Patna HC Leaves Canara Bank Clerk’s Dismissal in Place, Citing His Written Admission to ₹30,000 Withdrawal Charge

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tribunal’s Award upholding the petitioner’s dismissal should be set aside on the grounds of procedural unfairness and reliance on an allegedly unsupported confession.

The court held

The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the challenge to the Tribunal’s Award.

It also directed

No relief or further directions were granted.

01Facts

The petitioner, a Canara Bank clerk, was dismissed after disciplinary proceedings concerning an alleged fraudulent withdrawal of ₹30,000 from a customer’s account.

¶ 2–6

He challenged the dismissal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, which upheld the Bank’s action in its Award dated 24 November 2008 in Reference No. 229 of 2000.

¶ 2–6

The petitioner then brought this writ petition challenging the Award, alleging denial of a reasonable opportunity to defend himself and reliance on an inquiry report supplied only after the dismissal order.

¶ 2–6

The Bank opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner had admitted his guilt in writing before the Enquiry Officer and that the petitioner had not challenged the disciplinary and appellate orders.

¶ 9–10

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tribunal’s Award upholding the petitioner’s dismissal should be set aside on the grounds of procedural unfairness and reliance on an allegedly unsupported confession.

¶ 3–8, 10

ii.2. Whether the writ petition could succeed where the petitioner challenged the Tribunal’s Award but did not challenge the disciplinary and appellate orders.

¶ 9, 11–12

03Law Applied

The Court treated the applicable standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings as the preponderance of probabilities, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt, and considered a written admission made before the Enquiry Officer materially different from a confession made to the police.

¶ 10

It distinguished Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570, and the cited decisions in Rahul Kumar Gautam, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Prakash Singh, 2025 INSC 555, and Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar, on their facts.

¶ 6–8, 11

The Court also relied on the fact that the petitioner had not challenged the underlying disciplinary and appellate orders.

¶ 11–12

04Reasoning

The Court found that the disciplinary, appellate, and Tribunal decisions rested on the petitioner’s written admission before the Enquiry Officer.

¶ 10–11

It therefore distinguished Roop Singh Negi, where the relevant confession had been made to the police, and held that the authorities cited by the petitioner did not govern the facts before it.

¶ 10–11

The Court further considered that the petitioner had challenged only the Tribunal’s Award, not the orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities; it consequently found no basis to grant relief against the Award.

¶ 11–12