Introduction
In a compelling example of how the judicial system can uphold fairness against institutional overreach, the Patna High Court delivered a landmark verdict in Bhavendra Jha v. Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank & Ors (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10725 of 2010), quashing a dismissal order issued over 14 years ago. The petitioner, a bank employee, was accused of theft and removed from service without any substantial evidence, a fair inquiry, or adherence to due process. The judgment, delivered by Justice P. B. Bajanthri on January 12, 2024, shines a light on procedural safeguards and the rule of law in service jurisprudence.
Background of the Case
Bhavendra Jha, the petitioner, was an employee of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, posted at its Biraul Branch in Darbhanga district. On October 20, 2004, a major theft occurred at the branch. A sum of ₹15,20,849.35 went missing from the branch’s safe, which was secured with a dual-locking system—one key with Jha and the other with the Branch Manager.
Instead of conducting a full and fair investigation involving all potentially responsible parties, the bank initiated disciplinary proceedings solely against Bhavendra Jha. Eventually, he was dismissed from service through an order dated April 4, 2009. His departmental appeal was also dismissed on May 12, 2010.
Feeling aggrieved by the unjust dismissal, Jha approached the Patna High Court, challenging the entire disciplinary action and demanding reinstatement with full back wages and benefits.
The Charges Against Jha
The bank framed two key allegations:
-
Charge No. 1: On October 20, 2004, Jha allegedly colluded with other staff members to misuse a safe key retrieved from the Branch Manager’s desk and stole ₹15.2 lakhs from the bank’s vault.
-
Charge No. 2: He allegedly violated bank regulations by obtaining the key from the Branch Manager improperly and accessing the locker without following formal protocols, thereby causing financial loss and harming the institution's reputation.
These were serious allegations of misconduct, bordering on criminal behavior. But as the Court would later note, the method by which these charges were framed and "proved" left much to be desired.
Legal Arguments and Procedural Lapses
Jha’s legal team raised several substantial legal and procedural points:
1. No Witnesses or Evidence
The core defect was that no witnesses were cited or examined to support the grave allegations of theft. The entire inquiry was based on unsubstantiated claims, violating basic principles of natural justice and the law of evidence.
2. No List of Documents or Statement of Imputation
The charge memo, issued on December 29, 2007, did not include:
-
A list of documents relied upon.
-
A list of witnesses.
-
A detailed statement of imputation.
This absence made it impossible for the petitioner to defend himself meaningfully, rendering the entire disciplinary proceeding hollow and unjust.
3. Violation of Service Regulations – No Common Inquiry
The vault in question had two keys, one with Jha and one with the Branch Manager. Thus, any tampering or unauthorized access would logically involve both. However, the bank held a separate, isolated inquiry only against Jha, completely ignoring the principle of common inquiry under Regulation 41 of the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2008.
Regulation 41 mandates a joint inquiry where both an officer and an employee are jointly involved in a misconduct. It empowers the Chairman to direct that a single inquiry officer conduct a common inquiry in such cases. Despite this, no such combined proceedings were initiated against Jha and the Branch Manager.
The High Court’s Observations
Justice P. B. Bajanthri delivered a powerful critique of the bank’s conduct. Key observations include:
1. Clear Case of “No Evidence”
The Court noted that this was “a case of no evidence.” Without any witnesses or supporting documents, the charges remained unproven and speculative. This is a fundamental violation of due process in a disciplinary proceeding.
2. Misuse of Authority and Delay
The matter had been pending in the Court for over 13 years. The Judge specifically reprimanded the bank’s legal representatives for bringing irrelevant rules (framed in 2010) rather than the applicable rules at the time of the charge memo in 2007. The Court even imposed a cost of ₹5,000 on the bank’s counsel for wasting the Court’s time.
3. Illegal Departmental Action
Justice Bajanthri held that the bank had violated the service regulations by not initiating a common inquiry. Since the alleged theft could not have occurred without access by both keyholders, isolating Jha in the investigation was both illogical and illegal.
4. Reference to Supreme Court Precedent
The judgment heavily relied on the Supreme Court decision in Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors. [(1999) 2 SCC 10], where it was held that courts should not intervene in departmental inquiries unless:
-
There is a case of no evidence, or
-
There is violation of service rules.
In Jha’s case, both conditions were fulfilled.
The Verdict
The Patna High Court ruled unequivocally in favor of Bhavendra Jha:
-
The dismissal order dated April 4, 2009, and appellate order dated May 12, 2010, were quashed.
-
The bank was directed to reinstate Jha with full service and monetary benefits from the date of his dismissal.
-
Compliance Deadline: The bank must implement the judgment within four months from the date of receiving the order.
Significance of the Judgment
This verdict is significant not only for the relief granted to the petitioner but also for several broader reasons:
1. Reinforcement of Due Process
The Court emphasized that disciplinary actions—even in banking institutions—must follow codified rules, and allegations, no matter how serious, must be substantiated with evidence.
2. Protection Against Arbitrary Action
It protects employees from becoming scapegoats in complex institutional failures. The bank failed to even investigate the Branch Manager, who also held a key to the vault.
3. Common Inquiry Principles
The case strengthens the judicial insistence on applying Regulation 41 in cases of joint involvement, preventing selective targeting of individuals.
4. Judicial Efficiency and Responsibility
The Court’s imposition of costs on the bank’s lawyers shows a rising intolerance toward procedural laxity and prolonged pendency in public litigation. It sets a precedent for greater responsibility among institutional litigants.
Lessons for Employers and Public Institutions
-
Follow Procedural Fairness: No matter how serious the allegation, it cannot override the need for proper inquiry.
-
Document Everything: Charges must be backed by documented evidence and witness testimony.
-
Use Joint Proceedings Where Required: Especially when multiple parties are allegedly involved in the same incident.
-
Avoid Delays: The system must ensure timely justice. Prolonged disciplinary proceedings are unfair and demoralizing.
Conclusion
After nearly 15 years of litigation, Bhavendra Jha finally received justice. His reinstatement serves not just as personal relief but as a reminder that accountability cannot be imposed without fairness, and the might of institutions must always be constrained by the rule of law.
This judgment stands as a clear message: No evidence means no punishment. And every employee, regardless of rank, deserves a fair trial—not just in courts, but within their own organizations.
Read the full judgement Below;
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTA3MjUjMjAxMCMxI04=-EQl2NXefh7w=
0 Comments