Employee's Admission in Writing Sufficient to Prove Misconduct; No Need to Examine Complainant: Madras High Court - 2025-08-01

Madras HC Upholds Dismissal of SBI Assistant, Rules Employee's Written Admission Sufficient to Prove Guilt

Chennai: The Madras High Court has upheld the dismissal of a State Bank of India (SBI) assistant, ruling that in a disciplinary inquiry, a written admission by the employee can be sufficient to prove misconduct, even if the primary complainant is not examined. Justice Dr. A.D. Maria Clete, in a judgment delivered on February 21, 2025, dismissed the writ petition filed by B. Sivaramalingam, who challenged a Labour Court award that had confirmed his termination for fraudulent activities.

The court emphasized that for a bank employee, who holds a position of trust, acts prejudicial to the bank's interest warrant strict action. The judgment puts an end to a two-decade-long legal battle over the employee's dismissal in 2004.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, B. Sivaramalingam, was an assistant at the SBI's Ramanathapuram branch. In 2002, he was suspended pending an inquiry into serious allegations of misconduct involving a customer's account.

The charges included: - Unauthorizedly closing a customer's Special Term Deposit Receipt (STDR). -

Fraudulently withdrawing ₹54,300 from the customer’s savings account for personal use. -

Forging an accountant's signature on a new STDR to cover up the transaction.

Following a domestic inquiry where he was found guilty, the bank dismissed him on April 27, 2004. After an unsuccessful appeal, the petitioner initiated a prolonged legal process, which included filing a writ petition that was later withdrawn, followed by raising an industrial dispute. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (CGIT) eventually dismissed his claim in 2015, leading to the present writ petition before the High Court.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Stance: The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Balan Haridas, argued that the entire disciplinary proceeding was vitiated because the bank failed to examine the customer, Smt. Sathiyabama, whose complaint initiated the inquiry. He contended that without the complainant's testimony, the charges were based on surmises and conjectures. He cited Supreme Court precedents like Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank , arguing that suspicion cannot substitute legal proof and that disciplinary authorities must provide reasoned orders based on admissible evidence.

Respondent Bank's Defence: Mr. S. Ravindran, Senior Advocate for SBI, countered that the petitioner's own handwritten admission, marked as Exhibit M9, was conclusive proof of his guilt. In the said letter, the petitioner had admitted to closing the STDR, withdrawing money, and giving a portion to the customer while keeping the balance for himself. The bank argued that the burden of proving that this admission was obtained under coercion lay with the petitioner, who failed to provide any evidence to support this claim.

The bank further relied on several Supreme Court rulings, including Janatha Bazar vs. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha , which held that in cases of proved misappropriation, the past record of an employee is irrelevant, and the employer's decision on punishment should not be lightly substituted by a court.

High Court's Analysis and Decision

Justice Maria Clete systematically analyzed the evidence and legal precedents. The court found that the petitioner’s challenge to the inquiry was misconceived. The judgment highlighted the significance of the petitioner’s written admission (Ex.M9).

“Since Exhibit M9, authored by the petitioner, stands proved, and there is no evidence to substantiate his allegation of coercion, no additional material is required to establish the petitioner's guilt of misconduct. The fact that the Respondent Bank did not examine the complainant is immaterial.”

The court distinguished the precedents cited by the petitioner, noting they were not applicable as the core issue here was the evidentiary value of the employee's own admission. The court observed that the employee had breached the trust reposed in him, an act categorized as "gross misconduct" under the bank's service rules.

“The charges leveled against the petitioner are serious, and the Petitioner has disqualified himself from being engaged in a bank that manages its customers' accounts. The scope for interfering with a finding of fact in a writ petition under Article 226 is limited.”

The court also dismissed the bank's preliminary objection regarding the time limit for raising the dispute, holding that the petitioner had been granted liberty by the High Court in 2011 to pursue the matter before the industrial forum.

Ultimately, finding no perversity or error in the Labour Court's award, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, thereby confirming the dismissal of the employee from service.