He foiled Rs 40 lakh gunpoint robbery, bank must reward ‘brave’ manager: Delhi High Court

“It is the resilience of the petitioner, who undaunted by the arduous task of fighting the mighty system, has taken the respondent by the horns, and has not let the time discourage him in his fight for right. The question herein, is not of money, but of the honour, which should have come to him, on its own, without litigation. In the circumstances as detailed above, it is evident that the Petitioner, who has been driven to assert his entitlements from 1998 till the filing of the Petition and even thereafter, cannot be compensated enough by any amount of money” the September 10 order read.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna was acting on the plea of the bank manager who had requested and had been recommended for “out-of-turn” promotion as per the 1991 guidelines of the Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division), regarding “Compensation to bank employees who actively resist bank robberies and terrorist attacks on banks” but was denied by the bank.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna was acting on the plea of the bank manager who had requested and had been recommended for “out-of-turn” promotion as per the 1991 guidelines of the Department of Economic Affairs.

‘High-risk branch’

Being a “high-risk branch”, two armed guards were provided for the safety of the bank and the customers.

On the fateful day of December 28, 1998, at about 1 pm, an “unprecedented incident” of robbery occurred at the bank when five robbers carrying automatic weapons entered the bank and ordered the 40 customers present in the bank to hide under the counters. Two of the five robbers then went to the receiving cashier and asked him to put all the money in their bag, who did as told and put Rs 40 lakh cash in the bag.

Rather than trying to stop the robbers, the armed guards surrendered themselves, handed over their weapons and allowed the robbers “a free hand in looting the cash from the bank”. The cabin in which the manager was sitting was also surrounded by the robbers, but he picked up the telephone to seek help. However, on seeing him do so, the robbers broke the glass of the cabin.

Because of the timely action of the manager, he was able to telephone for help and, “though in the process, the dacoits had pointed a revolver at him”, the manager, without caring for the threat to his life, pressed the ’emergency alarm button’, which sounded the alarm, which made the robbers panic and they ran towards the door.

The manager then pushed the door and blocked the way to save the cash from being stolen by the robbers. The bag fell on the floor and the cash got scattered because of which the robbers were only able to take Rs 75,000 out of Rs 40 lakh in the bag.

For saving valuable public money, the manager was “lauded by the Police, television and other media, and his superiors, who also recommended him for the award as well as out-of-turn promotion”, according to the Government of India guideline of 1991, which talks about compensation to bank employees who actively resist bank robberies and terrorist attacks on banks. 

The General Manager of Punjab & Sind Bank sent a letter on January 17, 2000, to the bank recommending the manager’s name for the award. Even the manager himself wrote a number of letters to the bank for grant of the award, but the request was denied by the bank for vague reasons. The All India PSB Officers Union also requested the bank to award him compensation for his “exemplary act of bravery”, but no reply was received from the bank. 

Subsequently, the manager sent a legal notice to the bank, to which it replied that the request of the manager for compensation and reward was denied, as he was not “involved in actively resisting the robbery”. Therefore, the manager filed a plea in the high court.

‘Performing his duty’

The bank, represented by advocates Rajat Arora and Niraj Kumar, submitted that, being the manager of the branch, it was the man’s duty to act in the interest of the Bank, because of which he had pressed the alarm button and the robbers panicked and ran away. The bank contended that the act of the manager could not be called “an act of bravery”, as he was only “performing his duty”.

Regarding the 1991 government guidelines, the bank stated that they were “Merely Guidelines, which prescribe out-of-turn promotion to persons who successfully foil the robbery attempt, subject to satisfying the minimum conditions of eligibility” and the manager could not be considered for any out-of-turn promotion. 

‘Commitment and courage’

The high court observed that the case was “Not a scene from a movie or a chapter in a book” and that a day light robbery was “foiled” by the manager, who “Emerged as the hero of the entire incident, but unfortunately was pushed into anonymity and red-tapism of the bureaucratic procedures”.

“the courage inspired by the dedication and concern for the safety of the customers and the cash attempted to be robbed, needs to be acknowledged, given the fact that any resistance as shown by the petitioner, could have triggered the robbers to shoot the petitoner (the manager). What would have then followed, is probably a posthumous Commendatory Certificate and few words of empty sympathy to the family members”.

Observing the facts, the court was of the view that out of fear for his life the manager could have also surrendered like the other bank officials and security guards, but it was his “commitment, courage and presence of mind” that helped him to resist the robbery. Further the court stated that it was simple to say that only a hooter button was pressed by the manager, but “he did so, despite the risk of being shot by the robbers”.

The high court held that the actions of the manager constituted active resistance to the robbery, within the meaning of the 1991 guidelines and that the “system needs to apologise to him for such indifference and callousness shown to him” as he was made to “suffer the litigation for over 28 years”.

The court further noted that “the question herein, is not of money, but of the honour, which should have come to him (the manager), on its own, without litigation. In the circumstances as detailed above, it is evident that the Petitioner, who has been driven to assert his entitlements from 1998 till the filing of the Petition and even thereafter, cannot be compensated enough by any amount of money“.