Court Cancels Termination Order of Bank Employee, Read Full Court Case

Recently, Calcutta High Court has set aside the termination order of a Bank Employee. The court ruled that both the charge sheet and the termination order violated Rules. The disciplinary proceedings against a senior bank employee were conducted by officials who did not have the authority to do so.

The employee began his service career as a Junior Clerk at Bhatpara-Naihati Co-operative Bank Limited. In 1998, he was promoted to the post of Grade IIB Officer and was assigned the role of Establishment Officer in the Establishment Section.

• Also Read: Why Gold Revalued once Loan Settled? Supreme Court opens FIR Against Bank of India

On 10.09.2020, the Chief Executive Officer-in-Charge & Accountant issued a notice asking the petitioner to show cause as to why legal action should not be taken against him. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said show cause notice. However, on 18.09.2020, the Chief Executive Officer-in-Charge lodged a
complaint against the petitioner at the jurisdictional police station. Pursuant to the said complaint, Bhatpara P.S. Case No. 349 dated 18.09.2020 was registered under Sections 201/204/403/406/409/424 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the employee. Subsequently, by an order dated 20.09.2020, the petitioner was transferred to the North Garifa Branch.

Upon conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner on 03.02.2021. The petitioner surrendered before the concerned learned Court on 02.03.2021 and was granted bail on the same day. In compliance with the transfer order, the petitioner joined his new assignment on 07.03.2021.

• Also Read: Supreme Court: Unregistered Property Sale Deed Is Not Valid After 4 Months

By an order dated 15.03.2021, the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding. Thereafter, on 09.12.2021, the Chief Executive Officer & CDO (HQ) of the Bank issued a Memorandum of Charge dated 9.12.2021 containing four articles of charge against the petitioner. However, the said memorandum did not include any list of documents or witnesses.

Charges Against Bank Employee

(i) While serving as an Officer Grade II-B of the Bank, the petitioner, who was entrusted with the custody of the “Peon Book” and other important documents of the Bank, failed to properly discharge the duties assigned to him. His conduct was prejudicial to the interests of the Bank and resulted in substantial financial loss. Accordingly, he was alleged to have committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 106 [Appendix to Chapter V, Clause 14, Sub-Clause (VI)] of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 2011.

• Also Read: Court Sends Businessman to Jail in Cheque Bounce Case, Rs.20 Lakh Fine imposed

On 14.07.2020, the petitioner was allegedly captured on the Bank‟s CCTV footage entering the Bank premises at 09:33:52 AM and proceeding to the first floor (Administrative Office) at 09:34:14 AM. However, on the same day, he recorded his official entry time as 10:38 AM. This discrepancy is said to constitute misconduct under Rule 106 [Appendix to Chapter V, Clause 14, Sub-Clauses (i), (ii), and (iii)] of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 2011.

As per the CCTV camera footage, at 10:00:26 AM, the petitioner was allegedly seen opening the almirah located to the right of his designated seating area and taking out the Peon Book (red in colour). He then placed it on the table of Mr. Chandranath Bhattacharya, Officer on Special Duty (OSD). Mr. Bhattacharya entered the Administrative Office at 10:01:53 AM, took the Peon Book, and left the Administrative Office with it, proceeded upstairs, and returned downstairs after a short while. Subsequently, the employee received the Peon Book and made an attempt to conceal it. This conduct is alleged to constitute a breach of trust and, accordingly, amounts to misconduct under Rule 106 [Appendix to Chapter V, Clause 14, Sub-Clauses (i), (ii), (iii), and (viii)] of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 2011.

• Also Read: Bank Charges Paid To Foreign Banks Not Liable To Service Tax Under Reverse Charge Mechanism

On 14.07.2020, the petitioner was allegedly directed to hand over the Peon Book. In response, he claimed that the book had been misplaced. He, in connivance with Mr. Bhattacharya, committed the offence. This act is alleged to constitute misconduct, amounting to suppression of official records, and falls within the scope of Rule 106 [Appendix to Chapter V, Clause 14, Sub-Clause (viii)] of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 2011.

Termination Letter

The petitioner submitted his reply/statement of defence to the charge sheet. He was subsequently informed that, by an order dated 25.02.2022, an EO had been appointed. The EO conducted the enquiry proceedings. On 06.05.2022, the Chief Executive Officer & CDO was personally present during the enquiry and put certain questions to the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that, although no formal intimation was given regarding the closure of the enquiry proceedings, a termination letter dated 01.11.2022 was issued, terminating his service with effect from the same date.

• Also Read: Resignation can be accepted on Same Day on which it was submitted: J&K High Court

Court Order

Based on the foregoing discussion and the reasons set out in the preceding paragraphs, it is held that the charge sheet, the enquiry proceedings, and the order of termination are unsustainable in law and are accordingly, quashed.

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