Canara Bank Manager’s Two-Stage Pay Cut Stands For Raising Trader’s OCC Limit To ₹30 Lakh And Allowing ₹6 Lakh Ad-Hoc Credit

In brief

The question

Whether the disciplinary inquiry violated the applicable regulations or principles of natural justice by preventing Patel from examining Amitav Sahoo or B.K. Jena as defence witnesses

The court held

The Court rejected the allegation that Patel had been denied the opportunity to examine defence witnesses, found no basis for judicial interference with the inquiry or punishment, and dismissed the writ appeal as devoid of merit

01Facts

Bijaya Kumar Patel, a Senior Manager at Canara Bank, was charged with misconduct for enhancing the OCC limit of M/s. Behera Traders and permitting an ad hoc advance of ₹6 lakh allegedly without proper justification and contrary to bank guidelines

p. 2

Following a departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a two-stage reduction in pay for two years with cumulative effect; his departmental appeal was dismissed

pp. 2–3

Patel’s writ petition challenging the disciplinary action was dismissed by the Single Judge, and he appealed, principally alleging that he had been prevented from examining Amitav Sahoo and B.K. Jena as defence witnesses

pp. 3–5

02Issues

i.Whether the disciplinary inquiry violated the applicable regulations or principles of natural justice by preventing Patel from examining Amitav Sahoo or B.K. Jena as defence witnesses

pp. 3–5

ii.Whether the inquiry findings or the punishment warranted interference on judicial review, including on grounds of evidentiary deficiency or disproportionality

pp. 5–9

03Law Applied

Regulations 6(13), 6(14) and 6(16) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 provide for the Presenting Officer to produce evidence and witnesses, permit the delinquent officer to cross-examine them, and allow the officer to produce defence evidence and witnesses

pp. 3–4

Regulation 4(f) provides for reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay, including the consequences imposed in this case

p. 2

Under B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is not an appeal on the merits: a court does not reappreciate evidence, but may intervene where there is breach of natural justice or statutory procedure, no evidence supports the finding, the finding is perverse, or the punishment warrants interference under the applicable standard

pp. 5–7

04Reasoning

The Court found no record showing that Patel had requested permission during the inquiry to examine Amitav Sahoo, and his post-inquiry defence statement did not raise an objection concerning that witness; he also produced no document substantiating such a request

pp. 4–5

Further, the inquiry report did not show that Sahoo’s statement had been relied on to establish the charge

pp. 7–8

Applying the limited judicial-review principles in B.C. Chaturvedi, the Court found no procedural flaw or denial of a fair opportunity to respond to the inquiry report

p. 8

It also considered the misconduct—exceeding the permitted OCC limit and granting an ad hoc advance to a private party—and held that the penalty was not disproportionate

pp. 8–9