Unintentional Mistake in Routine Work Without Mala Fide Intent is Not 'Misconduct' Justifying Dismissal: Calcutta High Court - 2025-09-13

Unintentional Mistake Without Malice Not 'Misconduct', Calcutta High Court Quashes Bank Employee's Dismissal

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling on service jurisprudence, has set aside the dismissal of a UCO Bank employee, holding that an "unintentional mistake committed in a routine manner" without any malicious intent or causing serious loss to the bank cannot be classified as 'gross misconduct'. Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee quashed the charge-sheet and all subsequent disciplinary orders against the petitioner, Indranath Mukherjee, who was dismissed just one month before his retirement.

Case Background

The petitioner, Indranath Mukherjee, a Special Assistant at UCO Bank's Hastings Branch, was served a charge-sheet in August 2013. He was accused of 'gross misconduct' under Clause 5(j) of the Memorandum of Settlement for verifying a modification to a customer's account. The modification, which changed the introducer's name, was initiated by another employee, Mr. Tapas Banerjee, who was later found to have acted with fraudulent intent and faced a separate disciplinary inquiry and criminal proceedings.

The petitioner had joined the bank in 1981 and was due to retire in September 2013. The bank proceeded with a departmental inquiry, which concluded that while Mukherjee had failed to exercise caution, there was no "mala fide intention" on his part and the mistake was "unintentional". Despite this finding, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) dismissed him from service. The decision was upheld by the Appellate Authority (AA).

Key Arguments

Petitioner's Submissions:

- Mr. Kallol Basu, representing the petitioner, argued that the act was an unintentional lapse devoid of any ill motive and did not cause any financial loss to the bank.

- He emphasized the Enquiry Officer's own finding that there was no mala fide intent, arguing that such an act cannot constitute 'misconduct' under the service rules.

- The punishment of dismissal, imposed just before retirement for an unintentional error, was contended to be "shockingly disproportionate."

UCO Bank's Submissions:

- Mr. S. Pal Choudhary, for the bank, argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner, being a 'workman', had an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act.

- He defended the disciplinary process, stating it was conducted fairly and that a writ court cannot re-appreciate evidence.

- The bank maintained that even negligence can have serious consequences in the banking sector, justifying the stringent penalty of dismissal.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee conducted a thorough analysis of the term 'misconduct' and the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters.

On 'Misconduct': The court extensively reviewed legal definitions and precedents, concluding that misconduct implies a wrongful intention, not a mere error of judgment. Citing various judgments, the court observed:

"Misconduct must stem from ill intent, and negligence or an innocent mistake cannot be considered misconduct... Every unintentional mistake or lapse in duty, particularly where it does not result in serious loss to the Bank, cannot automatically be treated as misconduct."

The judgment highlighted the Enquiry Officer's finding that the petitioner's mistake was "unintentional" and committed "in a routine manner." The court reasoned that this act did not fall under Clause 5(j) of the Settlement, as there was no evidence that it was prejudicial or likely to cause serious loss to the bank.

On Disproportionality of Punishment: The court found the punishment to be shockingly disproportionate. It noted the irony in the bank's actions:

"Although the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority, and Appellate Authority consistently found that the petitioner had committed a mere ‘unintentional mistake in the routine course of duty,’ the Disciplinary Authority nonetheless imposed the highest penalty by dismissing the petitioner from service."

The court also took a dim view of the bank's conduct in initiating proceedings seven months after the incident and just a month before the petitioner's retirement for an act that was deemed an unintentional mistake.

On Maintainability and Delay: The court overruled the bank's preliminary objections. It held that the petitioner, drawing a salary over Rs. 10,000 and holding a supervisory role as a Special Assistant, did not qualify as a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act. The delay in filing the writ petition was condoned, given the petitioner's financial constraints and his engagement in pursuing gratuity claims in another forum.

Final Order

Finding the entire disciplinary action legally unsustainable, the High Court set aside the charge-sheet dated 29.08.2013, the enquiry report, the dismissal order dated 28.09.2013, and the appellate order dated 31.12.2014.

The court directed UCO Bank to release all admissible terminal benefits to Mr. Mukherjee, treating the case as if no disciplinary proceeding had ever been initiated against him.