In the case of D.C Narnolia Vs. Canara Bank and others, the petitioner, who was a Canara Bank employee, was charged because of some abnormalities in a few group accounts, according to the case's circumstances. The petitioner was accused of, among other things, recommending enhancement without evaluating the proposal or confirming the party's eligibility for enhancement, allowing huge overdrafts to the party even though there was no DP available in the account, releasing an enhanced limit to the party without adhering to the terms and conditions of the sanction, lying to the circle office, and failing to classify an account as an NPA despite the fact that it was one.
The petitioner was dismissed from the services following an investigation. He sought to appeal the decision, but the appellate authority dismissed it on the grounds that there was no justification for interfering with the Disciplinary Authority's directives.
In the current High Court hearings, it was observed that the allegations of misbehaviour against the petitioner involving discrepancies in the group finances were proven in the departmental proceedings. The court also mentioned that the Petitioner had been given adequate opportunities to present his case before the conclusions of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority.
The petitioner claimed that the CBI had opened an investigation into the matter and cleared him of all accusations. Here, the court recognised that the petitioner was exonerated by the Criminal Court because the prosecution was unable to establish its case against him beyond a reasonable doubt. In contrast, the petitioner's misbehaviour had been demonstrated and proven during the departmental proceedings.
The court further emphasised that it was established law that the High Court, in exercising its authority under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, shall not attempt a re-evaluation of the evidence once the appeal authority and the disciplinary body had both evaluated it.
The court noted that the Disciplinary Authority had determined that the Inquiry Officer had come to the conclusion that the Petitioner was guilty for the charges levelled against him, after contemplating all the aspects pertaining to the particular instance and the entire evidence on record, after dealing with the inquiry report and discussing the available and admissible evidence on the charge by way of giving detailed reasoning and findings and noted that "Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable...No doubt, there are no measurable standards as to what is integrity in service jurisprudence but certainly there are indicators for such assessment."