In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court emphasized that adverse remarks on an employee’s integrity must be substantiated by conclusive findings in disciplinary proceedings. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, held that a person who has earned reputation cannot be ousted through imposition of a stigma on the basis of perverse findings. This decision stems from the case Shri Rajat Kumar Varshney v. Central Bank of India & Ors. (Case No. FMA 327 of 2024 with IA No. CAN 2 of 2023), highlighting key principles of fairness in employee disciplinary actions.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, appointed as a Branch Manager at the Central Bank of India on 29.03.2010, faced allegations of irregularities in his savings account, his wife’s account, and ten loan accounts under the Swami Vivekananda Swanirbhar Karmasansthan Prakalpa (SVSKP) scheme. A notice was issued on 26.03.2015, followed by a charge sheet on 15.10.2015 under Regulations 3 and 24 of the Central Bank of India Officers’ Conduct Regulations and Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976. As a result, the Central Bank of India suspended the petitioner on 31.03.2015 and lodged a criminal complaint, registered as FIR No. 402 of 2015. The petitioner secured anticipatory bail on 21.09.2015.
Disciplinary Proceedings and Findings
During the disciplinary proceedings, the Inquiry Authority (IA) concluded that only Charge No. 1 was partially proved, while Charges 2, 3, and most parts of Charge 4 were not substantiated. However, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) overruled the IA, deeming Charge No. 1 fully proved and parts of Charge 4 partly or fully proved, resulting in the petitioner’s dismissal. The Appellate Authority (AA) upheld this penalty on 03.11.2016.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition, leading to a Single Judge modifying the dismissal to a minor penalty but making adverse observations about the petitioner’s integrity. This prompted the petitioner to appeal for the removal of these remarks, while the Bank appealed against the penalty reduction.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the ₹25,000 transferred to his wife’s account was done in consonance with the terms of the loan transaction and to avoid payment by cash. It was not an act of misappropriation, as it was a genuine transaction routed on behalf of a vendor, who had confirmed the receipt and issued an acknowledgment. The petitioner further contended that the IA’s findings, which found no misappropriation and only partially proved one charge, were disregarded by the DA without sufficient reasoning. The AA’s affirmation lacked independent evaluation. Additionally, the petitioner challenged the Single Judge’s remarks that ‘the writ petitioner’s honesty and integrity are found to be very much questionable,’ arguing these could jeopardize his career and future prospects.
Calcutta High Court’s Verdict
The Division Bench ruled that the reduction of the penalty from dismissal to a minor penalty by the Single Judge was justified. The court allowed the petitioner’s appeal, expunging the adverse remarks on his integrity, and dismissed the Bank’s appeal. The ruling underscores that disciplinary actions must be backed by robust evidence and reasoned decisions to avoid unjustly tarnishing an employee’s reputation.
Case Details and Representation
- Case Name: Shri Rajat Kumar Varshney v. Central Bank of India & Ors.
- Case No.: FMA 327 of 2024 with IA No. CAN 2 of 2023
- Counsel for the Petitioner: Indranil Chakraborty, Apurba Ghosh, Apurna Ghosh, Baskar Pal
- Counsel for the Respondents: Devajyoti Barman, S.K. Sengupta
Implications of the Ruling
This judgment reinforces the importance of due process in disciplinary proceedings, ensuring that penalties and remarks on an employee’s character are based on conclusive evidence. It serves as a precedent for protecting employees from arbitrary or biased decisions that could harm their professional standing.
For more insights into employee rights and disciplinary proceedings, stay updated with legal news and court rulings.