SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Cal) 333

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.
 
Indranath Mukherjee – Appellant
Versus
United Commercial Bank (UCO Bank) & Ors. – Respondent
WPA 6755 of 2018
Decided On : 22-07-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : : Mr. Kallol Basu, Mr. Samik Sarkar
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Pal Choudhary, Ms. Shilpi Paul.

Unintentional mistakes by employees do not constitute misconduct if they lack malice and do not result in financial loss, emphasizing the necessity of proportionality in disciplinary action.

Headnote:(A) Disciplinary Action Procedure - Charge-sheet dated 29.08.2013 - Dismissal from service on grounds of gross misconduct for negligence during account verification procedure - The petitioner denied allegations, asserting the act was unintentional and did not result in financial loss. (Paras 1-5, 30-36)

(B) Judicial Review - Scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings emphasizes illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety. Courts must ensure fairness and proportionality in punishment. (Paras 13-14)

(C) Misconduct - Misconduct requires malicious intent; mere negligence or unintentional mistakes do not constitute misconduct - The findings of the Enquiry Officer were found legally unsustainable. (Paras 23-24, 40-44)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a bank employee, was accused of misconduct related to account verification shortly before retirement. He contended the charges were unsubstantiated and arose from an unintentional mistake, asserting that no financial loss occurred.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled the charge-sheet and consequent dismissal were based on an unintentional mistake, emphasizing the absence of malice and loss to the bank, and ordered reinstatement with terminal benefits.

Issues: The main issues were the maintainability of the writ petition, the definition of misconduct, and the proportionality of the punishment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held the act in question did not amount to misconduct since it lacked malice and did not cause harm to the bank. The punishment of dismissal was deemed shockingly disproportionate.

Result: Charge-sheet and dismissal set aside; all terminal benefits to be disbursed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to the legality and justifiability of disciplinary actions. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner's defense against allegations of misconduct. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. disciplinary authority's findings and proposed penalties. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. judicial review scope in administrative actions. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
5. definition and scope of misconduct. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
6. unintentional mistakes vs. gross negligence. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
7. legal sustainability of disciplinary actions and disproportionate punishment. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
8. final order set aside and direction for terminal benefits. (Para 45 , 46)

Judgment :

Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.

Preface:

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the legality and justifiability of the charge-sheet dated 29.08.2013, the enquiry report, the final order of punishment dated 28.09.2013 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service, and the appellate order dated 31.12.2014 affirming the said punishment. The petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the aforementioned documents. Additionally, the petitioner prays for an appropriate order, or direction or a writ, particularly in the nature of mandamus, directing the concerned respondents to release and pay all terminal benefits lawfully due to the petitioner.

2. Before delving into the contours of the controversy, it would be prudent to first set out the essential facts that led to the filing of the present writ petition, which are as follows:

i) The petitioner joined United Commercial Bank (hereinafter referred to as "UCO Bank") on 27.03.1981 as a Clerk. Over the years, he was promoted from time to time, and was lastly posted at the Hastings Branch of the Bank on 09.06.2012. In the year2013, he was serving as a Special Assistant at the said branch.

ii) On 29th August 2013, approximately one month prior to his scheduled date of retirement, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 29.08.2013, containing the following allegation:

“One Current Account no. 02770210000892 in the name of Global Construction was introduced by Shri Tapas Kumar Banerjee (SWO-B) using his consumer ID no. 204591744, which is of M/s. A.S. Construction. You verified the same. Due to this modification and the fact that account opening form does not contain the signature of Branch Head, the account opening form was replaced with a fresh one at a later stage. Thus, the original account opening form was removed bearing introduction of the account by Shri Tapas Kumar Banerjee (SWO-B) and signature of the Branch Head and substituted it with another account opening form being introduction by M/s A.S. Construction without signature of Branch Head.

The above allegation constitutes Gross Misconduct on your part as under: -

Doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank, or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the Bank in serious loss, in terms of clause 5(j) of the Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action Procedure for Workmen signed between Indian Bank‟s Association and Workmen Unions on 10.04.2002 and circulated by the Bank vide Circular no. CHO/PAS/07/2002 dated 21.06.2002, as amended.”

iii) In his written statement of defence, the petitioner contended that the current account of Global Construction Company was opened on 25.09.2012, shortly after he had joined the Hastings Branch. The account was opened by one Mr. Tapas Kumar Banerjee and was authorised by Mr. Sitangshu Chowdhury, a Scale-II Officer, who was then serving as the Branch Manager. The petitioner submitted that, as per bank norms, a current account can only be opened upon the introduction of an existing current account holder. In this case, the account of Global Construction Company was introduced by Mr. Tapas Banerjee, an SWO-B. The petitioner categorically denied having any role in the opening of the said account and assert

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top