Mumbai: The Bombay High Court recently described a departmental enquiry by a nationalised bank as farcical, vitiated, and among the “worst of its kind,” with its findings deemed “perverse.” The HC set aside the dismissal of an employee on his last day on the job and directed his notional reinstatement from June 30, 2018. The bank also needs to compensate the employee “for the grave injustice,” the HC ruled, and directed Punjab National Bank to pay him Rs 5 lakh within a month to ease his agony and soften the rigours of almost seven years of litigation the officer undertook.
Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Ashwin Bhobe of the HC expressed shock at a practically overnight and “manipulated” probe into alleged irregularities over certain loan accounts in the Shirdi branch during his tenure.
The HC said the bank can either now conduct a fresh and proper probe by a new officer or resolve the issue with a “golden handshake.” Vinayak Ghanekar, 63, challenged his dismissal and the probe by the bank before the HC in 2022.
After hearing counsel Vishal Talsania for the employee and Harsh Sheth for the bank, the HC stated, “No prudent employer would have conducted an enquiry in such a manner. No prudent Enquiry Officer could have acted in a manner as is visible from the undisputed facts before us.”
The HC examined how the enquiry was conducted and said the enquiry officer’s role is “under a thick cloud for allowing himself to be manipulated by the bank.” The HC now expects the bank to appoint a new Enquiry Officer, preferably a practising Advocate unconnected with the bank, to conduct the enquiry from the stage it was vitiated.
The PNB, in its affidavit-in-reply, stated that it is recorded in the order of punishment dated June 30, 2018, that a copy of the report was supplied to the petitioner, a notice was issued to him, he submitted his reply to the report, and the order was passed.
The HC said when called upon by it to justify the bank’s submission by showing a record, the bank’s counsel was unable to establish that the Enquiry Officer’s report was served upon the petitioner. “He could not point out his explanation on the report,” the HC added. “We are shocked to find such statements” from the bank, that are ‘false’ …We can surely say that our judicial conscience is shocked.”