High Court Sets Aside Bank Employee Dismissal Over Rs. 38.67 Lakh Allegations:

High Court Sets Aside Bank Employee Dismissal Over Rs. 38.67 Lakh Allegations

Bhaskar Adhikari, a Cash-cum-Account Clerk of Bank of India, appointed on compassionate grounds in 1998, challenged the disciplinary order dismissing him from service. The disciplinary proceedings arose after irregular transactions were detected in several dormant pension accounts at the Kharagpur branch. The bank alleged that the petitioner had activated 19 dormant pension accounts without proper authorization and processed cash payments through withdrawal slips, leading to alleged misappropriation of Rs. 38.67 lakh in connivance with other officials.

The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the departmental inquiry, and the Enquiry Officer concluded that one charge was partially proved and another proved, while the allegation of misappropriation was not established. However, t enquiry findings held all charges proved and imposed the penalty of dismissal without notice, which waslater affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court challenging the disciplinary action.

Main Issue: Whether dismissal of a bank employee in disciplinary proceedings can be sustained when the findings are allegedly unsupported by evidence. High Court Held: The Court held that although judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited, interference is permissible where findings are based on no evidence or are perverse. The Court noted that the Enquiry Officer had specifically recorded that there was no material establishing misappropriation of Rs. 38.67 lakh by the petitioner or any nexus with other officials. It was also observed that key documents and KYC records allegedly used for activating dormant accounts were not produced, responsible branch officials were not examined, and the handwriting expert’s report indicated that the disputed signatures on withdrawal slips were not those of the petitioner. The Court further held that the Disciplinary Authority had reversed the Enquiry Officer’s findings without independently analysing the evidence and had relied mainly on circumstances such as the petitioner’s user ID being used for certain entries and irregularities in withdrawal slips. Such conclusions, according to the Court, were based on conjectures rather than reliable material and therefore could not sustain a finding of misappropriation. Thus, the Court set aside the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority, but remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the enquiry report and the petitioner’s representation and pass a fresh decision in accordance with law within four weeks. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below