The Supreme Court set aside the removal of a bank officer from service, holding that the departmental inquiry was conducted in violation of a mandatory procedural requirement under the Canara Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The Court directed that the inquiry recommence from the stage mandated under the regulations.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta partly allowed the appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which had upheld his removal from service.

The appellant, originally appointed as a Probationary Officer with Syndicate Bank in 2008 and later promoted, became an employee of Canara Bank following the amalgamation of Syndicate Bank in April 2020. He was placed under suspension in connection with prolonged absence from duty and was issued a charge sheet dated March 10, 2021. After submitting his reply, an inquiry was conducted on March 22, 2021, culminating in an inquiry report dated March 25, 2021. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the major penalty of removal from service on March 31, 2021, which was affirmed in departmental appeal.

The Supreme Court observed that although judicial review in disciplinary matters does not extend to reappreciation of evidence, courts can intervene where there is breach of a mandatory procedural safeguard affecting fairness. The key issue concerned Rule 6(9) of the 1976 Regulations, which mandates that where an officer does not plead guilty, the Inquiry Authority “shall adjourn the case to a later date.”

The Court noted that after the charge sheet and reply, a preliminary hearing and full inquiry were conducted and concluded on the same day. It held that the expression “later date” in Rule 6(9) cannot be interpreted as continuation of proceedings on the same day, and that the regulation contemplates a meaningful opportunity to prepare and present a defence. Concluding the inquiry on the same date rendered the safeguard illusory and vitiated the proceedings.

Setting aside the removal order and the High Court’s judgments, the Court directed that the inquiry recommence from the stage mandated under Rule 6(9). It clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the charge of prolonged absence, which would be determined in the fresh inquiry.

Balancing equities, the Court ordered reinstatement of the officer but directed that he shall continue under suspension and be paid subsistence allowance in accordance with rules. The final financial consequences will depend on the outcome of the fresh disciplinary proceedings.

The appeal was partly allowed.