# The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 1088
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-09-09
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 11461 of 2025
- **Bench:** J.K. Maheshwari, Vijay Bishnoi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-general-manager-p-canara-bank-v-ganganarasimhaiah-38725
- **Pages:** 41

## Headnote

Issue arose whether the Division Bench of the High Court was
justified in affirming the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal by
setting aside the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed
upon the respondent-workman and directing his reinstatement into
the original post with continuity of service without back wages.
Headnotes†
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s.11A - Powers of the labour
court, tribunals - Allegations against the respondent-dufterycum-cash posted in the Bank that he benefitted on account
of misconduct/irregular loan sanction - In the preliminary
enquiry respondent admitted that certain loans were availed
by coercing the manager and without obtaining any sanction
from the Controlling Officer and accepted making unauthorized
entries in the bank accounts, thereby tampering with the
official records - Charges stood proved in the enquiry, by
the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate authority and
punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the
respondent - Industrial tribunal found that the enquiry was fair,
however in the final award directed the appellant to reinstate
the respondent without back wages - Final award upheld by
the High Court - Sustainability:
Held: Order passed by the tribunal as well as the High Court
not sustainable - Tribunal as well as the High Court failed to
take into consideration the settled principal of law in respect of
judicial review in disciplinary matters - High Court while adding
its irrelevant reasons, confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal
acted in a manner as if it was hearing an appeal against the order
passed by the Disciplinary Authority, it failed to take into account
* Author
704
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
that in the departmental 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 - Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority
took into consideration the evidence available on record and had
come to the conclusion that the respondent was found guilty on the
charges levelled against him - Appellate Authority had also revisited
the evidence and concurred with the Disciplinary Authority - After
careful scrutiny of their order, it cannot be said that the orders
were based on no evidence or are perverse in the absence of
cogent and reliable evidence - Tribunal acted as an Appellate
Authority and despite concluding that it is highly possible that the
irregularities as alleged in the chargesheet were committed by the
manager at the insistence of the Respondent, and he was the direct
beneficiary of the irregular loan sanction, had illegally interfered
with the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority -
Compulsory retirement of an employee from the services does
not mean that the employee is not entitled to retirement benefits,
which can only be denied in a case of dismissal from service -
Impugned order passed by the tribunal as well as the High Court
set aside - However, as punishment of compulsory retirement is
imposed upon the respondent, he is entitled for gratuity and other
pensionary benefits in accordance with law. [Paras 30, 34, 39-41]

## Text

_Characters 0–39,634 of 84,791. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39634 for what follows._

[2025] 9 S.C.R. 703 : 2025 INSC 1088
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank
v.
Ganganarasimhaiah
(Civil Appeal No. 11461 of 2025)
09 September 2025
[J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the Division Bench of the High Court was
justified in affirming the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal by
setting aside the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed
upon the respondent-workman and directing his reinstatement into
the original post with continuity of service without back wages.
Headnotes†
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s.11A - Powers of the labour
court, tribunals - Allegations against the respondent-dufterycum-cash posted in the Bank that he benefitted on account
of misconduct/irregular loan sanction - In the preliminary
enquiry respondent admitted that certain loans were availed
by coercing the manager and without obtaining any sanction
from the Controlling Officer and accepted making unauthorized
entries in the bank accounts, thereby tampering with the
official records - Charges stood proved in the enquiry, by
the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate authority and
punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the
respondent - Industrial tribunal found that the enquiry was fair,
however in the final award directed the appellant to reinstate
the respondent without back wages - Final award upheld by
the High Court - Sustainability:
Held: Order passed by the tribunal as well as the High Court
not sustainable - Tribunal as well as the High Court failed to
take into consideration the settled principal of law in respect of
judicial review in disciplinary matters - High Court while adding
its irrelevant reasons, confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal
acted in a manner as if it was hearing an appeal against the order
passed by the Disciplinary Authority, it failed to take into account
* Author
704
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
that in the departmental 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 - Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority
took into consideration the evidence available on record and had
come to the conclusion that the respondent was found guilty on the
charges levelled against him - Appellate Authority had also revisited
the evidence and concurred with the Disciplinary Authority - After
careful scrutiny of their order, it cannot be said that the orders
were based on no evidence or are perverse in the absence of
cogent and reliable evidence - Tribunal acted as an Appellate
Authority and despite concluding that it is highly possible that the
irregularities as alleged in the chargesheet were committed by the
manager at the insistence of the Respondent, and he was the direct
beneficiary of the irregular loan sanction, had illegally interfered
with the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority -
Compulsory retirement of an employee from the services does
not mean that the employee is not entitled to retirement benefits,
which can only be denied in a case of dismissal from service -
Impugned order passed by the tribunal as well as the High Court
set aside - However, as punishment of compulsory retirement is
imposed upon the respondent, he is entitled for gratuity and other
pensionary benefits in accordance with law. [Paras 30, 34, 39-41]
Case Law Cited
Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others v. Ajai
Kumar Srivastava [2021] 1 SCR 51 : (2021) 2 SCC 612; Standard
Chartered Bank v. R.C. Srivastava (2021) 19 SCC 281; Indian
Overseas Bank and Others v. Om Prakash Lal Srivastava [2022]
1 SCR 246 : (2022) 3 SCC 803; B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India
and Others [1995] Supp. 4 SCR 644 : (1995) 6 SCC 749; State of
Rajasthan and Others v. Heem Singh [2020] 13 SCR 951 : (2021)
12 SCC 569; State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand
Nalwaya [2011] 3 SCR 589 : (2011) 4 SCC 584 - referred to.
List of Acts
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
List of Keywords
Compulsory retirement; Reinstatement; Serious irregularities;
Unauthorized entries in the bank accounts; Tampering with
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
705
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
the official records; Coercing the manager; Judicial review in
disciplinary matters; Disciplinary enquiry; Rule of natural justice;
Enquiry held by competent authority; Disciplinary Authority; Strict
rules of evidence; Departmental proceedings; Preponderance
of probabilities; Retirement benefits; Dismissal from service;
Pensionary benefits; Continuity of service without back wages;
Suspension.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11461
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.08.2022 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WP No. 1857 of 2022
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Anant Gautam, Deepanjal Choudhary,
Dinesh Sharma, Ms. Likivi Jakhalu.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Saju Jakob, Teerthgowda N.M., Preyoshi Bhattacharjee, Senthil
Kumar, Chand Qureshi.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
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 Bench
of the High Court, thereby affirmed the Award passed by the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court (hereinafter referred to
as "Tribunal") in C.R. No. 138/2007 dated 25.09.2019, by setting
aside the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the
Respondent and directed his reinstatement into the original post with
continuity of service without back wages.
706
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
BRIEF FACTS
3.
The facts, in brief, are that the Respondent joined the service
of the Appellant-Bank as a daily wage Sub-Staff on 17.10.1990.
Subsequently, his service was confirmed as Duftery-cum-Cash
Peon as Sub-Staff Leader on 18.07.1992. The Respondent was
thereafter posted at V.G. Doddi branch from 11.11.1997 till 01.08.2004.
Thereafter, he was posted at Bommasandra branch on 02.08.2004.
4.
The then manager, Shri H.N. Ramesh of V.G. Doddi branch submitted
an investigation report on 06.08.2004 alleging serious irregularities
at the branch office, V.G. Doddi branch when the Respondent and
other staff members were posted there.
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;
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
707
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
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.
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
708
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
709
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
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 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.
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?"
710
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
711
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
15. The High Court vide the impugned Order dated 12.08.2022 dismissed
the Writ Petition and upheld the Award passed by the Tribunal.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
16. The learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the Tribunal while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes
Act had exceeded its jurisdiction and acted as a Court of Appeal. It
is contented that, though, the Tribunal vide order dated 17.05.2013
had held that the Disciplinary Enquiry against the Respondent was
fair and proper, had re-appreciated the evidence and had interfered
with the punishment order illegally.
17. The learned counsel has argued that the finding of the Tribunal, to the
effect that the management did not produce any evidentiary material
to prove the charges against the Respondent is perverse and bad in
law. It is contended that as many as 19 documents were produced
during the course of enquiry and the Enquiry Officer as well as the
Disciplinary Authority has dealt extensively with those documents
despite 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 crossexamine 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
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.
712
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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 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.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
713
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
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 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 Respondent has only
studied till 7th 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 retirement imposed upon
the Respondent is too harsh and disproportionate.
24. We have heard the arguments advanced by both the parties and
pursued the material on record.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
25. The allegation against the Respondent is that when he was posted
as Sub-staff at the V.G. Doddi branch of the Appellant-bank, he had
committed certain irregularities. Pursuant to the same, the Respondent
was suspended on 19.08.2004 and thereafter a charge sheet was
served upon him on 28.04.2005. The Enquiry Officer submitted his
report concluding that the charges levelled against the Respondent
had been proved and as such he is guilty of misconduct. The copy
of the enquiry report was supplied to the Respondent, and his
714
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
explanation was sought wherein he had furnished his explanation.
The Disciplinary Authority after providing an opportunity of personal
hearing and considering his defence had concurred with the enquiry
report and vide Order dated 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
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
715
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
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 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]
716
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
717
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
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 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
718
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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.
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.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
719
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
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]
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
720
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
721
The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah
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 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.