Recently, the Calcutta High Court held that an employer also has an obligation to protect its employees from being victimised and from being ousted from his service which is the highest punishment in the service jurisprudence while emphasising that the right to reputation comes within the purview of fundamental right.
Brief facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that Rajat was served with the notice on 26th March 2015, while he was serving as the branch manager at the bank, in which it was alleged that he had perpetrated several irregularities in his Savings account, in the Savings account of his wife, namely, Sikha Varshney (hereinafter referred to as Sikha) and in ten loan accounts pertaining to sanctioning of loans under the Swami Vivekananda Swanirbhar Karmasansthan Prakalpa (hereinafter referred to as SVSKP Scheme). Thereafter, Rajat submitted a reply, and a new set of allegations was levelled, and he was asked to furnish an explanation, to which he responded and filed a reply. Furthermore, a charge sheet was issued invoking the provisions of Regulations 3 and 24 of Central Bank of India Officers Employees’ Conduct Regulations (hereinafter referred to as Conduct Regulations) and Regulation 4 of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the D&A Regulations). In the midst thereof, he was placed under suspension, and a criminal complaint was also lodged against him. In the disciplinary proceedings, an inquiry authority was appointed and the inquiry Authority submitted the report holding inter alia that charge no.1 had been partially proved, while charge nos. 2, 3, and 4 had not been proved.
However, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the report submitted by the inquiry authority. The penalty was imposed by the disciplinary authority, and the said order was also affirmed by the AA in the statutory appeal preferred by Rajat. Aggrieved by this, the present writ petition is filed directing the Disciplinary Authority (hereinafter referred to as DA) to impose a minor penalty of ‘reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period not exceeding 3 years, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting the pension’ upon setting aside the major penalty of ‘Dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment’ imposed by the DA and affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The First appeal is preferred by Rajat, primarily seeking expunction of the observations made by the learned Judge, and the second appeal is preferred by the Bank.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant/Rajat contended that the transfer of the amount Rs. 25,000/- from the Bank’s internal account to Sikha’s account was done in consonance with the terms of the loan transaction and to avoid payment by cash. It was furthermore contended that in the absence of the establishment of the fact of misappropriation, the learned Judge erred in law in observing that ‘the writ petitioner’s honesty and integrity are found to be very much questionable’. The effect of such observation would severely prejudice his service career, and as such, the said observation needs to be expunged.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel appearing on behalf of the bank contended that misappropriation by Rajat of the Bank’s funds to the account of his wife was deliberate and intentional and the learned Judge could not have intervened on the ground that the quantum was a lesser amount. Once an act of misappropriation is proved, may be small or large amount, question of showing uncalled for sympathy does not arise.
The counsel further relied upon the judgments titled Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Co-operative Whole Sale Stores Ltd.) etc. versus The Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha and Narendra Nath Bhalla versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that “the word ‘integrity’ is synonymous with probity, purity, uprightness, rectitude, sinlessness and sincerity. In the instant case, there is no evidence on record to allege that Rajat’s integrity was questionable. The right to reputation comes within the purview of fundamental right. Rajat had rendered service in the Bank since the year 2015 without any sort of misconduct in course of his past service and a person who has earned reputation cannot be ousted through imposition of a stigma on the basis of perverse findings. An employer also has an obligation to protect its employees from being victimised and from being ousted from his service which is the highest punishment in the service jurisprudence.”
The Court observed that the first charge was that Rajat had debited the internal account of the Bank by Rs. 25,000/- and had credited the amount to a savings account belonging to Sikha, Rajat’s wife thus, imputing that Rajat had deliberately allowed misappropriation of the Bank’s fund for benefiting his family member. The contents of the charge need to be considered together and not in isolation. A particular clause cannot be taken up and highlighted. Furthermore, the Court hold that the contention of Rajat that such observation would severely prejudice his service career cannot be ruled out moreso when the process in reaching the decision appears to be erroneous.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that there exists no ground to agree with the findings of the DA and to hold that Rajat was guilty of serious misconduct and to remove him from service.
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the Court disposed of the writ petition.
Case Title: Shri Rajat Kumar Varshney vs. Central Bank of India & Ors.
Coram: Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty, Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra
Case No.: FMA 327 of 2024 + IA No. CAN 2 of 2023
Advocates for the Appellant: Adv. Indranil Chakraborty, Apurba Ghosh, Apurna Ghosh, Vaskar Pal.
Advocates for the Respondent: Adv. Devajyoti Barman, Mr. S.K. Sengupta.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
