Mere Recovery Of Bank Property From Employee Without Proof Of Actual Prejudice Cannot Sustain Misconduct Charge; Calcutta High Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Calcutta High Court's Division Bench of Justice Lanusungkum Jamir and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay, finding no palpable illegality in the order under challenge, dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by a public sector bank against a dismissed workman. The dispute arose from the recovery of bank property — including rubber stamps, blank passbooks, and letterheads — from the workman's residence following a police raid, leading to his removal from service on grounds of misconduct. The court held that mere possession of such articles, absent any evidence of actual prejudice caused to the bank, could not sustain the charge, and accordingly directed the workman's reinstatement with full back wages, subject to adjustment of benefits already received.
The appeal arose from a challenge to a judgment of a Single Judge setting aside an Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kolkata. The respondent/workman, an employee of the appellant bank, was transferred from Bhawanipur Branch to Ballygunge Branch. On November 6, 2000, during a raid at his residence, rubber stamps, blank letterheads, and passbooks of the bank were recovered. He was arrested and later released on bail.
A chargesheet dated January 5, 2002 alleged gross misconduct under Clause 19.5 (j) of the bipartite settlement for “doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank.” A departmental enquiry was conducted, and the Disciplinary Authority imposed removal from service with superannuation benefits. The appellate authority upheld the punishment.
The Tribunal held the termination illegal and granted lump sum compensation. The workman challenged the Award. The Single Judge upheld the finding of illegality but substituted compensation with reinstatement and full back wages, leading to the present intra-court appeal.
The Court recorded that the respondent was charged under Clause 19.5 (j) of the bipartite settlement dated October 19, 1966 for “doing act prejudicial to the interest of the bank”.
It observed that the allegation concerned “unauthorizedly holding bank’s stamp, letter head and passbooks for a prolonged period of about 11 months in his exclusive custody and beyond the bank premises” and noted that this fact was not disputed, as the materials were recovered from his residence.
The Bench stated that to sustain the charge, the appellant had to demonstrate “any action done on part of the delinquent which ultimately stands as prejudicial to the interest of the bank.” It recorded that “no evidence has come on record to show that, the respondent holding the bank’s properties as above, has caused any prejudice either to the bank’s business or its reputation.”
The Court further recorded that the respondent had pleaded innocence and lack of knowledge regarding the materials being carried during transfer and that “There is no convincing material available or shown by the appellant why such statement of the respondent/workman should not be believed.”
The disciplinary and appellate authorities had concluded that mere recovery from exclusive custody constituted misconduct. However, the Court observed that “in no certain terms the appellant has ever produced any fact or figure or material either before the enquiry officer or before the Tribunal or the Court as regards the prejudice, if any, having been caused to the same.”
On the scope of intra-court appeal, the Bench recorded that “an order of the Hon’ble Single Judge may not be interfered into by the Appeal Court in an intra-Court appeal unless and until the same suffers from palpable illegality or gross miscarriage of justice.” It further stated that it was “unable to find any such gross, apparent and palpable illegality” in the impugned judgment.
The Court directed that “the present appeal being No. MAT 737 of 2025 along with pending applications, if any, stands dismissed. The judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated April 2, 2025 in WPA No. 16216 of 2021 is hereby upheld subject to the modification that, the amount of superannuation benefit and mandatory compensation, if any, already received by the concerned respondent should be adjusted from the amount of backwages payable to him. Rest of the judgment and findings of the Hon’ble Single Judge remain as it is.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Suchayan Bandhopadhyay, Mr. S. K. Banerjee
For the Respondents: Mr. Suvadip Bhattacharjee, Mr. Balaram Patra
Case Title: The Chairman and Managing Director, Bank of Baroda & Ors. Vs. Sri Jyotirmoy Basu & Anr.
Case Number: MAT 737 of 2025
Bench: Justice Lanusungkum Jamir and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay
