- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39727-DB WA No. 221 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 221 OF 2025 (S-DIS) BETWEEN: SYNDICATE BANK A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1970 HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT MANIPAL-576 104 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL) NOW CANARA BANK HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT 112, J C ROAD BENGALURU-560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. GENERAL MANAGER HUMAN RESOURCE WING …APPELLANT (BY SRI. T.P MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE) AND: PRAMOD KUMAR VARMA S/O BAHRTENDU KUMAR VERMA EARLIER WORKING AS AN OFFICER IN MIDDLE MANAGEMENT GRADE SCALE-III, SYNDICATE BANK Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39727-DB WA No. 221 of 2025 SINCE ILLEGALLY DISMISSED FORM SERVICE AND RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 0.54, ASMAAKAM-PH-2, NEAR TORRENT POWER SUB-STATION, BEHFIND SAMAANG ROW HOUSE, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD-380 051 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAGENDRA NAIK R, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12/09/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.47884/2012. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present writ appeal has been instituted by the Syndicate Bank (now Canara Bank) having its Head Office at 112, J.C. Road, Bengaluru aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.47884/2012. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner while working as a senior Branch Manager at Jamshedpur Branch of the appellant-Bank was served with a show cause notice dated 16.01.2008 alleging certain acts of omissions and commissions - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39727-DB WA No. 221 of 2025 by him while working as a Branch Manager at Arrah Branch in Bihar between 17.10.2003 and 09.09.2006. The charge sheet containing articles of charge was in respect of alleged abused of official position in extending overdraft limits and Tractor loans to certain parties in blatant violation of Bank’s lending norms, without pre-sanction appraisal of the credit proposals, without proper documentation, without ensuring end utilization of the loan proceeds and without proper post sanction follow up and control, which resulted in loss to the Bank of its funds to the tune of Rs.254.55 lakhs. 3. The articles of charge mentions as many as 16 instances of sanctioning the overdrafts facilities in violation of the Banking norms without following the process as required. It further mentions 11 instances of sanctioning Tractor loans to the fictitious persons where the guarantors were also fictitious. 4. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet and after finding no merit in the reply to the charge sheet, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39727-DB WA No. 221 of 2025 submitted the enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority finding the charge of misconduct proved against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and after considering his reply and granting an opportunity of hearing, imposed the major punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 07.01.2010. The petitioner’s appeal challenging the said order of the Disciplinary Authority came to be dismissed vide order dated 05.06.2010 at Annexure-‘Q’. The petitioner was also not successful in his review filed under Regulation 18 of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. 5. The petitioner, being aggrieved by his dismissal from service and his appeal having been dismissed and review got rejected, filed the writ petition before this Court. 6. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment dated 12.09.2024 held that the framing of charges against the petitioner was fully justified. The procedure followed in the enquiry would also suggest that petitioner was granted with all opportunities and there was no procedural infraction in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. The learned Single - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39727-DB WA No. 221 of 2025 Judge also considered the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner believing in bona fide of the Assistant Manager, who processed the loans, sanctioned loans, but opined that the petitioner could not take refuse or this excuse to escape from the charges. The Manager of the Bank is the end officer who is bound to ensure compliance of all protocols while sanctioning the loans so that the Bank is not put at a risk of loss. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the findings of the Enquiry Authority on the charges regarding irregularities committed by the petitioner in grant of overdraft hypothecation facilities cannot be disbelieved and there was no reason for the Disciplinary Authority to take a different view. 7. In respect of the Tractor loans sanctioned by the petitioner, the observation of the learned Single Judge was that there were certain irregularities where the petitioner had failed such as failure to conduct pre-sanction visits and post sanction follows and that loans were granted to fictitious persons and even the guarantors were fictitious one. Therefore, the charges against the petitioner that the Tractor loans were sanctioned without pre-sanction visits were probable. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39727-DB WA No. 221 of 2025 8. The learned Single Judge, however, after recording so has been of the opinion that as the petitioner was not accused of any financial impropriety, but the allegations against him were of certain irregularities in grant of overdraft hypothecation loans and Tractor loans, the respondent would have considered imposing a lesser punishment than dismissing him from service. It was also observed that no loss was caused to the respondent-Bank and therefore, the punishment was modified from dismissal from service to compulsory retirement by the learned Single Judge. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant-Bank has submitted that scope of interference in the quantum of punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority is very limited, and the Court can interfere only when the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the delinquent employee. He further submits that the observation of the learned Single Judge that there was no financial loss caused to the Bank is also against the record. The Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have concurrently held that the Bank was put to loss of Rs.254.55 lakhs by the misconduct and the glaring irregularities - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39727-DB WA No. 221 of 2025 committed by the petitioner while sanctioning overdraft hypothecation facilities and the Tractor loans. 10. The submission is that when the learned Single Judge himself found that the charges were correctly levied and there was no infraction of any procedure or regulation under which the Disciplinary Enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the Bank in fact had suffered loss to the tune of 254.55 lakhs, the learned Single Judge should not have interfered with the quantum of punishment. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-delinquent employee submits that the findings of the Inquiry Authority and the punishment inflicted on the petitioner are perverse as the loans were processed by the Assistant Manager, Sri Sanjay Kumar Sinha and the petitioner, being only the sanctioning authority, which fact was admitted by the Management Witness-1, imposing the punishment of dismissal from service would be perverse and is disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the petitioner. The further submission is that the learned Single Judge, having considered the said fact, has rightly interfered - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39727-DB WA No. 221 of 2025 with the quantum of punishment and instead of dismissal from service, has imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement, which may not be interfered with in the appeal. 12. We have considered the submissions and perused the report. 13. The Banking business is a business of trust and the Bank is the trustee of the money of the public in general, who have the Bank accounts in the Bank. The general public repose considerable faith in the Indian Banking System and therefore, they keep their life savings and hard earned money in the Bank. The Bank employees are therefore, required to discharge their functions and duties with utmost care and diligence to maintain the public faith in the Banking system of the country, which is a backbone of the financial stability of the country. 14. The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner had sanctioned the loans to non existent entities without following the lending norms of the Bank and had exposed the Bank to the loss of Rs.254.55 lakhs. When the enquiry had been conducted in a strict observance of the regulations and the principle of natural justice, and the charges stood proved - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39727-DB WA No. 221 of 2025 against the petitioner, there is a little scope for this Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment. 15. In catena of judicial precedents it has been held that if the punishment is not shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the delinquent employee, the Court should be loath in interfering with the quantum of compensation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge himself that the Disciplinary Authority was justified in issuing the charge sheet and there was no infraction of relevant regulations or the principles of natural justice in conducting the Disciplinary Enquiry and the charges stood proved, we are of the considered view that there is no scope for interference with the quantum of punishment. Further, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the Bank was not put to a loss is also incorrect, which is evident from the charge sheet, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority that Bank was put to loss of Rs.254.55 lakhs by the misconduct and irregularities committed by the petitioner while sanctioning the loans. We therefore, set-aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Jude to the extent of reducing the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39727-DB WA No. 221 of 2025 punishment from dismissal to the compulsory retirement and allow this appeal. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. SD/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25