The Punjab and Haryana High Court noted that Kumar had put in approximately 28 years of service with the bank and there is no reference either in the disciplinary order or the appellate order regarding any previous misconduct. (AI-generated image)The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently set aside the dismissal of a Canara Bank employee with nearly 28 years of service, holding that strong suspicion cannot substitute legally sustainable proof, particularly when the punishment amounts to an employee’s “economic death.”Justice Sandeep Moudgil, while hearing the man, one Krishan Kumar, found that the departmental inquiry into allegations of fraudulent banking transactions suffered from a procedural lapse and sent the matter back to the disciplinary authority to conduct a fresh inquiry after following due process. “The case of the bank (Canara Bank), therefore, is not of direct receipt and retention of cash by the petitioner but of ‘inferred connivance’ arising from his supervisory role, alleged handwriting on certain documents and participation in the processing of transactions. Such inference certainly raises grave suspicion against the petitioner, but suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot substitute legally sustainable proof, particularly where the punishment imposed is economic death after nearly 28 years of service,” the July 15 order read. Kumar was seeking quashing of the disciplinary authority’s order dated May 11, 2009, and the appellate order dated November 6, 2009, removing him from service without notice, and sought reinstatement with consequential benefits.Joined service in 1980 as clerkKumar claimed that he joined Canara Bank in November 1980 as a clerk and earned a promotion to special assistant in October 1990. He added that he remained posted at the Barwa branch from July 2005 till his suspension in November 2008. Justice Sandeep Moudgil found that the departmental inquiry into allegations of fraudulent banking transactions suffered from a procedural lapse.It was stated that the allegations against him stemmed from complaints made by several customers alleging that amounts deposited by them were not reflected in their accounts and that fictitious entries had been made in their passbooks.These complaints led to departmental proceedings, culminating in his dismissal from service in May 2009, which was upheld in appeal in November 2009Story continues below this ad‘Kumar’s request can’t be brushed aside’Pointing out that the grievance of the petitioner regarding the denial of adequate opportunity cannot be “brushed aside” lightly, the court stated that the burden to establish misconduct primarily rested upon the bank management and could not have been shifted to the employee. The court also found that the appellate order did not inspire “confidence” regarding the independent application of mind, observing that the appellate authority failed to independently analyse whether the evidence actually established the petitioner’s dishonest intent or conscious participation in siphoning funds.Also Read | ‘Can’t be forced to marry against choice’: 23-year-old woman freed from uncle’s custodyNoting that Kumar had put in approximately 28 years of service with the bank and there is no reference either in the disciplinary order or the appellate order regarding any previous misconduct or blemish upon his service record, the high court clarified that long service by itself does not “obliterate grave misconduct”. The court clarified that “However, where direct evidence of misappropriation is absent and culpability is sought to be inferred circumstantially from supervisory involvement, the disciplinary authority was expected to undertake deeper scrutiny before imposing the extreme punishment of dismissal.”Story continues below this adAllowing Kumar’s petition, the high court set aside May 2009 and November. 2009 order of dismissal. The court sent the matter back to the disciplinary authority to proceed afresh from the stage of enquiry after providing a full opportunity to the petitioner to effectively defend himself. The court directed the disciplinary authority to pass a reasoned order within four months. Arguments Appearing for the man, advocate Raahat Kataria argued that the entire inquiry stands vitiated on account of the denial of a reasonable opportunity.It was added that additional documents and witnesses not forming part of the charge-sheet were introduced during the enquiry, besides that the requests for adjournment to prepare defence were rejected and that the bank customers were never examined.Story continues below this adIt was further argued that the petitioner never functioned as a cashier and that no direct evidence exists to establish that he personally received or misappropriated any money belonging to the customers of the bank. On the contrary, the bank was represented by advocate AK Davesar, who submitted that large-scale fraud involving more than 25 customers stood proved through documentary evidence, including passbooks, counterfoils, account statements and deposit slips.It was further added that the petitioner’s handwriting stood identified on several disputed documents and that, in the banking business, where integrity forms the foundational requirement, once connivance in financial irregularity is established, dismissal alone is the appropriate punishment. Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape. Expertise Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen. Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on: Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts. Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy. Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More Tags:canara bankPunjab and Haryana High Court