The Calcutta High Court dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by Bank of Baroda – 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. The Bank removed him from service on grounds of misconduct.
The court ruled that mere possession of such articles, without 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 respondent/workman, an employee of the Bank of Baroda, was transferred from Bhawanipur Branch to Ballygunge Branch. On November 6, 2000, a raid was conducted at his residence and rubber stamps, blank letterheads, and passbooks of the bank were recovered from his residence. He was arrested and later released on bail.
Also Read: Big Strike in Indian Overseas Bank on 2nd March, All Branches will remain closed
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 matter reached before Tribunal.
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. But employee wanted full back wages so he filed case at the court.
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.”
Also Read: Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis’s wife Amruta Fadnavis resigns from Axis Bank
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.”
The court ordered 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.
Download Court Order PDF (This PDF is available for Premium Users Only. Click here to join premium)
