Bank forcefully retired Officer citing Disciplinary Actions, Now MP High Court Cancelled Bank Order
| ➡️ Get instant news updates on Whatsapp. Click here to join our Whatsapp Group. |
In an important decision, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has overturned the compulsory retirement of Niranjan Singh Kaurav, a field officer of a Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank. The court ruled that the departmental enquiry (DE) against him was unnecessary because he had already been cleared of the same charges in a criminal court.
What Happened?
Niranjan Singh Kaurav was working as a field officer at the bank’s branch in Bareilly, located in the Raisen district. A complaint was filed against him, claiming that he and the bank manager demanded a bribe of ₹5,000 to renew a Kisan Credit Card. Based on this complaint, the Special Police Establishment (SPE) Lokayukta carried out a raid and registered a corruption case against Kaurav.
At the same time, the bank management also started a departmental enquiry (DE), which is an internal investigation, against him over the same issue.
Court Case and Acquittal
When the case was heard in a criminal court, Kaurav was found not guilty. Despite this acquittal, the bank went ahead and gave him compulsory or premature retirement as part of the disciplinary action taken under the departmental enquiry.
Kaurav had responded to the charges during the enquiry process and even brought in witnesses to support his defense. However, the bank never examined these witnesses before making the decision to retire him compulsorily.
What Did the High Court Say?
Justice Sanjay Dwivedi of the MP High Court observed that both the criminal case and the departmental enquiry were based on the same set of charges. Since the court had already acquitted Kaurav, the bank should not have continued with the departmental enquiry or punished him based on the same allegations.
As a result, the court set aside the bank’s decision to prematurely retire Kaurav. The High Court also ordered the bank to pay him half of his salary for the time he was forced to stay away from work because of the punishment.
Why Is This Important?
This judgment is significant because it protects employees from facing double punishment for the same charges. If someone is cleared by a criminal court, it’s usually unfair to punish them again through internal departmental action for the same issue. The decision reinforces the principle of fairness and gives relief to Kaurav, who was wrongly forced into early retirement.