Madras HC Sets Aside Canara Bank Manager’s Dismissal For Substituting Customer’s Jewellery As Disproportionate, Remits Penalty After 35 Years’ Service

The petitioner, a Canara Bank Senior Manager, was charged with removing unclaimed jewellery weighing 385.90 grams from a safe-custody locker, substituting his own jewellery weighing 38.50 grams, altering the related record, and failing to comply with handling guidelines.

The Bank’s enquiry found both charges proved, and the Disciplinary Authority dismissed him on 29 January 2020, one day before his scheduled retirement. The Appellate Authority confirmed the penalty, and the petitioner challenged both orders, alleging, among other things, procedural unfairness and disproportionate punishment.

The High Court found that the enquiry had been conducted in a single sitting and the disciplinary process concluded within 20 days.

In disciplinary proceedings, charges are proved on a preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt; strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act do not govern a domestic enquiry, and logically probative material may be considered (Suresh Pathrella v. Oriental Bank of Commerce and State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh).

Regulations 6(8)–(10) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 require the Inquiring Authority to ask for a plea and, where the officer does not plead guilty, to adjourn the matter and provide an opportunity to prepare the defence.

A court exercising writ jurisdiction ordinarily does not re-appreciate enquiry evidence, but where punishment is disproportionate, the ordinary course is to remit the penalty question to the disciplinary authority (B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India).

Dismissal is the most severe penalty and cannot follow automatically from proof of misconduct; the authority must consider whether the circumstances warrant it (Surekha Domaji Bele v. Executive Engineer, Testing Division, MSEDCL).

The Court held that the finding of guilt did not rest solely on the petitioner’s admission letters: his locker visit, his later production of the packet, and the jewel appraiser’s evidence provided independent circumstantial support. It also rejected the coercion claim, which had not been raised during the enquiry, and found no basis to disturb the finding that he had substituted the articles.

Although the enquiry proceeded without the adjournment and preparation opportunity contemplated by Regulations 6(9)–(10), the Court concluded that the haste did not vitiate the finding of guilt in this case, given the independent evidence; it did, however, bear on the penalty.

Considering the return of the jewellery, the absence of loss to the Bank, the petitioner’s 35 years of service, his prior disciplinary record, and the timing of dismissal immediately before retirement, the Court found dismissal shockingly disproportionate and remitted the penalty question rather than substituting a penalty itself.

The matter was remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the appropriate punishment, taking account of the petitioner’s service and age and considering a penalty short of dismissal capable of taking effect after retirement. Fresh orders were directed within eight weeks; no costs were awarded.