Employee can’t be dismissed without Proof, Court Cancels Canara Bank Employee’s Dismissal After 28 Years
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has cancelled the dismissal of a Canara Bank employee who had served the bank for nearly 28 years. The court said that strong suspicion alone cannot be treated as proof, especially when the punishment ends a person’s career and livelihood. The court described such punishment as “economic death.”
Court Orders Fresh Departmental Inquiry
Justice Sandeep Moudgil found that the departmental inquiry into the alleged banking fraud was not conducted properly. The court observed that there were procedural mistakes during the inquiry and sent the matter back to the disciplinary authority. The bank has now been directed to conduct a fresh inquiry after giving the employee a fair opportunity to defend himself.
Allegations Against the Employee
The employee, Krishan Kumar, joined Canara Bank as a clerk in November 1980 and was promoted to Special Assistant in October 1990. He worked at the Barwa branch from July 2005 until he was suspended in November 2008.
The case began after several customers complained that money deposited by them was not credited to their bank accounts. They also alleged that fake entries had been made in their passbooks. Based on these complaints, the bank started disciplinary proceedings and dismissed Kumar from service in May 2009. His appeal was also rejected in November 2009.
Court Says Suspicion Is Not Enough
The High Court noted that the bank did not claim that Kumar had directly received or kept customers’ money. Instead, the allegations were based on his supervisory role, his handwriting on some documents, and his involvement in processing transactions.
The court said these facts may create suspicion, but suspicion alone cannot replace legally acceptable proof. It added that before imposing the harsh punishment of dismissal after nearly 28 years of service, the disciplinary authority should have examined the evidence more carefully.
Employee Was Not Given Proper Opportunity
The court said Kumar’s complaint that he was not given a proper chance to defend himself could not be ignored. It observed that the responsibility to prove misconduct was on the bank management and should not have been shifted to the employee.
The High Court also found that the appellate authority did not independently examine whether the available evidence actually proved that Kumar had dishonestly participated in the alleged fraud.
Long Service Considered by the Court
The court noted that Kumar had completed about 28 years of service and that neither the disciplinary order nor the appellate order mentioned any previous misconduct or negative entry in his service record.
However, the court clarified that long service alone cannot excuse serious misconduct. At the same time, when there is no direct evidence of misappropriation and the allegations are based mainly on circumstances, the disciplinary authority must conduct a more careful examination before ordering dismissal.
Fresh Decision to Be Taken Within Four Months
The High Court set aside both the dismissal order issued in May 2009 and the appellate order passed in November 2009. It directed the disciplinary authority to restart the inquiry from the inquiry stage after giving Kumar a full opportunity to present his defence. The court also instructed the authority to pass a detailed and reasoned order within four months.
Arguments by Both Sides
Kumar’s lawyer argued that the inquiry was unfair because he was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The lawyer said that new documents and witnesses, which were not part of the original charge-sheet, were introduced during the inquiry. Requests for additional time to prepare the defence were rejected, and the bank customers who made the complaints were never examined. The lawyer also argued that Kumar never worked as a cashier and there was no direct evidence showing that he personally received or misused customers’ money.
On the other hand, Canara Bank argued that documentary evidence, including passbooks, deposit slips, account statements and counterfoils, proved a large-scale fraud involving more than 25 customers. The bank also claimed that Kumar’s handwriting appeared on several disputed documents and argued that integrity is essential in banking. Therefore, once involvement in financial irregularities is established, dismissal is an appropriate punishment.
