'A Clear Abuse of Power': Calcutta High Court Quashes Bank Employee's Dismissal, Terms It 'Pure Victimization', Orders Reinstatement with Full Back Wages
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) set aside the removal of a bank clerk from service, holding that the disciplinary authority’s action amounted to a perverse determination of fact based on no evidence. The Court observed that there was no allegation of misuse of the blank stationery and rubber stamps in the employee’s possession and that the punishment imposed was a result of abuse of power. The Court held that the findings of the disciplinary authority and the award of the Industrial Tribunal were contrary to principles of natural justice and accordingly quashed both decisions. The petitioner was directed to be treated as in continuous service with full back wages and benefits.
The petitioner was employed as a clerk with a nationalised bank from 15 December 1980, initially posted at the Garh Nokha Branch in Bihar. The disciplinary proceedings originated from the possession of certain blank stationery, including letterheads and rubber stamps of the Bhawanipur Branch, discovered during a police-authorised raid at the petitioner’s residence on 5 November 2000. The petitioner contended that the articles were mixed with his personal belongings during his transfer from Bhawanipur Branch to Ballygunge Branch and that their possession was inadvertent.
Following the incident, the petitioner was taken into custody and a criminal case—G.R. Case No. 3588/2000 under Sections 420, 120B, 419, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act—was initiated. The petitioner was subsequently allowed to rejoin duty but was issued a suspension order on 3 February 2001. An enquiry officer was appointed on 5 January 2002.
The enquiry report dated 16 August 2022 recorded that the charge was not established beyond doubt. The disciplinary authority disagreed with this finding and imposed the punishment of “removal from the bank’s service with superannuation benefits and without disqualification from future employment” through a corrigendum dated 22 December 2003. The petitioner’s appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 7 May 2004, which found the punishment proportionate to the misconduct.
In the meantime, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta, acquitted the petitioner in the criminal case on 20 January 2004, holding that there was no corroborative evidence and the investigating officer was the complainant himself. The petitioner then approached the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and the matter was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), Calcutta as Reference Case No. 03 of 2006.
On 11 November 2009, the Tribunal held the departmental enquiry to be legal and valid and proceeded to hear the matter under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The CGIT passed an award on 7 August 2020 granting a lump sum compensation of ₹2,00,000 to the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking full back wages and reinstatement.
The Court reproduced the findings of the enquiry officer, who had recorded that the petitioner admitted to the possession of letterheads and rubber stamps but had explained that they were inadvertently taken during a branch transfer. The officer noted:
“The CSE being fully aware of the gravity and consequences of such unauthorized possession of such documents as a very senior employee of the Bank so pleading ignorance at the later stage on some pretext or the other is not acceptable.”
However, the officer ultimately found:
“Since no such eventuality has been specified in the charge sheet and placed as document, I am not in a position to corroborate charges to the factual position mentioned in the charge sheet. Hence, the charge is not established beyond the iota of doubt.”
The disciplinary authority disagreed with this finding, stating:
“The above allegations have been found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer due to acceptance of the same by the CSE during the preliminary hearing… I therefore, disagree with the above said inference of the Enquiry Officer and hence do not accept the same.”
The disciplinary authority concluded that the petitioner had committed acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank, constituting gross misconduct under the Bipartite Settlement.
The Court examined the criminal court’s findings, which acquitted the petitioner, stating:
“Principles of actual justice entails that any case ought to be investigated by a person other than the defacto-complainant. The prosecution has miserably failed… there is no corroborating evidence… Hence, ordered, that both the accused persons… are found not guilty.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. v. Management, AIR 1973 SC 1227, the Court reiterated the Tribunal’s power under Section 11A to re-evaluate findings of misconduct and impose or modify punishment. It recorded:
“The Tribunal under s. 11A can consider the question of guilt as well as of punishment. It can also alter the punishment imposed by an employer.”
However, the Court found that in this case:
“The said guidelines were clearly not followed by the tribunal.”
On the conduct of the disciplinary authority, the Court made the following observations:
“The conduct of the disciplinary authority in the present case is clearly an abuse of power and totally against the principles of natural justice, being not bona fide, the findings being clearly perverse, this is a case of pure victimisation.”
The Court noted that no independent or specific findings supported the disciplinary authority’s conclusion. It stated:
“The disciplinary authority was hell bent on dismissing the petitioner from service. And as such, no reasoning nor the principles of natural justice was followed.”
Further, the Court recorded:
“Using the excuse of ‘sensitive articles’ the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the petitioner in the most unjust and perverse manner, by clear abuse of power without following any rules or the principles of natural justice.”
The Court noted that the items in question—blank letterheads and rubber stamps—were not misused and were generally part of an employee’s normal responsibilities. It concluded:
“This observation is a clear abuse of power, which is perverse and thus against the principle of natural Justice.”
Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Heem Singh v. State of Rajasthan, the Court stated:
“The findings of Disciplinary Authority is based on ‘no evidence’ and has been passed without considering the vital evidence on record which is a clear perverse determination of fact.”
The Court held:
“The said order dated 17th December, 2003 and corrigendum dated 22.12.2003 are hereby set aside.”
It also held:
“The order dated 07.08.2020 passed by the CGIT, Calcutta, in reference no. 03 of 2006 also being not in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Workmen of Messrs Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India vs Management & Ors., is also set aside.”
Allowing the writ petition, the Court directed:
“The petitioner’s removal from service being set aside, it is directed that he be treated as an in service employee in continuous service till his superannuation.”
The Court further ordered:
“The petitioner be also paid full back wages and other due benefits along with statutory interest till payment within 60 days from the date of this order.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Suvadip Bhattacharjee, Advocate; Balaram Patra, Advocate
For the Respondents: Suchayan Banerjee, Advocate; Soumadeep Banerjee, Advocate
Case Title: Sri Jyotirmoy Basu v. Union of India & Others
Case Number: WPA 16216 of 2021
Bench: Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
[Read/Download order]
