Introduction:

The Gujarat High Court, in Zonal Manager, Bank of India v. Presiding Officer & Anr., Letters Patent Appeal No. 330 of 2025, upheld the reinstatement of a Bank of India employee who had been compulsorily retired in 2002 following allegations of assault and misconduct. The Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice R.T. Vachhani dismissed the Bank’s appeal, observing that the penalty imposed was excessive, suffered from mala fides, and amounted to victimization and unfair labour practice. The ruling reaffirmed the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (CGIT), Ahmedabad’s 2016 award that had ordered reinstatement with consequential benefits. The Court noted that the case lacked substantial evidence, with crucial witnesses not examined, and concluded that the incident was, at best, a heated exchange between colleagues rather than one warranting the severe punishment of compulsory retirement.

Arguments of the Bank:

The Bank of India, represented through its counsel, argued that the employee’s misconduct was grave enough to justify compulsory retirement. It submitted that the employee, appointed as an Account Clerk in 1977, had in 2002 allegedly assaulted and threatened a staff officer, Rakesh Dogra, thereby violating discipline within the workplace. A departmental inquiry was conducted, and charges were found proved, leading to the penalty of compulsory retirement on 11 November 2002. The Bank contended that the inquiry followed due process, and the decision was upheld by the appellate authority in 2003. The Bank further argued that the Tribunal and Single Judge erred by applying standards akin to a criminal trial, requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, whereas departmental inquiries are governed by the principle of preponderance of probabilities. It claimed that the Tribunal wrongly interfered with the findings of the inquiry and failed to appreciate the evidence adduced. According to the Bank, once the Inquiry Officer had held charges proved, judicial bodies had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the sufficiency of evidence. It also challenged the Tribunal’s observation that the case amounted to harassment and victimization, asserting that disciplinary proceedings were carried out in good faith, with no mala fide intent. The Bank maintained that reinstatement with back wages would set a wrong precedent, undermining workplace discipline, and encouraging indiscipline among employees. It urged the Court to overturn the Tribunal’s award and uphold the compulsory retirement as a proportionate response to misconduct.

Arguments of the Employee:

The employee, on the other hand, defended the Tribunal’s award, arguing that the entire disciplinary process was perverse, arbitrary, and violative of natural justice. He highlighted that the departmental inquiry was fundamentally flawed because crucial witnesses, including the complainant Rakesh Dogra and even the Inquiry Officer, were not examined. The only two witnesses produced by the Bank failed to support its case, leaving no substantive evidence against him. The employee contended that what transpired was merely a heated exchange of words between colleagues, which could not be elevated to the level of assault or grave misconduct. He emphasized that the penalty of compulsory retirement, imposed for such a trivial incident, was shockingly disproportionate and indicative of mala fide action. He further submitted that the Tribunal and the Single Judge had correctly applied the principles of preponderance of probabilities, not criminal standards, in arriving at their conclusions. The employee also highlighted the long struggle he had endured since 2002, when he was unfairly removed from service, pointing out that the punitive action had deprived him of livelihood and dignity for years. He urged the Court to affirm the Tribunal’s award, including reinstatement and consequential benefits, as a means of correcting the injustice and restoring his professional reputation. He also supported the Tribunal’s view that the penalty reflected harassment, discrimination, and unfair labour practice by the Bank, which sought to victimise him rather than address a minor workplace dispute fairly.

Court’s Judgment:

After carefully examining the arguments, the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court upheld the Tribunal’s award and dismissed the Bank’s appeal. The Court began by noting the factual background: the employee’s appointment as an Account Clerk in 1977, the allegation of misconduct in 2002, his compulsory retirement, and the subsequent litigation before the Tribunal and High Court. It emphasized that the Tribunal had, after a fresh hearing, rightly concluded that the departmental inquiry was perverse and lacking in substantive evidence. The Court observed that the Bank had failed to examine key witnesses, including the complainant Dogra, who was central to the allegations. It also noted that the two witnesses presented by the Bank did not corroborate the charges, rendering the inquiry unreliable. The Bench held that the punishment of compulsory retirement in the absence of substantial evidence amounted to harassment, victimization, and unfair labour practice. Importantly, the Court clarified the standard of proof applicable in departmental inquiries, reiterating that while the principle of preponderance of probabilities applies, the burden of proof still lies on the party asserting the facts. In this case, the Bank had failed to discharge that burden adequately. The Court dismissed the Bank’s contention that the Tribunal had applied criminal standards of proof, observing that the Tribunal merely noted the insufficiency of evidence. The Court went on to observe that the penalty imposed was shockingly disproportionate to the nature of the alleged misconduct. Referring to the incident as, at most, a “heated exchange” between two employees, the Court held that imposing a major penalty such as compulsory retirement revealed mala fide intent and an abuse of disciplinary powers. The judges emphasized that awarding severe punishment in such trivial matters undermines the principles of fairness and encourages victimization, discrimination, and harassment in the workplace. The Bench also endorsed the Tribunal’s finding that the proceedings reflected unfair labour practice, noting that employees are entitled to protection against arbitrary and excessive disciplinary actions by employers. In conclusion, the Court found the Bank’s appeal “devoid of merits” and dismissed it, affirming the reinstatement of the employee with consequential benefits as directed by the Tribunal and upheld by the Single Judge. The judgment reflects the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring fairness in employment relations and curbing arbitrary exercises of power by employers. It underscores that disciplinary proceedings must be rooted in substantial evidence, fairness, and proportionality, failing which they are liable to be struck down as unfair labour practice.