banking procedures; and ultimately, if it transpires that the
person who claimed to be the account-holder was an impostor,
the bank cannot be found fault with if it says that it has lost
confidence in the employee concerned. A bank is justified in
contending that not only the employees who are dishonest, but
those who are guilty of gross negligence, are not fit to continue
in its service. [Emphasis
Supplied]
9. Several witnesses were examined to prove the charge. One of
them was H.S. Sharma who conducted the preliminary enquiry
and to whom the respondent had made a statement broadly
admitting the facts which constituted the subject-matter of the
second charge. I.M. Rawal, who was the cashier and I.C. Ojha,
the officiating Branch Manager were also examined. Based
upon their evidence, the enquiry officer found the respondent to
be guilty of the second charge and that has been accepted by
the disciplinary authority. The High Court has interfered with
the said finding without expressly holding that the said finding
of guilt was erroneous. The High Court has proceeded as if it
was sitting in appeal over the departmental enquiry and
interfered with the finding on a vague assumption that the
respondent must have acted bona fide in an “increasing
customer-friendly atmosphere”. There was no justification for
the Division Bench to interfere with the finding of guilt.
10. The fact that the criminal court subsequently acquitted the
respondent by giving him the benefit of doubt, will not in any
way render a completed disciplinary proceeding invalid nor
affect the validity of the finding of guilt or consequential
punishment. The standard of proof required in criminal
proceedings being different from the standard of proof required
in departmental enquiries, the same charges and evidence may
lead to different results in the two proceedings, that is, finding
of guilt in departmental proceedings and an acquittal by giving
benefit of doubt in the criminal proceedings. This is more so
when the departmental proceedings are more proximate to the
incident, in point of time, when compared to the criminal
proceedings. The findings by the criminal court will have no
42

………………………. J.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI)
………………………. J.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)
NEW DELHI,
th
Dated: 09 SEPTEMBER, 2025
46