Calcutta High Court upholds natural-justice requirements under Canara Bank Service Regulations, confirms appellate authority’s independent review duty, and narrows scope of dismissal for technical misconduct; binding authority for service law disputes
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FMA/1112/2024 of TAPAN KR MALLICK Vs CANARA BANK AND ORS |
| CNR | WBCHCA0404032024 |
| Decision Date | 27-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | PARTLY ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Justice Sujoy Paul |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Justice Smita Das De (concurring) |
| Court | Calcutta High Court (Appellate Side) |
| Bench | Sujoy Paul, J. and Smita Das De, J. |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that under Regulations 10–11 the delinquent officer must specify the relevance of any documents or witnesses he seeks. Mere prayer, without such showing, does not breach natural justice—especially where the documents were in fact supplied. However, where the inquiry officer ignored a management investigation report, proved by its own witness, on a key charge, that finding was perverse and vitiated the enquiry as to that charge. The appellate authority, under Regulation 17(4), must independently consider all material, including favorable management evidence; its failure to do so renders its order vulnerable. Finally, in absence of fraud or misappropriation, dismissal for technical defects is disproportionate and must be reduced. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Manager Tapan Mallick was charged on 31 Oct 2016, denied all allegations, and underwent enquiry. The Enquiry Officer found both charges proved (29 Dec 2016) and dismissal followed on 17 Jan 2017. His appeal (9 Oct 2017) and review (15 Dec 2018) failed. A writ petition challenging the process was dismissed on 18 Jul 2024. Intra-court appeal led to partial allowance and remand in Aug 2025. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Follows | Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K. Chopra, 1999 (1) SCC 759 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Departmental-enquiry applications under Canara Bank Regulations must specify the relevance of each requested document or witness; failure to do so forecloses a natural-justice challenge if documents were supplied.
- Ignoring a management investigation report, proved by its own witness, on a key charge is perverse and vitiates the enquiry as to that charge.
- Under Regulation 17(4), appellate authorities must give independent consideration to all evidence, including defence-favourable materials in the original record.
- Dismissal for “technical” breaches lacking fraud or misappropriation may shock the conscience and is subject to reduction under the doctrine of proportionality.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Scope of Review: The High Court may not re-weigh evidence but will review whether principles of natural justice or Wednesbury standards were breached, or whether findings are perverse.
- Document/Witness Requisition (Regs. 10–11): The “Note” to Reg. 10 requires showing relevance. Here, documents were supplied and no relevance was stated, so no prejudice arose.
- Management Exhibit Ignored: The investigation report (MEX-1) prepared by the Bank’s own officer and proved by MW-3 contained findings exonerating the appellant on charge 2. Its omission rendered that finding perverse.
- Independent Appellate Review (Reg. 17(4)): The appellate authority failed to consider the investigation report in the appeal, breaching its statutory duty.
- Doctrine of Proportionality: Charge 1 involved technical non-compliance, not fraud or misappropriation. Dismissal was disproportionate; a lesser penalty must be imposed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Tapan K. Mallick):
- Non-supply of defence documents/witnesses and failure to show relevance vitiated the enquiry (Regs. 6, 10, 11).
- Inquiry officer ignored the Bank’s own investigation report (MEX-1/MW-3), proving charge 2 unproven.
- Punishment of dismissal is disproportionate for technical defects; reliance on Dipanker Sengupta and Colour-Chem.
- Appellate and reviewing authorities did not apply independent mind under Reg. 17(4).
Respondent (Canara Bank):
- Full opportunity was granted; documents were supplied and the petitioner completed discovery.
- Court should not re-weigh evidence; punishment commensurate with misconduct.
Factual Background
Tapan K. Mallick, then Manager at Canara Bank, was charged on 31 Oct 2016 for alleged procedural irregularities. He denied the charges, but an internal enquiry held both charges proved (29 Dec 2016), and he was dismissed on 17 Jan 2017. His departmental appeal and review were dismissed by Oct/Dec 2017–18. A writ petition in 2019 was dismissed on 18 Jul 2024, prompting the present intra-court appeal decided on 27 Aug 2025.
Statutory Analysis
- Regulation 6(3): Defines procedure for framing charges on basis of allegations.
- Regulation 10: Grants the officer up to 5 days to inspect documents and submit a list of desired documents/witnesses. The “Note” mandates demonstration of relevance.
- Regulation 11: Requires the Inquiry Authority to requisition documents or witnesses once relevance is shown.
- Regulation 17(4): Obliges the appellate authority to independently consider justification of findings and appropriateness of penalty; permits confirmation, reduction, enhancement, or remand.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing SC authorities on natural justice and judicial review in departmental enquiries were applied and affirmed.
Citations
- FMA/1112/2024 (Calcutta High Court – Appellate Side)
- CNR WBCHCA0404032024
- Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K. Chopra, 1999 (1) SCC 759
- State of Punjab vs. Haris Singh, (2008) 11 SCC 85
- State of T.N. vs. K.V. Perumal, (1996) 5 SCC 474
- State of U.P. vs. Ramesh Chandra Mangalik, (2002) 3 SCC 443
- Dipanker Sengupta vs. United Bank of India, 1998 (79) FLR 212
- Colour-Chem Ltd. vs. A.L. Alaspurkar, 1998 (3) SCC 192