Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs S.Sundar Singh (Deceased) ... 1St Writ ... on 29 August, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A(MD) No.2034 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 22.08.2025
Pronounced On : 29.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A(MD) No.2034 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.16206 & 16253 of 2023
1.The Managing Director,
Canara Bank,
Head Office,
112 J.C.Road,
Bangalore.
2.The General Manager,
Appellate Authority,
Canara Bank,
Personnel Wing,
Head Office,
112 J.C.Road,
Bangalore.
3.The Deputy General Manager,
Disciplinary Authority,
Canara Bank,
East Veli Street,
Madurai. ... Appellants 1 to 3
/ Respondents 1 to 4
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 02:38:18 pm )
W.A(MD) No.2034 of 2023
Vs.
S.Sundar Singh (deceased) ... 1st Writ Petitioner
S.Thenmozhi
(Substituted vide order dated 20.06.2022,
in W.M.P.(MD)No.18964 of 2021)
W/o.Late.S.Sunder Singh,
2H/289, Kathirvel Nagar,
1st Street, Vishnupuri,
Tuticorin-628 008. ... Respondent / Petitioner
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying
this Court to allow this writ appeal and set aside the order passed by the
learned single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.15431 of 2018, dated 12.04.2023.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Dilipkumar
For Respondents : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Rajasekar
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
The management of Canara Bank has filed this writ appeal
questioning the order dated 12.04.2023 made in W.P.(MD)No.15431 of
2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 02:38:18 pm )
2. The writ petition was filed by one Sundar Singh who was
employed in the bank as sub staff (peon). During the pendency of the
writ petition, he passed away and his wife came on record. This writ
appeal is contested by the wife of the deceased. Sundar Singh joined
Canara Bank in the year 1984 as a daily wager. He was subsequently
appointed as sub staff and regularised on 03.02.1987. He was working in
the Tuticorin Branch from August 1997. While so, a charge memo dated
11.11.2002 was issued. After conducting departmental enquiry, he was
found guilty of two of the three charges. He was removed from service
vide order 30.08.2017. Challenging the same, he filed an appeal before
the appellate authority. The appellate authority vide order dated
20.06.2018 dismissed the appeal. Questioning the same, W.P.(MD)No.
15431 of 2018 was filed. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ
petition by modifying the punishment of dismissal from service to that of
compulsory retirement. The service of the employee from 03.02.1987 to
30.08.2017 was to be taken into account for the grant of terminal
monetary benefits to the legal heirs. The question that calls for
consideration is whether this order of the learned single Judge warrants
interference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 02:38:18 pm )
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Bank reiterated all the
contentions set out in the grounds of appeal. He pointed out that the
bank suffered a huge loss on account of involvement of quite a few
employees. Their respective roles were different. Therefore, the
punishment imposed on one employee cannot be compared with the
punishment imposed on another delinquent. Relying on a catena of case
laws, he contended that the scope for judicial review in such matters is
quite limited. Since the evidence against the delinquent was accepted by
the enquiry authority as well as the disciplinary authority and also the
appellate authority, the learned single Judge ought not to have interfered
at all. Reliance ought not to have been placed upon the charges and
findings rendered in the criminal case to modify the punishment as the
standard of proof is different in a departmental proceeding. Relying on
Union of India vs Sunil Kumar (2023) 3 SCC, he contended that the
question of interference with the quantum of punishment did not arise at
all. The learned single Judge did not find the original petitioner to be
innocent. He called upon this Court to set aside the order of the learned
single Judge and allow the writ appeal as prayed for.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 02:38:18 pm )
4.Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent submitted that the learned single Judge has rightly passed an
equitable order and that interference with the same is not called for.
5.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through
the materials on record. The charge memo dated 11.11.2002 alleges that
the original writ petitioner had colluded with an account holder
(M/s.A.P.N.International) and facilitated the perpetration of fraud
causing loss to the tune of Rs 76,53, 807/-. The charge memo makes the
following allegation against Thiru.Sundar Singh :
“(1) that you were instrumental in passing on OSC/FC details to
the party enabling them to arrange delivery of bogus IBA
towards realisation at the branch ;
(2) you were instrumental in causing the removal/intercepting
the tappal to prevent the OSC?FC from reaching the destination
with intention to prevent the fraud from coming to light ;
(3) you were instrumental in producing the POD for the delivery
of OSC/FC without actually sending the lodged OSC/FC
instruments.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 02:38:18 pm )
6.It is not as if, according to the Bank, Sundar Singh, the sub Staff
(peon) acted on his own. On the same day ie., 11.11.2002, another
charge memo was issued against one S.Arumugam who was in the
officer cadre. A criminal case was also lodged. R.C.No.1/e/2002 was
registered by CBI, EOW, Chennai. Final report was filed and it was
taken on file in C.C.No.9 of 2003 on the file of the Special Judge for CBI
cases, Madurai. The trial Court vide Judgment dated 12.12.2006
convicted the account holder, Thiru.Arumugam and others but acquitted
Sundar Singh. No appeal was preferred against the judgment acquitting
Sundar Singh. Arumugam filed Crl.A.No.580 of 2006 before the High
Court. The High Court vide order dated 23.03.2018 held that the
evidence against Arumugam (A4) was insufficient to fasten criminal
liability on him. While the appeal of the account holder was dismissed
and the conviction and sentence imposed on him were confirmed,
Arumugam was acquitted. In the meanwhile, the department proceedings
initiated against Arumugam had culminated and he had also been
dismissed from service. However, the appellate authority vide order
dated 13.08.2004 modified the punishment of dismissal to compulsory
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 02:38:18 pm )
retirement. Even according to the management, Arumugam and Sundar
Singh had colluded with the account holder and caused loss to the Bank.
While Arumugam was in the office cadre, Sundar Singh was after all a
peon. While Sundar Singh had secured a meritorious acquittal before the
trial Court, Arumugam was acquitted by the appellate Court only on the
ground of insufficiency of evidence. It is in these circumstances, the
learned Single Judge felt that imposing punishment of dismissal from
service on Sundar Singh alone was not justified and modified his
punishment also to one of compulsory retirement.
7.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in
Maharana Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 890
summarized the well settled principles regarding the effect of acquittal
on disciplinary proceedings in the following terms:
“47.While an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically
entitle the accused to have an order of setting aside of his dismissal
from public service following disciplinary proceedings, it is well-
established that when the charges, evidence, witnesses, and
circumstances in both the departmental inquiry and the criminal
proceedings are identical or substantially similar, the situation
assumes a different context. In such cases, upholding the findings
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 02:38:18 pm )
in the disciplinary proceedings would be unjust, unfair, and
oppressive...”
8.In the case on hand, the learned single Judge did not go that far.
However, the relief granted to the writ petitioner was to place the
deceased delinquent on par with that of the co-delinquent
Thiru.ARumugam. We are not impressed with the contentions of the
learned Standing Counsel that the role of Arumugam and the role of
Sundar Singh cannot be compared. In fact, Arumugam had a greater
responsibility. Sundar Singh, as already mentioned, was only a last grade
employee. He had also passed away. He had served the bank right from
1987 onwards. Now, it is only his widow who will be entitled to some
monetary benefits. The writ petitioner through her counsel submitted that
the management can deduct 50% of the terminal benefits payable to her.
The learned Single Judge had passed an equitable order. We do not
propose to interfere. The monetary benefits payable to the respondent
shall be settled by the appellant management within 8 weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. It shall be computed in terms of the
undertaking now given before us. If any pensionary benefit is payable,
the above undertaking shall not have any bearing on the same. The writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 02:38:18 pm )
appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
(G.R.S., J.) (K.R.S., J.)
29.08.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
rmi/skm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 02:38:18 pm )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
rmi/skm
29.08.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 02:38:18 pm )
