In Brief
A bank employee was suspended and placed under compulsory retirement after a domestic inquiry found him guilty of unauthorised loan transactions, tampering with records, and coercing the manager to grant irregular loans to his family members. Although the Tribunal and High Court had earlier set aside the punishment and ordered reinstatement, the Supreme Court affirmed the compulsory retirement. The Court held that Tribunals cannot re-appreciate evidence in disciplinary matters; charges need only be proved on preponderance of probabilities, not strict criminal standards. The Court clarified that compulsory retirement does not forfeit retirement benefits—only dismissal does. Bank officers' observation of signatures based on routine banking practice carries evidentiary weight. The Court emphasized that bank employees must maintain absolute integrity as they handle public deposits.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.