A former branch manager of Syndicate Bank, dismissed for alleged misconduct during his tenure, became the subject of a legal battle after being cleared in criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court recently examined the case to address claims of procedural lapses and fairness in disciplinary actions.
Allegations Against the Manager
The respondent, initially a clerk, was promoted to branch manager and served at the Mudigubba branch between June 11, 2007, and November 3, 2008. During this time, several allegations were raised against him, including:
- Making fictitious debits to crop insurance accounts and crediting them to Syndicate Kisan Credit Card (SKCC) accounts.
- Fraudulently withdrawing funds without the knowledge of borrowers.
- Exceeding sanctioned limits in SKCC accounts and misleading customers into additional withdrawals.
- Approving a vehicle loan that became a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) in violation of bank guidelines.
- Colluding with others to siphon off ₹70,000.
- Misappropriating ₹9,000 received under a debt waiver scheme for another customer’s account.
The charges suggested that the manager’s actions tarnished the bank’s reputation and violated regulations governing employee conduct.
Disciplinary Inquiry and Dismissal
Following an investigation, Syndicate Bank issued a chargesheet on October 17, 2011. The disciplinary inquiry concluded on March 15, 2012, with the inquiry officer confirming the allegations. Subsequently:
- The Disciplinary Authority dismissed the respondent on May 3, 2012.
- The Appellate Authority upheld the dismissal on March 30, 2013.
Criminal Proceedings and Legal Challenges
The respondent was later acquitted in related criminal proceedings. Following this, he requested the bank to reverse the dismissal decision. When these appeals failed, he filed a writ petition.
In June 2022, a Single Judge Bench set aside the dismissal, citing a lack of adherence to natural justice during the inquiry. The court ordered the manager’s reinstatement and directed the bank to provide all benefits due from his dismissal date until his superannuation.
The bank challenged this order before a Division Bench, which upheld the Single Judge’s ruling, asserting that the case lacked substantial evidence against the respondent.
Supreme Court Review
The bank approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the disciplinary process had followed due procedures and that the High Court erred in its findings. While acknowledging the serious nature of the misconduct, the Supreme Court noted that the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate. It modified the penalty to a minor one under the bank’s Disciplinary Regulations.
The revised penalty reduced the respondent to a lower stage in the pay scale for one year, without cumulative effect or impact on his pension.
The Court quashed the previous High Court orders and directed the bank to process any pending retiral dues within four months.
