Arbitrary Disciplinary Proceedings By SBI, Termination Held Invalid, Orissa HC Awards Compensation

A Division bench of the Orissa High Court comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon & Justice K.R. Mohapatra held that disciplinary action notwithstanding scrutiny on fairness and procedural compliance is arbitrary, and in cases of superannuation of Workman, monetary compensation may be awarded in lieu of reinstatement.

Background Facts

The workman was appointed as a Messenger in the State Bank of India on 26.03.1992. On 03.10.2000, an amount of ₹20,000 was withdrawn from the savings account of a deceased pension account holder. The withdrawal was made using a withdrawal slip bearing a left thumb impression. It was discovered next day that the account holder had died long ago and the money was withdrawn by her grandson. A departmental enquiry was initiated against four employees, including the workman. The allegations were that the workman had facilitated the withdrawal by presenting the slip and requesting issuance of a token. Later the withdrawn amount was recovered and redeposited in the deceased's account.

After the enquiry, Workman was found guilty of gross misconduct and dismissed from service. The other three officers were let off with minor punishments such as warnings. Being aggrieved, the Workman preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which was dismissed. The Workman challenged the dismissal on the grounds that he had no role in processing withdrawals. Further that he was not given a fair opportunity to defend. He also claimed that he was neither provided with relevant documents, nor allowed to cross-examine witnesses. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal passed an award on 14.02.2017 directing reinstatement with 50% back wages.

Aggrieved by the award, the State Bank of India filed a writ petition. During the pendency of the petition, the Workman had already attained the age of superannuation in 2022.

It was submitted by the petitioner that the Workman was duly issued a charge-sheet, provided with relevant documents, and was given full opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings. It was further submitted that at first instance, the Workman admitted to have assisted withdrawal of the amount in good faith to help the legal heir of the deceased account-holder, but subsequently disowned the same and totally denied his involvement in the entire incident. That itself showed the mala fide of the Workman. The petitioner also argued that fairness of the enquiry was never challenged as a preliminary issue, and in the absence of any formal plea or evidence proving violation of natural justice, the Tribunal erred in holding the enquiry to be unfair. It was stated that the Workman had signed daily proceedings and was represented throughout, which clearly showed that he was not prejudiced.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondent (Workman) that he was neither provided with the list of witnesses nor the documents relied upon during the enquiry, which severely affected his ability to defend himself. Moreover, he was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the Management, nor allowed to present his own witnesses in support of his case. It was further submitted that the Workman, being a Messenger, had no duty or authority to deal with customer transactions or handle withdrawal slips. It was contended that the Workman had assisted in the recovery of the withdrawn amount.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that although the fairness of the departmental enquiry was not raised as a preliminary issue before the Tribunal, the Workman had specifically pleaded violations of natural justice during the enquiry process. It was observed by the court that merely labelling an enquiry as valid is not sufficient, the process must also withstand scrutiny on fairness and procedural compliance. It was noted that the Workman was not given access to essential documents, was denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Further he was not allowed to present his own defence, including the testimony of a crucial witness, the grandson of the deceased account-holder.

It was further observed by the court that no strong material was brought on record to prove that the Workman was involved in the illegal withdrawal. As per the duty chart, his job responsibilities did not include handling of withdrawal slips or cash transactions. It was also noted that other officials who actually processed the withdrawal were let off with minor penalties but the Workman alone was dismissed from service, which raised serious doubt on the impartiality and fairness of the entire proceeding. Further that the Workman had helped recover the withdrawn amount.

It was held by the Court that there was no perversity or illegality in the Tribunal's findings. Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal was not interfered by the court. It was noted by the Court that the Workman had already attained the age of superannuation. Thus, reinstatement was not feasible. Therefore, the Court modified the Tribunal's relief of reinstatement to monetary compensation in the interest of justice. Accordingly, it was directed by the Court that the Management shall pay ₹5,00,000 to the Workman as a lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and 50% of back wages within a period of two months.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was disposed of.

Case Name: State Bank of India v. Rama Krishna Behera & Another

Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 22135 of 2017

Counsel for the Petitioner: Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, Senior Advocate Assisted by K.T. Mudali, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Durga Prasanna Das, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download The Order