Gujarat High Court Upholds Reinstatement of Bank Employee Compulsorily Retired After ‘Heated Exchange’ | Finds Lack of Evidence and Terms Action ‘Victimization’
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Gujarat Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice R.T. Vachhani dismissed an appeal by the Bank of India against the reinstatement of an employee compulsorily retired in 2002. The Court found that the disciplinary inquiry was vitiated by failure to examine key witnesses and that the allegations of misconduct and assault were not supported by substantial evidence. Noting that the incident reflected a heated exchange between colleagues rather than conduct warranting a major penalty, the Bench held the retirement order to be excessive and amounting to victimization, thereby affirming reinstatement with consequential benefits.
The case concerned an intra-court appeal filed by the Bank of India challenging an order of the learned Single Judge that upheld the decision of the Industrial Tribunal in favour of a workman. The respondent employee had been serving as a Clerk-cum-Cashier at the bank’s Vadali Branch since 1973. In 2002, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on allegations of misconduct arising from an altercation with another employee.
The bank alleged that the respondent had assaulted a fellow employee inside the branch premises, causing disruption to the workplace and damaging the institutional reputation of the bank. A charge-sheet was issued, and a departmental inquiry was conducted. The inquiry report concluded that the charges were proved, leading to the penalty of compulsory retirement being imposed on the employee.
The employee contested the action before the Industrial Tribunal, contending that the inquiry was defective as material witnesses had not been examined, including the complainant and the inquiry officer. It was submitted that the incident reflected only a verbal exchange between employees, and no evidence of physical assault or serious misconduct had been established. The respondent also argued that the penalty was disproportionate and amounted to victimization and unfair labour practice.
The Industrial Tribunal, after assessing the evidence, held that the charges were not substantiated and that the inquiry had been conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal directed reinstatement of the employee with consequential benefits.
The bank challenged the award before the High Court, submitting that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the disciplinary findings and that the conduct of the respondent had undermined the integrity of the institution. The Single Judge rejected the bank’s petition and upheld the award of the Tribunal.
Aggrieved, the bank filed the present Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, seeking to set aside the reinstatement order and to uphold the disciplinary penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on the respondent.
The Division Bench noted: “The entire disciplinary proceedings against the workman are vitiated as no deposition of the complainant was recorded and even the inquiry officer was not examined.”
It stated that the absence of testimony from material witnesses rendered the findings unsustainable: “In such circumstances, the findings recorded by the inquiry officer cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The case clearly falls within the category of ‘no evidence’ cases.”
The Bench also observed the nature of the incident, noting that: “The record clearly indicates that the incident in question was nothing more than a heated exchange between two employees. The same cannot be equated with grave misconduct warranting a major penalty of compulsory retirement.”
The Court considered the argument of the bank that the conduct had damaged institutional integrity but found that the evidence did not support this claim. It recorded: “In the absence of substantive material, the charge of misconduct and assault cannot be said to have been proved against the respondent workman.”
Further, the Bench upheld the Tribunal’s finding that the penalty imposed amounted to victimization: “The action taken by the appellant Bank appears to be disproportionate and in the nature of victimization, amounting to unfair labour practice.”
The Court concluded that there was no infirmity in the Tribunal’s decision or in the Single Judge’s order confirming reinstatement. It stated: “The Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge have rightly come to the conclusion that the penalty imposed cannot be sustained and that the workman is entitled to reinstatement with consequential benefits.”
The Court stated: “We find no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant Bank. The award passed by the Industrial Tribunal directing reinstatement of the respondent workman with consequential benefits, as confirmed by the learned Single Judge, is required to be upheld.”
“The disciplinary proceedings conducted against the workman are held to be vitiated on account of non-examination of material witnesses and for want of substantive evidence. The penalty of compulsory retirement imposed by the appellant Bank is set aside.”
“Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. The respondent workman shall be entitled to reinstatement in service with consequential benefits as directed by the Tribunal.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advocate with Mr. Prakash K. Jani, Senior Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. H.S. Munshaw, Advocate
Case Title: Bank of India v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal & Anr.
Case Number: R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 330 of 2025 and connected matters
Bench: Justice A.S. Supehia, Justice R.T. Vachhani
