Or. 6 Rule 17 CPC | A Suit Cannot be Converted into a Fresh Litigation – Amendment Cannot Introduce a New Cause of Action: Andhra Pradesh High Court Government Cannot Withhold Retirement Without Formal Rejection Before Notice Period Expires: Delhi High Court Drug Offences Threaten Society, Courts Must Show Zero Tolerance : Meghalaya High Court Refuses Bail Under Section 37 NDPS Act Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to Serious Allegations, Unless Justified by Law: Kerala High Court When Law Prescribes a Limitation, Courts Cannot Ignore It: Supreme Court Quashes Time-Barred Prosecution Under Drugs and Cosmetics Act Issuing Notices to a Non-Existent Entity is a Substantive Illegality, Not a Mere Procedural Lapse: Bombay High Court Quashes Income Tax Reassessment Notices Termination Without Verifying Evidence is Legally Unsustainable: Allahabad High Court Reinstates Government Counsel Luxury for One Cannot Mean Struggle for the Other - Husband’s True Income Cannot Be Suppressed to Deny Fair Maintenance: Calcutta High Court Penalty Proceedings Must Be Initiated and Concluded Within The Prescribed Timeline Under Section 275(1)(C): Karnataka High Court Upholds ITAT Order" Landlord Entitled to Recovery of Possession, Arrears of Rent, and Damages for Unauthorized Occupation: Madras High Court Supreme Court Slams Punjab and Haryana High Court for Illegally Reversing Acquittal in Murder Case, Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation for Wrongful Conviction Mere Absence of Wholesale License Does Not Make a Transaction Unlawful:  Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against INOX Air Products Stigmatic Dismissal Without Inquiry Violates Fair Process, Rules High Court in Employment Case Recruiting Authorities Have Discretion to Fix Cut-Off Marks – No Arbitrariness Found: Orissa High Court Charge-Sheet Is Not a Punishment, Courts Should Not Interfere: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Writ Against Departmental Inquiry Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Identifiable Property or Evidence of Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Fairness Demands Compensation Under the 2013 Act; Bureaucratic Delays Cannot Defeat Justice: Supreme Court Competition Commission Must Issue Notice to Both Parties in a Combination Approval: Supreme Court Physical Possession and Settled Possession Are Prerequisites for Section 6 Relief: Delhi High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Decision Granting Possession Hyper-Technical Approach Must Be Avoided in Pre-Trial Amendments: Punjab & Haryana High Court FIR Lodged After Restitution of Conjugal Rights Suit Appears Retaliatory: Calcutta High Court Quashes Domestic Violence Case Two-Year Immunity from No-Confidence Motion Applies to Every Elected Sarpanch, Not Just the First in Office: Bombay High Court Enforcing The Terms Of  Agreement Does Not Amount To Contempt Of Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Contempt Order Against Power Company Officers Consent of a minor is immaterial under law: Allahabad High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Man Accused of Enticing Minor Sister-in-Law and Dowry Harassment False Promise of Marriage Does Not Automatically Amount to Rape: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 376 IPC Dowry Harassment Cannot Be Ignored, But Justice Must Be Fair: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 498A IPC, Modifies Sentence to Time Served with Compensation of ₹3 Lakh Mere Presence in a Crime Scene Insufficient to Prove Common Intention – Presence Not Automatically Establish Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Supreme Court: Compensation Must Ensure Financial Stability—Not Be Subject to Arbitrary Reductions: Supreme Court Slams Arbitrary Reduction of Motor Accident Compensation by High Court

Integrity is Paramount in Banking Sector: Gujarat High Court Upholds Bank Employee’s Discharge Over Misappropriation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Court affirms dismissal in a decades-old case, emphasizing the importance of trust and integrity in financial institutions.

The Gujarat High Court has upheld the discharge of a bank employee involved in a misappropriation case dating back to 1986. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Mrs. Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee, dismissed the appeals by the delinquent employee while allowing the bank's appeals, reinforcing the gravity of integrity within the banking sector.

The case pertains to Rashmikant Girdharlal Dave, a Head Cashier at the State Bank of Saurashtra's Agricultural Development Branch in Amreli. In November 1986, a misappropriation of ₹35,000 was detected during a cash verification. Dave was subsequently suspended, and after a departmental inquiry, he was discharged from service in August 1991. Despite multiple legal battles over the years, the final judgment came on May 17, 2024.

The court emphasized the critical nature of integrity and trust in the banking profession. Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee noted, “The act on the part of the delinquent employee was dishonesty. When a person is found guilty of misappropriating public money, especially a bank employee, it is natural that the bank would lose confidence or faith in such a person.”

The court supported the disciplinary authority’s decision, stressing that the punishment of discharge was appropriate given the misconduct. “No indulgence should be granted to a bank employee where charges of misconduct like cheating, fraud, and misappropriation of public money have been proved,” the bench stated.

The court discussed Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which allows tribunals to re-appreciate evidence and modify punishment if deemed disproportionate. However, it was concluded that the Tribunal had overstepped by substituting the discharge penalty with a lesser punishment, considering the proven misappropriation.

Citing previous judgments, the court reiterated that once misconduct involving financial irregularity is proven, especially in the banking sector, strict penalties are justified. The bench highlighted that leniency in such cases could undermine public trust in financial institutions.

Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee remarked, “The temporary misappropriation of ₹35,000 has been proved against the delinquent employee. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is based on loss of confidence, a primary factor to be taken into account.”

The Gujarat High Court’s judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining integrity within the banking sector. By upholding the discharge, the court sends a clear message about the seriousness of financial misconduct. This landmark decision is expected to reinforce the legal framework ensuring strict adherence to ethical standards in financial institutions.

 

Date of Decision: May 17, 2024

Rashmikant Girdharlal Dave vs. Chairman, State Bank of India & Ors.

Similar News