Bringing Police to Bank Office Over Transfer Grievance Can Amount to Misconduct: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has set aside orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court that had declared the findings of a disciplinary inquiry against a bank employee as “perverse.” The High Court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the inquiry officer’s findings. It also observed that bringing police personnel to a bank office over a transfer grievance could amount to misconduct.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne delivered the judgment on June 18, 2026. The case arose from a petition filed by Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. challenging the decisions of the Labour Court and Industrial Court.
The dispute relates to disciplinary proceedings against Smita Virendra Patil. She was an employee of Citizens Cooperative Bank and her services were later absorbed into Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank after the merger of the two banks.
In 2012, Patil was transferred from the bank’s Accounts Department in Mumbai to its Vashi Branch. The bank alleged that after she was relieved from her earlier posting, she brought two police personnel to the bank’s office. She allegedly complained to the police that the transfer was made to harass her.
The bank also alleged that Patil made complaints against the bank to several authorities, including the Banking Ombudsman, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the Human Rights Commission and the Chief Minister. According to the bank, these complaints damaged the reputation of the institution.
A departmental inquiry was conducted against Patil. The inquiry officer found the charges proved. Based on the inquiry findings, the bank dismissed her from service in January 2015.
Labour Court and Industrial Court Declared Inquiry Findings Perverse
The Labour Court held that the disciplinary inquiry was fair and proper. However, it concluded that the findings of the inquiry officer were perverse and were not supported by evidence.
The Industrial Court later upheld the Labour Court’s decision and dismissed the revision application filed by the bank.
Aggrieved by the decisions of the two labour forums, Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank approached the Bombay High Court.
Employee Did Not Dispute Bringing Police to Bank Office
After examining the evidence, the High Court noted that the employee had not disputed the fact that she brought police personnel to the bank’s office.
The Court also referred to the evidence of the bank manager. His evidence showed that the police personnel questioned him about Patil’s transfer.
Justice Marne observed:
“The very act of the Respondent approaching police and complaining about her transfer to Vashi Branch constitutes misconduct.”
The High Court said that if an employee is unhappy with a transfer order, the employee should normally use the available internal remedies and make representations before the appropriate authorities.
The Court held that bringing police personnel to the workplace and making a bank officer face police questioning over a transfer dispute could reasonably be treated as misconduct.
However, the High Court clarified that the allegation that Patil personally misbehaved with the bank manager was not proved by the available evidence.
Employees Can Raise Grievances, But Every Case Must Be Examined
The High Court also examined the complaints made by the employee to various external authorities.
The Court acknowledged that employees have the right to raise grievances relating to their service conditions. However, it said the main issue was not whether every complaint made by an employee amounts to misconduct.
The question was whether the Labour Court was justified in holding that such conduct could never amount to misconduct.
The Court observed that the proposition that “mere making complaints to various authorities does not amount to misconduct” could not be accepted as a blanket rule in the facts of the case.
Disciplinary Charges Need Not Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt
The High Court further explained the standard of proof required in departmental disciplinary proceedings.
The Court said that charges in a domestic inquiry are decided on the basis of the “preponderance of probabilities.” They are not required to be proved “beyond reasonable doubt,” which is the standard generally applied in criminal cases.
The Court held that labour forums cannot re-examine whether the evidence was sufficient when some evidence is available to support the findings of the inquiry officer.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Labour Court and Industrial Court Orders
The Bombay High Court allowed the bank’s writ petition and set aside the Labour Court’s order dated September 1, 2023, and the Industrial Court’s order dated June 11, 2024.
The Court held that the findings of the inquiry officer were supported by evidence and could not be called perverse. However, this conclusion did not apply to the allegation that the employee had misbehaved with the bank manager, as that charge was not proved.
The High Court directed the Labour Court to proceed with the remaining issues in the case. This includes deciding whether the punishment of dismissal was legally justified and proportionate to the misconduct.
The Court clarified that the Labour Court should decide the issue of punishment independently and should not be influenced by the High Court’s observations on that aspect.
The High Court also requested the Labour Court to decide the pending complaint as quickly as possible, preferably within six months.
- Download Court Order PDF (This PDF is available for Premium Users Only. Click here to join premium)
