Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-011461-011461 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 33101/2022 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI |
| Precedent Value | Binding on Industrial Tribunals and High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Administrative law; Service law; Labour law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Supreme Court held that when a disciplinary authority convenes a domestic enquiry and reaches findings supported by some evidence, a Section 11A Tribunal may only examine jurisdiction, compliance with natural justice and perversity of findings. Strict rules of evidence (as in criminal trials) do not apply; charges are to be proved on preponderance of probabilities. A tribunal cannot reappraise the merits of evidence or substitute its own findings. Compulsory retirement is not dismissal and does not bar pensionary benefits. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The respondent, a long-serving bank sub-staff, faced charges of unauthorised loan entries and tampering of records in his father’s and wife’s accounts. A domestic enquiry held him guilty; a disciplinary authority imposed compulsory retirement, upheld on departmental appeal. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Karnataka HC set aside the punishment; the Supreme Court allowed the bank’s appeal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All Industrial Tribunals and High Courts |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, administrative and labour courts |
| Overrules | Final Awards and High Court orders that reappraised evidence beyond the narrow scope of Section 11A review |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that Section 11A Tribunals cannot convert themselves into appellate bodies reappraising the merits of evidence from domestic enquiries.
- Clarifies that departmental findings based on some evidence must stand unless there is a jurisdictional defect, breach of natural justice or perversity.
- Emphasises that strict rules of evidence (proof beyond reasonable doubt) do not apply in disciplinary inquiries; the test is preponderance of probabilities.
- Validates “banker’s eye” comparisons by enquiry officers and disciplinary authorities in authenticity of signatures without expert opinion.
- Confirms that compulsory retirement does not equate to dismissal and does not bar pension and gratuity benefits.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court analysed Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, noting its limited scope: jurisdiction, natural-justice compliance and perversity review only.
- Reiterated the principles from B.C. Chaturvedi: judicial review is not appeal; findings supported by some evidence cannot be revisited on merits.
- Cited Standard Chartered Bank v. R.C. Srivastava: tribunals exceed jurisdiction if they reappraise evidence and substitute their conclusions.
- Applied State Bank of India v. Samarendra Kishore Endow: domestic enquiry findings based on preponderance of probabilities and “banker’s eye” are valid.
- Held that the Industrial Tribunal and Karnataka HC illegally re-examined authorship of disputed entries and reduced penalty on disproportionate-punishment grounds.
- Concluded that the bank’s disciplinary order was based on evidence and free from jurisdictional or procedural defects; confirmed compulsory retirement with pension rights.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (Canara Bank)
- Tribunal under Section 11A exceeded jurisdiction by reappraising evidence and acting as an appellate body.
- Disciplinary Authority’s findings were based on 19 documents and witness testimony; strict evidence rules do not apply.
- Respondent had admitted guilt in preliminary enquiry; sufficient opportunity to cross-examine was given.
- Banking sector demands strict discipline; misconduct erodes public trust.
- Precedents (Deputy GM v. Srivastava; Standard Chartered Bank; Indian Overseas Bank v. Srivastava) support non-interference.
Respondent (Bank Employee)
- Disciplinary enquiry was unfair: key witnesses not examined, relevant documents withheld.
- Statements of admission were coerced; low education level made entries unlikely to be his.
- Manager was principal wrongdoer; respondent falsely implicated.
- No direct evidence proved his authorship of tampered entries; expert opinion lacking.
Factual Background
The respondent joined Canara Bank as sub-staff in 1990 and was confirmed as a peon in 1992. In 2004, the bank manager’s investigation alleged that he tampered with loan and savings-bank accounts of his father and wife, leading to his suspension and a chargesheet in April 2005. A domestic enquiry found him guilty; he was compulsorily retired and departmental appeal was dismissed. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Karnataka High Court set aside the retirement order and directed reinstatement without back wages. The bank’s special leave petition to the Supreme Court challenged those decisions.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 11A, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: empowers Tribunals to adjudicate references, subject to limited review (jurisdiction, natural justice, perversity).
- Departmental disciplinary proceedings: governed by service regulations (Canara Bank Service Code, Chapter XI); strict Evidence Act rules inapplicable.
- Compulsory retirement under Service Code Regulation 4(b): deemed retirement, not dismissal—pension and gratuity remain payable.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Confirms settled scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters under Section 11A.