Failure to Examine Complainant in Departmental Inquiry Can Render It a 'Case of No Evidence': Gujarat High Court - 2025-09-04

Gujarat High Court Upholds Reinstatement of Bank Employee, Cites Bank's Failure to Examine Key Witnesses in Disciplinary Probe

Ahmedabad, Gujarat – The Gujarat High Court, in a significant ruling on disciplinary proceedings, has dismissed an appeal by the Bank of India, upholding the reinstatement of a compulsorily retired employee. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice R. T. Vachhani concluded that the bank's failure to examine the original complainant and the inquiry officer rendered the case one of "no evidence," despite a protracted legal battle spanning over two decades.

The Court affirmed the findings of the Labour Tribunal and a Single Judge, emphasizing that when a party asserting facts fails to produce its most vital witnesses, the entire proceeding's credibility is thrown into doubt.

Case Background: A 20-Year Legal Saga

The matter originated from an incident on March 5, 2002, where an officer of the Bank of India, Mr. Rakesh D. Dogra, filed a complaint against a fellow employee (an Account Clerk), alleging physical assault and threats. This led to a departmental inquiry, which found the employee guilty. Consequently, the bank's Disciplinary Authority ordered his compulsory retirement on November 11, 2002.

The employee challenged this punishment before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), which in 2013 set aside the inquiry, citing violations of natural justice. The bank's subsequent challenges before a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the High Court were dismissed, though the bank was granted an opportunity in 2015 to adduce fresh evidence before the Tribunal to prove the misconduct.

In 2016, the Tribunal, after re-evaluating the matter, ordered the employee's reinstatement with full back wages. The bank challenged this award, and a Single Judge in January 2025 upheld the reinstatement and back wages but set aside the direction to recover the amount from the bank's officers. The present Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the bank against this order.

Arguments Before the Court

Bank of India's Stance: The bank, represented by Advocate Dharmesh Devnani, argued that the Tribunal and the Single Judge had erred by applying the standard of proof required in a criminal trial ("proof beyond a reasonable doubt") to a departmental inquiry, where the standard is "preponderance of probability." It was contended that the evidence of other witnesses was sufficient to prove the charges and that the non-examination of the complainant, Mr. Dogra, was not fatal to their case. The bank asserted its right to terminate an employee in whom it had lost faith due to misconduct.

The Employee's Defence: The employee, appearing as a party-in-person, countered that the bank had miserably failed to utilize the opportunity given by the High Court in 2015 to prove its case with fresh evidence. He pointed out that not only was the complainant, Mr. Dogra, never produced for examination, but the bank also failed to examine the inquiry officer. Furthermore, the two witnesses the bank did examine did not fully support the bank's version of the incident, effectively making it a case of "no evidence."

High Court's Decisive Reasoning

The Division Bench systematically dismantled the bank's arguments, focusing on the fundamental flaws in the disciplinary proceedings conducted before the Tribunal. The Court highlighted several undisputed facts that sealed the case's fate:

“Two vital witnesses on the basis of whose stance, the entire gamut of the case of the appellant – Bank rests; were not examined, which throws doubt on the credence and stance of the appellant – Bank,” the judgment noted.

The Court observed that the failure to examine the complainant, Mr. Rakesh Dogra, and the Inquiry Officer, Mr. P.J. Naik, was a critical lapse. This omission, the Bench stated, "smacks doubt as to the credence of the evidence, which not only lacks substance; but also creates a doubt."

The judgment underscored a pivotal legal principle:

“The party who asserts particular facts, the burden lies on him to prove the same so far as it pertains to the departmental inquiry and the same can be proved by observing the principles of preponderance of probabilities.”

However, the Court clarified that the bank had failed to meet even this lower standard of proof. The evidence adduced was deemed insufficient, and the witnesses who were examined did not substantiate the charges.

Dismissing the bank’s "loss of faith" argument, the Court remarked that such a claim holds no water in a "case of no evidence." It also pointed out that despite the alleged incident occurring in an open banking hall, no independent witnesses or nearby colleagues were examined by the bank.

Final Verdict and Implications

Finding no merit in the appeal, the High Court dismissed it, thereby confirming the judgment of the Single Judge and the award of the Tribunal reinstating the employee. The Court decided against remanding the matter, given the extensive time that has already passed since the incident in 2002.

This judgment serves as a strong reminder for employers that while departmental inquiries are not bound by the strict rules of evidence applicable in criminal trials, they must adhere to the principles of natural justice and meet the basic threshold of proof. The failure to produce key witnesses, especially the complainant, can prove fatal to the employer's case and lead to the entire disciplinary action being overturned.