Employee Cannot Gain from Self-Caused Delay: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court set aside an Industrial Tribunal award reinstating a bank clerk dismissed for misappropriation, holding that an employee cannot rely on their own delay in raising an industrial dispute to contend that the employer's inability to produce destroyed records rendered the enquiry perverse.

A single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne heard the challenge filed by the Petitioner-Bank against the Tribunal's decision. The Court addressed the critical issue of whether a dismissal order could be declared illegal solely because the employer, following standard practice, destroyed disciplinary records during a 13-year period of inaction by the employee.

The Perversity of Rewarding Delay

The Court found that the Industrial Tribunal committed a material irregularity by holding the enquiry officer's findings perverse just because the Bank could not produce the full record of proceedings after a gap of over two decades. The Court noted that the respondent-employee had acquiesced to his dismissal for 13 years before raising a demand for reinstatement.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It has rewarded the Respondent for his acts of delay. It is one thing to permit adjudication of a stale claim by ignoring or condoning the delay and it is an altogether different thing to offer on a platter relief in favour of a negligent litigant because the opposite party has destroyed the records in the meantime. When a delayed claim is sought to be adjudicated, the Courts must put the burden on the claimant to produce atleast photocopies of the documents even though the originals are supposed to be in custody of the opposite party."

Impact of Criminal Acquittal on Domestic Enquiry

Regarding the Respondent's argument that his acquittal in a criminal case should nullify the domestic enquiry findings, the Court clarified that the two proceedings operate under different standards of proof. While criminal trials require proof beyond reasonable doubt, domestic enquiries rely on the preponderance of probabilities.

Referring to Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Reg. Bank & Anr Versus. Munna Lal Jain ( "2005 10 SCC 84": 2004 CaseBase(SC) 736), the Court emphasized that bank employees are held to a higher standard of honesty and integrity. The Court noted that since the domestic enquiry was held fair and proper, the findings recorded after discussing evidence from 11 witnesses could not be ignored simply because those witnesses were no longer traceable after 24 years.

Prejudice to the Employer

Applying the principles laid down in SBI, Chairman, State Bank of India and another Versus. M.J. James, the Court held that the inordinate delay caused serious prejudice to the Bank's defense. The Court remarked that the Bank is not expected to preserve disciplinary records "for eternity," especially when the employee showed no interest in challenging the order for over a decade.

Court Directions

The Court has the following directions:

"(i) Order dated 9 August 2024 on preliminary Issue No.2 is set aside and it is held that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are not perverse.

(ii) Final judgment and order dated 23 January 2025 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 26 of 2014 is set aside."

Background:

The Respondent was a clerk at the Chakan Branch of Bank of India and was dismissed on 18 October 2000 following allegations of fraudulent withdrawals from customer accounts totaling over Rs. 4 Lakhs. After his dismissal, he remained silent until 2013, following an acquittal by a JMFC Court. He then raised a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal, Pune, initially held the enquiry to be fair but later termed the findings perverse as the Bank could not produce original depositions, which had been destroyed as per policy after 10 years. The Tribunal had directed the Bank to pay full backwages and pensionary benefits, which the High Court has now quashed.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 15893 OF 2025
Case Title: Bank of India V/s. Sharad Rajaram Khadtare
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Lancy D'souza with Ms. Deepika Agarwal i/b. Mr. V.M. Parkar
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nitin Kulkarni

Source: 2026 CaseBase(BOM) 246