Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.05 seconds)

The Disciplinary ... vs Nikunja Bihari Patnaik on 15 April, 1996

"14. A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the Bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.10.16 18:00:54+05'30' 11 OA.No.170/00458/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik (1996) 9 SCC 69, it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer /employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a Bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct .."
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 296 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Union Of India vs M. Duraisamy on 19 April, 2022

22. As far as the amounts are concerned, the applicant has filed Annexure A-6 to show the fact that she had deposited the entire amounts. But in our considered view, only upon the aforesaid basis, no leniency is required. It has been held in Union of India and Others Vs. M. Duraisamy, 2022[2] All India Service Law Journal 473[19.04.2022] that Merely because subsequently the employee had deposited the defrauded amount and therefore there was no loss caused to the department cannot be a ground to take a lenient view and/or to show undue sympathy in favour of such an employee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 7 - M R Shah - Full Document
1