The Chariman and Managing Director, Bank of Baroda v. Sri Jyotirmoy Basu & Ors.

It is contended that only a single preliminary enquiry was conducted and no material witnesses were examined in the process, thereby undermining the fairness and thoroughness of the proceedings. Further, it is alleged that all the written submissions made by the respondent were not duly considered, and that, at the appellate stage, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent before the findings of the Enquiry Officer were reserved. It is also emphasized that the respondent was ultimately acquitted in the criminal cases instituted against him, which, according to the respondent, casts serious doubt on the basis of the disciplinary action.

#10. The following judgments are referred by the respondent – i. SBI v. Arvind K. Shukla (2004) 13 SCC 797 para-2 ii. Jagdish Prasad Saxena v. State of Madhya Bharat AIR 1961 SC 1070 para-13 iii. Amulya Ratan Mukherjee v. Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Eastern Rly. AIR 1961 Cal 40 para-4 iv. PNB v. Kunja Behari Misra (1998) 7 SCC 84 para-17&18 v. Jayantibhai Raojibhai Patel v. Municipal Council, Narkhed (2019) 17 SCC 184 para-4,6,13 to 17 vi. State of Rajasthan v. Heem Singh (2021) 12 SCC 569 para-37 vii. Roop Singh Negi v. PNB (2009) 2 SCC 570 para-17 to 23 viii. State of U.P. v. Shyam Kewal Ram 2024 SCCOnline All 2716 ix. Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) (2013) 10 SCC 324 x. Bank of Baroda v. S.K. Kool (dead) through representatives (2014) 2 SCC 715 para-715 xi. Parmar (R.M.) v. Gujarat Electricity Board, Baroda (1983) 2 LLN 278 para-9 xii. Khem Chand v. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 300 para-19 xiii. Surath Chandra Chakrabarty v. State of West Bengal (1970) 3 SCC 548 para-6 xiv. Narain v. State of Punjab AIR 1959 SC 484 xv. Hardwari Lal v. State of U.P. (1999) 8 SCC 582

#11. It appears that, the respondent/workman has been charged with a misconduct as per Clause 19.5 (j) of the bipartite settlement dated October 19, 1966 which is as follows:- “doing act prejudicial to the interest of the bank”.

#12. Allegation against the petitioner is of unauthorizedly holding bank’s stamp, letter head and passbooks for a prolonged period of about 11 months in his exclusive custody and beyond the bank premises to which those materials belonged that is, Bhawanipur Branch. This is, however, a fact not disputed in this case and the respondent has also conceded to the fact that those materials were kept in and recovered from his almirah at his residence. Now, to prove the charge, the appellant had to show any action done on part of the delinquent which ultimately stands as prejudicial to the interest of the bank. Admittedly also, in the enquiry as well as before the Tribunal, no evidence has come on record to show that, the respondent holding the bank’s properties as above, has caused any prejudice either to the bank’s business or its reputation. On the contrary, it has come on record with sufficient precision that, the respondent has pleaded about his innocence and lack of knowledge as regards those materials be carried with his other articles at the time of departing from the Bhawanipur branch on transfer. There is no convincing material available or shown by the appellant why such statement of the respondent/workman should not be believed.

#13. This aspect was considered by the enquiry officer though subsequently, discarded by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. Conversely, the disciplinary as well as an appellate authority have found that mere recovery of those materials from the residence and exclusive custody of the respondent makes him liable for the misconduct as envisaged in Clause 19.5 (j) of the bipartite settlement that is, an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank. However, in no certain terms the appellant has ever produced any fact or figure or material either before the enquiry officer or before the Tribunal or the Court as regards the prejudice, if any, having been caused to the same, due to the alleged misconduct of the respondent.

#14. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal in its Award dated August 7, 2020 has found the decision of the disciplinary as well as appellate authority in terminating service of the respondent to be illegal. It has compensated the respondent not by way of reinstatement but with a lump sum compensation amount. This being the point of grievance of the respondent, he challenged the said Award seeking redress and the Hon’ble Single Judge in the impugned judgment has upheld the decision of the Tribunal about the illegality of the termination of the respondent. However, the Hon’ble Single Judge has set aside the directions of the Tribunal granting lump sum compensation to the respondent/workman and instead modified the Award of the Tribunal by directing that the workman should be reinstated with full back wages.

#15. It is the trait law that, an order of the Hon’ble Single Judge may not be interfered into by the Appeal Court in an intra-Court appeal unless and until the same suffers from palpable illegality or gross miscarriage of justice. So far as the impugned judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated April 2, 2025 in WPA No. 16216 of 2021 is concerned, this Court is unable to find any such gross, apparent and palpable illegality in the same, on the basis of the reasons as discussed above. Therefore, the Court finds no justifiable ground to interfere with the said judgment and order of the Hon’ble Single Judge.

#16. For the reasons as discussed above, the present appeal being No. MAT 737 of 2025 along with pending applications, if any, stands dismissed. The judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated April 2, 2025 in WPA No. 16216 of 2021 is hereby upheld subject to the modification that, the amount of superannuation benefit and mandatory compensation, if any, already received by the concerned respondent should be adjusted from the amount of backwages payable to him. Rest of the judgment and findings of the Hon’ble Single Judge remain as it is.

#17. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the requisite formalities. (Lanusungkum Jamir, J.) (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)