'Vicitmization': Gujarat High Court Upholds Order Reinstating Bank Employee Compulsorily Retired For 'Heated Exchange' With Colleague

The Gujarat High Court upheld the reinstatement of services of an employee of Bank of India who was compulsorily retired in 2002, holding that the bank had failed to establish charges of misconduct and assault against him and that the penalty amounted to victimization and unfair labour practice. The Court held that the case against the employee suffered from an absence of substantial evidence, as crucial witnesses were not examined and that the case appeared one of "heated exchange" between two bank employees and thus the major penalty was excessive.A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice R.T. Vachhani observed, “…awarding of major penalty in such a trivial incident in absence of any substantial evidence adduced by the Bank, has rightly been held by the Tribunal to be excessive and suffers from mala-fide and, even the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal while adjudicating the case opining to be a case of harassment, victimization, discrimination, unfair labour practice finds a force, which do not require any interference at the hands of this Court.”The ruling came in the bank's appeal challenging a 2016 award by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (CGIT), Ahmedabad (Tribunal), reinstating the employee.As per the factual matrix of the case, the employee, appointed as an Account Clerk in 1977, was accused in 2002 of assaulting and threatening a staff officer, Rakesh Dogra. A departmental inquiry followed, which found the charges proved, leading to the employee's compulsory retirement on 11 November 2002. His appeal before the appellate authority was rejected in February 2003. The employee then raised an industrial dispute, and the Tribunal in 2013 held that the inquiry was perverse as principles of natural justice had not been followed. This finding was upheld by a Division Bench in 2015, which nonetheless allowed the bank an opportunity to adduce fresh evidence before the Tribunal.Upon rehearing, the Tribunal in 2016 reinstated the employee with full back wages, noting that crucial witnesses, including the complainant Dogra and the Inquiry Officer, had not been examined, and the two witnesses produced by the Bank did not support its case. The Single Judge of the High Court partly upheld this order, striking down the direction that back wages be recovered from officers who had initiated proceedings against the employee.In the present appeal, the Division Bench rejected the Bank's contention that the Tribunal had wrongly evaluated the sufficiency of evidence by applying standards akin to a criminal trial. The High Court stated, "The sum and substance of the discussions made in the preceding paragraphs in consonance with the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal, which has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge do not dispute the fact that the party who asserts particular facts, the burden lies on him to prove the same so far as it pertains to the departmental inquiry and the same can be proved by observing the principles of preponderance of probabilities and in the criminal case the same is to be considered on the aspect of proving beyond the reasonable doubt.""Simply because the said aspect has been discussed by the Tribunal, more particularly, the same set of evidence has been placed for consideration, is no ground to consider the stands of the appellant – Bank that the Tribunal committed a grave error. In this context, the observations made by the Tribunal in its award," the Court added.The Court further held that the punishment of compulsory retirement in what appeared to be, at most, a case of a heated exchange between employees, was excessive and amounted to harassment, victimization, and unfair labour practice.Accordingly, the Court concluded that the appeal was “devoid of merits and does not merit acceptance” and dismissed it, while affirming reinstatement of the employee with consequential benefits.Case Title: Zonal Manager, Bank of India v. Presiding Officer & Anr.Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No. 330 of 2025Click here to read/download judgmentCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 144

'Vicitmization': Gujarat High Court Upholds Order Reinstating Bank Employee Compulsorily Retired For 'Heated Exchange' With Colleague

Bhavya Singh

Tags