Back
Mere Possession of Bank Stamps and Passbooks Isn't Misconduct Without Proven Harm: Calcutta HC Reinforces Worker Rights
In a significant ruling for banking sector employees, the 's Division Bench dismissed an by , upholding a Single Judge's order for the of dismissed workman Sri Jyotirmoy Basu. Justices Lanusungkum Jamir and Rai Chattopadhyay emphasized that banks cannot terminate employees solely for holding official stationery at home—without evidence of actual damage to business or reputation.
From Branch Transfer to Bedroom Raid: The Unexpected Twist
Jyotirmoy Basu joined 's Bhawanipur branch in and was transferred to Ballygunge in . On , a police raid at his residence—linked to unrelated criminal conspiracy allegations—uncovered a Bhawanipur branch rubber stamp, blank letterheads, and passbooks from his bedroom almirah. Basu was arrested briefly, released on bail, and later acquitted in the criminal case.
The bank issued a chargesheet on
, alleging
under
for
"doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank."
A departmental enquiry in 2002 found him guilty of unauthorized possession for 11 months. In
, the Disciplinary Authority removed him from service (with superannuation benefits), a decision upheld on appeal in
.
An industrial dispute led to the awarding Rs. 2 lakh lump-sum compensation in —paid by the bank in 2021. Dissatisfied, Basu filed WPA No. 16216 of 2021. The Single Judge, on , declared the termination illegal, set aside the compensation, and ordered reinstatement with back wages. The bank appealed (MAT 737 of 2025), heard on , with judgment on .
Bank's Defense: Likelihood of Misuse Equals Prejudice?
argued the 11-month unauthorized possession during a raid signaled potential misuse, inherently prejudicial regardless of actual harm. They stressed the domestic enquiry's independence from criminal acquittal, noting the tribunal implicitly upheld it by only reducing punishment. Citing , they urged non-interference once enquiry validity is affirmed, and for compensation as a valid alternative to reinstatement.
As reported in legal updates, the bank highlighted no prior intimation of the items' possession, dismissing Basu's "mistaken carryover during transfer" claim as untenable.
Workman's Rebuttal: No Witnesses, No Proof, No Fairness
Basu countered that the enquiry was flawed: only a single preliminary session with no key witnesses examined, ignored submissions, and no appellate hearing. His acquittal undermined the charges, and mere possession without misuse evidence fell short of Clause 19.5(j). He cited precedents like on enquiry fairness, on , and for full relief in illegal terminations.
Court Draws the Line: Possession Alone Doesn't Prove Prejudice
The Division Bench dissected Clause 19.5(j), holding the charge required proof of
, not just possession. Despite admitted recovery,
"no evidence has come on record to show that... the respondent holding the bank’s properties... has caused any prejudice either to the bank’s business or its reputation."
Basu's transfer-related explanation stood unrebutted.
Rejecting the bank's "likelihood" argument, the court noted authorities wrongly equated possession with prejudice sans
"fact or figure or material."
It upheld the Single Judge absent "
," distinguishing departmental from criminal proceedings but insisting on enquiry rigor. Respondent's cited cases on procedural fairness (e.g.,
) reinforced this.
Key Observations from the Bench
"To prove the charge, the appellant had to show any action done on part of the delinquent which ultimately stands as prejudicial to the interest of the bank. Admittedly... no evidence has come on record to show that... has caused any prejudice..."
"Mere recovery of those materials from the residence and exclusive custody of the respondent makes him liable for the misconduct... However, in no certain terms the appellant has ever produced any fact or figure or material... as regards the prejudice, if any..."
"This Court is unable to find any such gross, apparent andin the same..."
Back to Work: Adjusted Reinstatement Seals the Deal
The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Single Judge with a tweak: adjust prior superannuation benefits and Rs. 2 lakh compensation against back wages. This 2026 verdict, after a 26-year saga, signals banks must substantiate harm in misconduct cases, potentially easing reinstatement for long-served employees. It cautions against overreach in disciplinary actions, prioritizing evidence over suspicion— a win for labour rights in India's banking disputes.
