Calcutta High Court
Anup Goswami vs State Bank Of India And Ors on 11 June, 2025
Author: T.S Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S Sivagnanam
1
OD - 1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
APOT/342/2024
IA NO: GA/1/2024,
GA/2/2025
ANUP GOSWAMI
VS
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM
And
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)
Date : 11th June, 2025
Appearance :
Mr. Samrat Sen, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Parna Roy Choudhury. Adv.
..for the appellant.
Mr. Debasish Saha, Adv.
Mr. Sanjoy Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Avirup Roy Sanyal, Adv.
Ms. Sucheta Pal, Adv.
..for respondent.
The Court : There is a delay of 36 days in filing the appeal. We have perused the
averments in the affidavit filed in support of GA/1/2024 and we find that sufficient
cause has been shown for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. The
delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Hence, GA/1/2024 is allowed.
This intra-Court appeal at the instance of the writ petitioner/appellant is
directed against the order dated 19th July, 2024 in WPO/1258/2021. The appellant had
filed the writ petition challenging the enquiry report dated 23rd December, 2020 issued
by the enquiry officer being respondent no.5 and the final order of punishment inflicted
on the appellant vide order dated 5th March, 2021 and the order passed by the appellate
authority dated 19th May, 2021 which affirmed the order passed by the disciplinary
authority imposing punishment on the appellant. The learned writ court has not gone
into the merits of the matter but has dismissed the matter on the ground of
maintainability. Challenging the said order, the appellant/writ petitioner has filed the
present appeal.
We have heard Ms. Parna Roy Choudhury, learned advocate appearing for the
appellant and Mr. Debasish Saha, learned advocate appearing for the respondent.
The undisputed fact is that the appellant is serving as a senior associate (CSS) in
the respondent bank, namely, State Bank of India. It is also not in dispute that the
appellant is a workman as defined under the bipartite settlement dated April 10, 2002
and in terms of Section 2(p) and Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read
with Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. Therefore, if it is an
undisputed fact that the appellant is a workman in terms of the bipartite settlement, the
remedy for the appellant to challenge the order of punishment is not before this Court
but before the Industrial Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. It is the endeavour of the learned advocate for the appellant to
contend that the alleged misconduct for which the appellant was issued order of
punishment is not covered in the code of conduct of the bank. To examine the
correctness of the submission we have perused the charge-sheet dated 19 th May, 2020.
Charge no.1 would state that taking a holistic view of the entire episode of the charge
proceedings it is evident that the appellant posts in Facebook have been made are
inappropriate, derogatory along with the false, unfounded and unsubstantiated
accusations against the bank and its officials on social media platform and that the
appellant violated the code of conduct of the State Bank of India vide circular dated 28 th
September, 2018. The code of conduct for employees as made known in circular dated
28th September, 2018 states that no employee shall write/express anything in any
internet site or social media that may damage the reputation of the bank or any of its
employees as regards such employees work in State Bank of India. Further, the circular
states that no employee shall post, forward, upload or express any remarks/views on
any internet site or social media or share a link content on social media which may be
defamatory, indecent, abusive, discriminatory or derogatory to the bank or its
officials/employees in their official capacity. Further, it states that no employee should
criticize the management of the bank or the business processes or strategies of the bank
or policies of the bank on any internet site or social media. Further, it states that no
employee shall discuss, disclose, post, forward, upload or share any content related to
any colleagues, competitors, customers, suppliers or other third parties including their
personal details on any internet site or social media without their prior consent. Further,
no employee of the bank without obtaining prior written approval from his/her
controller shall express/forward any view on any internet site or social media about the
working of State Bank of India or the business of State Bank of India or generally about
the State Bank of India or any of its officials. Further, every employee shall be
personally responsible for the content he or she publishes/forwards in any form on
social media.
Thus, we can prima facie hold that the charges framed against the appellant is for
violation of the code of conduct under which there is a specific prohibition for any
employee to express anything in the internet site or social media that may damage the
reputation of the bank or any of its employees. If that be the case then the remedy of the
appellant lies before the Industrial Tribunal and not by way of a writ petition. Apart
from that the correctness of the findings of the enquiry officer and the ultimate order of
punishment as well as the order passed by the appellant authority, if to be tested,
requires evidence to be considered which obviously cannot be done in a writ petition
which is based on affidavits. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in refusing to
entertain the writ petition and relegating the appellant to avail remedy provided under
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For the above reasons, we find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed and the stay application stands closed.
We make it clear that whatever view expressed in this judgment and order will
in no manner prejudice the appellant while exercising the remedy available under the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the event the appellant approaches
the Industrial Tribunal by way of an appropriate application, the learned Tribunal shall
consider the case based on the oral and documentary evidence that may be placed
uninfluenced by any observations made in this judgment and order or the
observations/findings rendered by the learned Single Judge.
(T.S SIVAGNANAM)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)
S.Das/
AR[CR]
