‘Choice of faith protected’: Calcutta High Court sets aside premature retirement of bank officer amid discrimination claim

“Equally fundamental is the guarantee under Article 25, which secures to every individual the freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion. The petitioner’s assertion regarding change of religion, whether arising from personal conviction or otherwise, falls squarely within the protective ambit of this constitutional guarantee. No adverse administrative consequence can be predicated upon an individual’s choice of faith,” the May 5 order said.

Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay heard the matter on May 5.

“The merger of the respondent bank with Punjab National Bank does not abdicate its responsibilities in dealing with the service records of the petitioner in its proper statutory perspective,” the Calcutta High Court added.

Allegation related to caste and religion

• The court reiterated that constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15 and 25 are not ornamental declarations but enforceable mandates. 
• The Calcutta High Court observed that no administrative action can be sustained if it is based on discrimination against a person’s conscience and religion.
• It found that although there was no conclusive material on record to establish that the decision was tainted by discrimination, it held that such allegations demand fairness and transparency.
• The court said that the petitioner’s assertion regarding change of religion, whether arising from personal conviction or otherwise, falls squarely within the protective ambit of this constitutional guarantee under Article 25 of the Constitution.
• The Calcutta High Court stated that no adverse administrative consequence can be predicated upon an individual’s choice of faith. 
• It emphasised that the state and its authorities are constitutionally obligated to maintain neutrality in matters of religion and to ensure that no discrimination, direct or indirect, takes place.
• The court said that such allegations impose a heightened duty upon the administrative authority to act with scrupulous fairness, transparency and objectivity. Failure to adhere to such standards undermines the credibility of the decision-making.

Must justify premature retirement: HC

The Calcutta High Court observed that the case required a careful balance between administrative discretion and the inviolable discipline of law. 

The matter before the court was not merely upon the validity of an order of premature retirement, but whether the bank exercised its power fairly and transparently under the service regulation, within the constitutional fidelity.

The granting of an employee’s retirement on his last day of the month in which he attains the age of superannuation is a normative standard of uniformity; any deviation from this must be justified with compelling reasons, the Calcutta High Court said.

‘Premature retirement’

• The petitioner had joined the respondent authority – United Bank of India (at present Punjab National Bank) on April 1, 1981. 
• The petitioner rose to the position of senior manager and asserted his service record remained satisfactory throughout. 
• However, his otherwise stable service tenure was brought to an abrupt and unjustified cessation by the respondent authorities under circumstances of arbitrariness and premeditated intent. 
• The petitioner alleged that he had to sustain racial and caste-based discrimination at the workplace.
• Originally belonging to a Dalit community, he was allegedly subjected to systemic humiliation and exclusion, which compelled him to embrace Islam.
• He alleged that he became a victim of targeted harassment because he exposed the bank’s internal irregularities and corruption, thereby inviting retaliatory measures cloaked as administrative action. 
• A premature retirement order was issued under Regulation 19(1) of the United Bank of India (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979. 
• The procedure adopted by the respondent bank, whereby a special committee allegedly recommended premature retirement which was then accepted by a competent authority, was asserted to be an impermissible deviation from the statutory scheme, rendering the entire action void ab initio (void from the beginning).
• The memorandum dated March 22, 2016, directed premature retirement with immediate effect and was accompanied by a pay order of Rs 1,83,904.94, representing three months’ salary, instead of notice after deduction of TDS.
• Despite a specific request on April 18, 2016, seeking disclosure of the recommendation and the materials forming its basis, the respondent authorities rejected the request on April 20, 2016, on vague and untenable grounds. 
• The aforementioned denial deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to contest the decision.
• While the petitioner’s matter was pending before the board of directors, the authorities initiated processing his provident fund and pension benefits, and a memorandum dated June 8, 2016, sought completion of formalities for the disbursement of the provident fund.
• Through a communication on June 6, 2016, his representation before the board was rejected by the authority.

‘Institutional discipline, indispensable’

• The Calcutta High Court said that institutional discipline and decorum are indispensable to the function of any public authority, more so in a financial institution entrusted with public confidence. 
• An ample discipline, one occupying a responsible position, is expected to maintain a conduct befitting the office, it highlighted.
• The court observed that if the petitioner had indeed engaged in a pattern of communications couched in offensive, intemperate or unsubstantiated language, it would certainly justify corrective administrative attention.
• However, there is an obvious distinction between misconduct warranting disciplinary action and unsuitability justifying premature retirement in the public interest, the Calcutta High Court added.
• The court stated that service regulation 19(1) is not designed to serve as a substitute for disciplinary proceedings, and it is not an instrument disguised to expel the employee without adhering to the procedural safeguards.
• It mentioned that unless there is material on record to demonstrate the incapacity of the employee or institutional inconvenience, mere frustration, however genuine, cannot be elevated to a legal precinct for the exercise of statutory power.
• The Calcutta High Court observed that while it does not condone the use of abusive or intemperate language in official communications, mere administrative displeasure or frustration, without an objective assessment under the law, cannot be a valid ground for invoking premature retirement. 
• The scope of judicial review is confined to examining the legality of the process, but where the process is vitiated by arbitrariness, non-application of mind, violation of natural justice or deviation from statutory provisions, judicial intervention becomes not only permissible but necessary to uphold the rule of law.
• Accordingly, the Calcutta High Court set aside the order of premature retirement, along with all consequential and appellate orders, noting that the case stands as a reaffirmation of the principle that administrative discretion, however wide, must operate within the disciplined confines of legality, fairness and constitutional morality. 

Employee’s contentions

• Advocate M R Sarbadhikari, appearing for the petitioner, challenged the very foundation of the decision-making process by contending that the special committee had no authority to “recommend” premature retirement, as the regulation contemplated only a “review”. 
• In addition to the retirement, the petitioner had brought forth grievances relating to the denial of legitimate service dues, including stagnation of increment due in June 2012 and medical aid allowance for 2015.
• It was contended that, despite repeated representations, the aforementioned denial was arbitrary and reflective of continued hostility. His housing loan facility was also discontinued, causing financial hardship.
• The counsel argued that the respondent’s action was not a mere violation of service rules but also an infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
• It was submitted that from August 6, 2015, the respondent bank premeditatedly tried to discharge him from service on the pretext that he was mentally unfit, which was contradictory to the medical report.
• It was mentioned that the petitioner was never charged with misconduct or disciplinary proceedings throughout his tenure, even though he had four years left before his retirement date of Match 31, 2020.
• He was discharged from service prematurely on March 22, 2016, without disclosing the procedure and effective date determined by the authority.
• The counsel drew attention towards the arbitrariness, wherein the petitioner was singled out to be ineligible to continue service, and his representations before the board were rejected.
• The order dated March 22, 2016, together with all consequential actions, was vitiated by patent illegality, violation of statutory provisions, breach of natural justice and constitutional infirmity, warranting the court’s interference in the petitioner’s favour, the counsel said.

‘Decision in accordance with applicable service regulations’

The respondents’ counsel, advocates R N Majumder and S M Obaidullah, strongly opposed the petition, arguing that the action was neither arbitrary nor de hors (outside the legal framework), but was a valid exercise of power in accordance with the applicable service regulations. 

It was submitted that the petitioner, initially inducted into the services of the former United Bank of India and subsequently elevated to the position of senior manager, had over a considerable period exhibited a pattern of conduct wholly inconsistent with the discipline and decorum expected of an officer of a nationalised bank. 

It was urged that he was in the habitual practice of using derogatory and intemperate language while communicating with public authorities, and such communication was borne out of his imagination and suspicion against his colleagues and the workplace.

He also added that due to such aforementioned events, the bank, having institutional integrity, was concerned about the petitioner’s mental composure and fitness to continue the service, and because of this, the competent authority deemed it appropriate to subject the petitioner to a mental assessment. 

The review committee, upon consideration of the petitioner’s overall performance, including adverse remarks regarding unsatisfactory discharge of duties, concurred with the medical findings and formed the opinion that the petitioner was no longer fit to be retained in service. 

On the special committee’s written recommendation, the competent authority ordered the petitioner’s premature retirement, accompanied by payment of three months’ salary in lieu of notice, as mandated under the regulations. 

It was submitted that the merger of United Bank of India with Punjab National Bank, with effect from April 1, 2020, had no bearing on the legality of the impugned action.