Bank Employee Terminated From Job for withdrawing Rs.500 from Customer’s Account

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, led by Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi, ruled that courts cannot act like appellate authorities in departmental disciplinary cases. The court clarified that its role is limited to checking whether the findings of such inquiries are unfair, illogical, or not based on any evidence. Unless the punishment given is completely unreasonable or based on no facts at all, courts will not interfere.

Bank Employee Dismissed for ₹500 Embezzlement

The case involved a bank employee who was accused of embezzling ₹500 from a customer’s account. A departmental inquiry was conducted, and based on its findings, the bank dismissed him from service on January 7, 2003. The employee challenged this dismissal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, but the tribunal upheld the bank’s decision in its April 1, 2019 ruling.

Employee Claims Dismissal Was Too Harsh

The dismissed employee then filed a writ petition in the High Court, arguing that the punishment of dismissal was too severe for the alleged misconduct. He also claimed that the inquiry officer’s report lacked sufficient evidence to prove he committed the embezzlement. He wanted the court to cancel both the dismissal order and the Labour Court’s decision, saying they were unfair.

In response, the bank stated that the charges against the employee were clearly established during the inquiry. The employee was given a proper chance to present his case, and only after that, the dismissal order was issued. The bank also argued that the Labour Court rightly found the punishment appropriate and had followed all due procedures.

Court Says Evidence Was Sufficient and Fair Process Followed

The High Court reviewed the case and noted that the employee’s main argument was that there wasn’t enough evidence during the departmental inquiry. However, the court emphasized that under Article 226 of the Constitution, it cannot recheck the evidence as if it were an appeal. As long as there is some evidence to support the findings, the court cannot interfere.

To support this view, the court cited the State of Rajasthan vs. Bhupendra Singh case, where the Supreme Court held that judicial review in disciplinary matters is only allowed if there is no evidence or if the decision is extremely unreasonable or biased.

The court observed that although the amount involved was just ₹500 and may have been returned later, the fact remains that the employee committed a serious misconduct. Embezzlement of any amount in a bank is a breach of trust and cannot be taken lightly.

To support this, the court referred to the Union of India vs. Constable Sunil Kumar case, where it was held that courts can only interfere if the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the wrongdoing. Even then, the court should not reduce the punishment on its own but send the case back to the concerned authority to decide again.

After going through the entire case, the High Court concluded that the departmental inquiry was conducted fairly, the charges were proven with evidence, and the punishment was not disproportionate. Therefore, the decision to dismiss the employee was found to be fair and within legal bounds.

With all these observations, the High Court dismissed the employee’s writ petition, stating that there was no need to interfere with the decision made by the employer or the Labour Court.

Download Court Order PDF (This PDF is available for Premium Users Only. Click here to join premium)