The Calcutta High Court has stated that a bank employee cannot be allowed to damage the customer-bank relationship, otherwise the entire banking system may “collapse”. With this, the Calcutta High Court dismissed a plea filed by a former Punjab National Bank (PNB) clerk seeking back wages after being acquitted in an alleged fraud and forgery case.
While hearing the case, Justice Amrita Sinha said this was not a matter where punishment was imposed without evidence. The judge noted that the bank had produced strong evidence to conclude that the petitioner’s actions were against the interests of the bank.
“An errant employee of the bank cannot and ought not to be permitted to make a dent on the relationship between a customer and the banker, or else the entire banking system will collapse,” Justice Sinha said on May 20.
The court further said that bank employees deal with public money, and therefore their integrity must remain unquestionable. The order added that public trust in banks, where people keep their money and valuables, must be protected.
Background of the Case
The petitioner was serving as a general clerk in Punjab National Bank (PNB), formerly United Bank of India (UBI), which later merged with PNB.
Disciplinary proceedings were started against him, and he was suspended from November 10, 1994. During suspension, he received subsistence allowance.
A charge sheet was issued on January 30, 1996, and an enquiry was conducted. The enquiry report was submitted on June 19, 1998.
Based on the findings, the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service on March 25, 1999, after charges of tampering with bank accounts and forging customer signatures were proved.
At the same time, the bank had filed a police complaint in 1995, leading to a criminal trial under various IPC sections, including criminal breach of trust and cheating.
In February 2010, the special court acquitted the petitioner, saying the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
In 2012, the petitioner moved the court claiming that his appeal had not been decided. In August 2023, the court directed the appellate authority to hear and dispose of the appeal within four months after giving him a proper hearing.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocates Sudeep Sanyal, Tutun Das, and Ketaki Ghosh argued that the departmental proceedings should have been kept pending until the criminal case was completed.
They alleged that the employer proceeded with the disciplinary enquiry based on assumptions and without proper evidence. They also argued that none of the customers whose accounts were allegedly tampered with had supported the allegations during the criminal trial.
The petitioner also alleged bias on the part of the employer and claimed that the findings of the departmental enquiry were not supported by proper evidence.
‘Petitioner Ought Not to Feel Deprived of Justice’
The petitioner was working as a general clerk and came under the category of a “workman” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This fact was not disputed.
The bank argued that the petition filed by the workman was not maintainable, while the petitioner argued that he had the right to choose between approaching the tribunal or the High Court.
Considering that the petitioner is over 70 years old and seeking his retirement dues, the court said sending the matter back to the tribunal after the writ petition was filed in July 2024 would not be an effective remedy.
The court observed that tribunal proceedings could take more time and it would not be easy for the petitioner to start the case again at such an advanced age.
The court said the petitioner should not feel deprived of justice. Since the dispute started in 1996 with the issuance of the charge sheet, any further delay would not be proper. Therefore, the court decided to dispose of the matter on merits.
‘Act Was Prejudicial to the Interest of the Bank’
The petitioner argued that no bank customer gave evidence against him during the departmental proceedings and that the bank had not suffered any financial loss.
However, the disciplinary authority found that the petitioner had withdrawn money from customer accounts after giving fake credits.
The court noted that the money involved belonged to the bank and not the customers.
Records also showed that the petitioner had admitted his actions clearly and unconditionally. The bank argued that simply returning the fraudulently withdrawn money did not remove the seriousness of the charges.
According to the bank, the petitioner forged customer signatures and even removed original ledger sheets after making fake entries, replacing them with new sheets.
The court observed that the petitioner was given a fair opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry. After examining the enquiry report, the court found that several charges against him were proved and that his actions were harmful to the bank’s interests.
You Can Also Check: Loan EMI Calculator | Bank Holidays in May | Latest Banking Jobs | Financial Calculators – FD, SIP, Gold Loan, etc.
