Patna High Court Quashes PNB Employee’s Dismissal in Impersonation Case, Orders Reinstatement

The Patna High Court has quashed the dismissal of a Punjab National Bank (PNB) employee who was terminated from service over allegations of impersonation in a recruitment examination. The Court held that the main evidence used to establish the charge had not been properly proved during the departmental inquiry. Justice Kumar Manish was hearing the employee’s petition challenging the dismissal order dated 31 March 2018, which had also debarred him from future employment.

The employee had applied for the IBPS Common Written Examination for the post of Management Trainee/Probationary Officer in 2013. He qualified in the written examination and interview and was appointed by Punjab National Bank in 2014. He joined the Bank in February 2015. The Bank issued an appointment letter dated 02.07.2014 to the petitioner. After successfully undergoing six months of pre-induction training at Belapur, the petitioner formally joined the service of the Punjab National Bank on 16.02.2015 and was eventually posted at Branch Office situated at Bhadseni under the Biharsharif Circle.

However, the Bank later received a complaint alleging that he had used another person to appear in the written examination on his behalf. The Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank received complaint dated 20.03.2015, against the petitioner alleging impersonation in the written test.

Following the complaint, the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Shimla, examined the relevant signatures. It concluded that the person who had written the standard signatures had not written the questioned signatures. Meanwhile, the Central Finger Print Bureau examined the thumb impressions but found them blurred and unclear, with insufficient fingerprint details to make a proper comparison.

Based on these findings, Punjab National Bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against the employee. The main charge was that he had arranged for another person to appear in the 2013 recruitment examination on his behalf. During the departmental inquiry, the Presenting Officer submitted eight documents, including the CFSL handwriting report. However, no witness was examined to prove the documents or explain the findings of the handwriting expert.

The High Court found this to be a serious defect in the inquiry proceedings. It noted that the handwriting expert who prepared the CFSL report had never been examined. No other witness was called to prove or explain the report. As a result, the employee did not get an opportunity to question the expert or challenge the opinion through cross-examination. The Court clarified that although an expert report can be relevant evidence, it cannot be relied upon as the main basis for establishing a charge without properly proving and explaining it during the inquiry.

The Court also observed that the Central Finger Print Bureau had not identified the employee as the person responsible for the questioned thumb impressions. Instead, it had found the impressions unsuitable for comparison because they were blurred and lacked sufficient details. Therefore, the fingerprint findings did not independently support the allegation of impersonation.

Applying the principles governing the proof of documents in departmental inquiries, the High Court held that the Bank had committed a “fatal procedural and evidentiary error” by relying on the CFSL report without proving it through appropriate evidence. The Court ruled that the inquiry report dated 12 December 2017 and the consequential dismissal order could not be legally sustained because the main evidence supporting the charge had not been properly established.

The Court further observed that the appellate authority’s decision to reject the employee’s appeal as time-barred could not correct the defects in the original inquiry proceedings. Considering the time that had passed and the fact that the Bank itself had failed to properly prove the evidence on which the charge was based, the Court also held that conducting a fresh inquiry would not be justified.

Accordingly, the Patna High Court quashed the dismissal order and the related appellate orders. The Bank has been accordingly directed to release the back wages and consequential service benefits accruing to the petitioner from the date of his dismissal i.e. 31.03.2018, till his actual reinstatement in accordance with the rules & regulations of the Bank, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment.

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