Calcutta High Court refuses back wages to PNB clerk, says errant bank staff can cause entire system collapse 

“An errant employee of the bank cannot and ought not to be permitted to make a dent on the relationship between a customer and the banker, or else the entire banking system will collapse,” Justice Sinha said on May 20.

Justice Amrita Sinha said the enquiry report reveals that the act of the petitioner was held to be prejudicial to the interest of the bank.

The order added that the bank employees deal with public money, and their integrity has to be unquestionable. It continued that the faith of the general public in a bank where they deposit their finances and other valuable articles is required to be kept intact.

‘Petitioner ought not to feel that he was deprived of justice’

• The fact that the petitioner was serving as a general clerk, who would fall under the expression of ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as claimed by the bank, is not disputed by the petitioner.
• The bank contends that the petition at the instance of the workman will not be maintainable; whereas, the petitioner contends that the petition by the workman will not be ipso facto barred.
  According to the petitioner, he has a right to choose between the tribunal and the writ court. The petitioner opted to approach the court.
• In view of the fact that the petitioner is a septuagenarian claiming his terminal dues, rejecting his writ petition filed in July 2024 by remanding him to the tribunal for adjudication of his disputes may not be an efficacious remedy available to him.
• The proceedings before the tribunal may consume some time for adjudication.
• At such an advanced age, it may not be easy for the petitioner to proceed with his case from scratch.
• The petitioner ought not to feel that he was deprived of justice.
• Further delay in the disposal of his case, which was initiated by the issuance of a charge sheet way back in 1996, will not be proper.
• Accordingly, to put a quietus to the dispute, the court is minded to dispose of the petition on the merits.

‘Petitioner was held to be prejudicial to interest of bank’

• The petitioner heavily relies on the fact that none of the consumers of the bank deposed against him in the departmental proceeding, and no financial loss was caused to the bank.
• The disciplinary authority was of the clear view that funds were withdrawn by the petitioner from the customers’ account against fictitious credit given by him.
• The funds were the bank’s funds and not the customers’ funds, which were involved.
• Material management exhibits revealed that the petitioner admitted in an unequivocal and unconditional manner to the act which was committed by him.
• The bank clearly held that mere replenishment of funds which were fraudulently withdrawn by him does not absolve him of the charges levelled against him.
• The bank contends that the petitioner committed fraud on the bank by forging the signatures of account holders.
• He even went to the extent of removing the original ledger sheets of the concerned ledger after making fake credit entries and replacing them with new sheets.
• It is seen from the records that the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity of hearing to defend himself.
• On a perusal of the enquiry report, it is crystal clear that several charges were levelled against the petitioner.
• The act of the petitioner was held to be prejudicial to the interest of the bank.

Allegations of cheating, forgery and dismissal

The petitioner was serving as a general clerk in the Punjab National Bank (PNB), formerly known as United Bank of India (UBI), currently merged with the Punjab National Bank. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him, and he was placed under suspension with effect from 10th November, 1994. Subsistence allowance was paid to him.

The charge sheet was issued on January 30, 1996, and an enquiry was conducted, and the petitioner was provided an opportunity to defend himself. The enquiry report was submitted on June 19, 1998.

The disciplinary authority subsequently dismissed the petitioner from service on March 25, 1999,  without notice, after the enquiry proved charges of tampering with bank accounts and forging customer signatures.

Parallel to these proceedings, the bank filed a police complaint in 1995, leading to a criminal trial under various sections of the IPC, which included Section 409 (criminal breach of trust) and Section 420 (cheating).

In February 2010, the special court acquitted the petitioner, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges “beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt”.

In 2012, the petitioner filed a plea alleging non-disposal of his appeal. The petition was heard and disposed of by the court on August 14, 2023, directing the competent appellate authority to consider and dispose of the appeal within four months by passing a reasoned order after giving the petitioner the opportunity of hearing and allowing the petitioner to rely upon relevant documents in support of his defence.

Petitioner’s stand

Appearing for the petitioner, advocates Sudeep Sanyal, Tutun Das, and Ketaki Ghosh submitted that the departmental proceeding ought to have been kept in abeyance till the disposal of the criminal case.

It has been contended that the employer deliberately proceeded with the disciplinary proceeding and passed the order of dismissal on surmises and conjectures. They submitted that none of the persons whose bank accounts were alleged to have been tampered with by the petitioner ever affirmed such allegation in the criminal proceeding.

The petitioner alleges bias on the part of the employer. It has been argued that the findings in the departmental enquiry are not based on any evidence. Absurd evidence or no evidence cannot substitute for the truth.