Reiterating the importance of discipline and integrity in the banking sector, the Allahabad High Court dismissed an appeal filed by a former Assistant Manager of Canara Bank challenging his dismissal for unauthorized absence and alleged misconduct. The ruling, delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, emphasized that employees of financial institutions are held to high ethical standards given their critical role in safeguarding public trust.
Background of the Case
The case, registered as Special Appeal No. 614 of 2024, was filed by Manish Kumar, who was initially appointed as a Probationary Officer with Syndicate Bank in 2008. After receiving a promotion in 2014, he served in various branches before being transferred to the District Etawah Branch of the now-amalgamated Canara Bank in 2017.
Kumar claimed that from November 22, 2018, to June 12, 2020, he was unable to perform his duties due to serious health issues, including diabetes. However, during this period, Kumar was reportedly detained in jail following allegations of impersonating law enforcement and intelligence officers. He was later released on bail.
The bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against Kumar, citing unauthorized absence and misconduct. An inquiry was conducted, and despite multiple opportunities to present evidence in his defense, Kumar was found guilty of unauthorized absence. His dismissal was ordered on March 31, 2021, and was later upheld by the bank’s appellate authority.
Dissatisfied with the outcome, Kumar challenged the dismissal before the Allahabad High Court, arguing procedural lapses in the inquiry process and claiming that his absence was not willful but due to unavoidable circumstances.
Key Legal Issues
1. Allegations of Procedural Flaws in the Inquiry:
Kumar alleged that the inquiry proceedings were conducted hastily and without affording him sufficient opportunity to defend himself. He also claimed that the inquiry report was not supplied to him, a violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Unauthorized Absence from Duty:
The court examined whether Kumar’s prolonged absence could be justified on medical grounds or whether it constituted a breach of professional obligations.
3. Higher Standards of Discipline for Bank Employees:
The court addressed whether the disciplinary action taken against Kumar aligned with the expectations of integrity and accountability in the banking sector.
Court’s Observations and Decision
After thoroughly reviewing the evidence, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding both the disciplinary authority’s findings and the earlier decision by a single judge to deny relief. The court noted several critical points:
1. Adequate Opportunity Provided:
Contrary to Kumar’s claims, the court found that he was given multiple opportunities to present his defense during the inquiry. He received the chargesheet, participated in hearings, and even submitted a reply to the inquiry report, which contradicted his claim of non-receipt.
2. Admission of Unauthorized Absence:
The court emphasized that Kumar had, during the proceedings, admitted his prolonged absence, citing illness but failing to produce any substantive evidence to support his claims. Furthermore, he sought leniency, effectively acknowledging the misconduct.
3. Prejudice Not Proven:
Addressing Kumar’s claim of procedural flaws, the court ruled that he failed to demonstrate any actual prejudice caused by the alleged non-supply of the inquiry report. The court relied on precedents, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Managing Director, ECIL vs. B. Karunakar (1993), to underline that procedural lapses, if any, must result in demonstrable harm to invalidate disciplinary actions.
4. High Standards for Bank Employees:
The bench underscored that bank employees must exhibit the highest levels of discipline, devotion, and integrity, as they are custodians of public funds. Referring to Canara Bank vs. V.K. Awasthy (2005), the court reiterated that misconduct by bank personnel erodes public confidence in the financial system.
The court concluded that Kumar’s prolonged absence, combined with previous disciplinary action during his tenure, justified the penalty of dismissal. The judgment highlighted that his actions breached the ethical and professional standards expected of bank employees.
