Canara Bank Vs Sri. a. R. Ranganath

The present writ appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.22989 of 2012.

¶42

The parties are referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition, for the sake of convenience.

¶43

The petitioner, while working as a Clerk at

¶44

M/s.Canara Bank, Malur Branch, was served with a Charge

¶45

Memo under the Canara Bank Service Code, as prescribed for initiating disciplinary action under Chapter XI thereof. The charges framed against the petitioner pertains to a cash shortage of Rs.10,000/- while he was performing cash duties on 02.09.2004, and the misuse of discounting of cheques, which he was habitual of. The allegation is

¶46

that the petitioner was in the habit of discounting of cheques in his name as well as in the name of others and

¶47

4 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:3809-DB WA No. 1472 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

utilising the proceeds for deriving pecuniary benefits for himself.

¶51

The petitioner submitted his reply to the Charge Memo. Upon completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted the report dated 02.06.2005, holding that the charge relating to misuse of discounting of cheques was proved against the petitioner. Whereas, the charge relating to the cash shortage of Rs.10,000/on 02.09.2004, while the petitioner was performing cash duties, was not found to be proved. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer on Charge No. 1 relating to the cash shortage of Rs.10,000/- on 02.09.2004 and recorded its point of disagreement. The petitioner was issued a notice on the points of disagreement, and after considering his reply, the Disciplinary Authority held that Charge No.1 was also proved and inflicted punishment on the petitioner of compulsory retirement from service vide order dated 19.09.2005.

¶52

5 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:3809-DB WA No. 1472 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

The petitioner had challenged the order of compulsory retirement passed by the Disciplinary Authority by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. However, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 07.08.2006. The Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have noted the conduct of the petitioner. It has been observed that:-

¶56

"In this regard, it is also observed from the investigation report that the appellant was not entrusted with cash duties for a long time on account of a complaint from one of the customers for short payment of Rs.10,000/- and he was cautioned for the same. The appellant was entrusted with cash duties from 28.08.2004 only due to some administrative exigencies. Immediately, on 02.09.2004, the appellant reported cash shortage of Rs.10,000/-. Again on 09.09.2004, the appellant had incurred cash shortage of Rs.3,000/-, which the appellant had made good by borrowing from Kumar of M/s.Venkatadri Agencies. It is observed that the appellant was having financial problems and

¶57

6 -

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:3809-DB WA No. 1472 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

many customers were contacting the branch demanding the money borrowed from them."

¶61

The cash shortage declared by the petitioner on 02.09.2004 could not be looked into in isolation but to be considered in the totality of the petitioner's conduct. Hence, the cash shortage of Rs.10,000/- declared by the petitioner on 02.09.2004 was held to be a deliberate act on his part and the same was not on account of any excess payment, as contented by him.

¶62

These orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority were the subject matter of a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause(d) of sub-Section(1) and Sub section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide the reference dated 08.10.2007 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bengaluru. The Industrial Tribunal, by its award dated 10.01.2012, rejected the reference and held that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law and the

¶63

7 -

¶64

NC: 2026:KHC:3809-DB WA No. 1472 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

prescribed procedure, and that the charges were proved against the petitioner. The learned Industrial Tribunal had framed the following issues for determination:-

¶67

"i. Whether the Disciplinary Authority is justified in reversing the finding of the enquiry officer and coming to the conclusion Charge No.1 being proved?

¶68

ii. Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority is proportionate to the charges proved?"

¶69

The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence of the parties and reply submitted by the petitioner to the charge sheet, recorded a finding that the charge relating to shortage of cash of Rs.10,000/- was proved and that the said shortage was not an inadvertent mistake but a deliberate act. Charge No.2, relating to misuse of discounting of cheques was also found to be proved, and

¶70

thus, the reference was rejected, holding that the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the

¶71

8 -

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:3809-DB WA No. 1472 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

petitioner by the Management of Canara Bank was legal and justified and that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.

¶75

The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the award of the Industrial Tribunal came to be challenged by the petitioner by filing the Writ petition No.22989 of 2012 before this Court. The learned Single Judge re-appreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion that the charge relating to the cash shortage of Rs.10,000/- was not proved. The learned Single Judge observed that the Bank had failed to place on record cogent evidence in support of the charge and that

¶76

the relevant circumstances relating to the cash shortage of Rs.10,000/- was ignored. So far as charge No.2 is concerned, the learned Single Judge has not found any error in the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Industrial Tribunal. The learned Single

¶77

Judge therefore, allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate

¶78

9 -

¶79

NC: 2026:KHC:3809-DB WA No. 1472 of 2025

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

Authority and the Industrial Tribunal and directed the payment of full pension to the petitioner from the date on which he would have retired, if he was not compulsory retired. The Bank was directed to fix pension on the notional salary that the petitioner would have earned, if the punishment of compulsory retirement was not inflicted upon him. A lump-sum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was also awarded to the petitioner as compensation for the period from the date of the order of punishment till the date on which he would have attained the age of superannuation.

¶82

The learned counsel appearing for the Bank submitted that this Court does not exercise the Appellate jurisdiction while considering the award passed by the Labour Court. The petitioner's reply to the charge was not found satisfactory. The petitioner did not even disclose the name of the person to whom he allegedly made the excess payment and considering his past conduct after 02.09.2004, the order inflicting the punishment of compulsory retirement was not required to be interfered

¶83

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:3809-DB WA No. 1472 of 2025

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

with. The learned Single Judge has proceeded in the

¶86

manner as of the Appellate jurisdiction in respect of the award passed by the Labour Court and has re-appreciated the evidence, that too incorrectly and therefore, the impugned judgment and order warrants interference.

¶87

On the other hand, Sri.Abhinav R, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the charge relating to shortage of Rs.10,000/- in cash was not proved. It is further contended that the petitioner had made the excess payment to a customer by mistake and, therefore, the same could not have been said to be a deliberate misconduct committed by the petitioner.

¶88

We have considered the submissions and have gone through the entire record and the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. The petitioner never took the defence in his reply that he had made an excess payment of Rs.10,000/- to any particular customer. Even

¶89

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:3809-DB WA No. 1472 of 2025

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

on the date of the incident i.e., on 02.09.2004, the petitioner had requested the Branch Manager to make a debit entry of Rs.10,000/- in the sundry account. The defence set up by the petitioner during the enquiry that he had made an excess payment to a customer without disclosing the name and address of such customer, could not have been believed.

¶92

There is no ground to contend that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law or there was any violation of the principles of natural justice. The Industrial Tribunal recorded that the enquiry was conducted as per law and the prescribed procedure. Considering the misconduct and having regard to the past and subsequent conduct of the petitioner, particularly, considering that he was employed by a Bank which operates on the trust of its customers, the imposition of the penalty of compulsory retirement cannot be said to be excessive.

¶93

12 -

¶94

NC: 2026:KHC:3809-DB WA No. 1472 of 2025

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

The High Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction

¶97

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of awards passed by the Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court. The High Court does not exercise the appellate jurisdiction and therefore in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, it is not open to the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence unless the findings of the Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court are said to be perverse or based on no evidence.

¶98

Having considered the evidence on record and the reply of the petitioner, we are of the considered view that the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal are neither perverse nor against the evidence on record. The three Authorities, namely, the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Industrial Tribunal, have concurrently held that the charge of a cash shortage of Rs.10,000/- on 02.09.2004 stood proved. Therefore, we

¶99

are of the view that the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the concurrent findings, which are based on appreciation of evidence on record.

¶100

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:3809-DB WA No. 1472 of 2025

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

Thus, we allow this writ appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.22989 of 2012.

¶103

We have been informed that the petitioner has not been paid his pension and other retirement dues. We therefore, direct the Bank to calculate and pay the arrears of pension with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and with the statutory interest in respect of gratuity as provided under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The other retirement dues shall also be calculated and paid with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date they became payable until the date of actual payment. The petitioner shall be entitled to regular pension with effect from February 2026, besides the arrears of pension and the other statutory dues as directed above. The Bank

¶104

shall calculate the arrears of pension, gratuity and other retirement dues and pay the same to the petitioner along with interest as directed above within a period of six

¶105