Removal from bank service for gross misconduct warrants superannuation benefits under Clause 6(b) of Bipartite Settlement.

The petitioner, a Manager at UCO Bank’s Ghaziabad Branch, was charged on 29.03.2005 with issuing and extending a fraudulent Bank Guarantee (BG) of ₹47.00 Lacs in favor of U.P. Jal Nigam without following bank procedures or maintaining records

Parallel criminal proceedings were also initiated

An inquiry was conducted by an Ex-Scale-IV Officer, which the petitioner allegedly delayed through multiple medical adjournments

The Enquiry Authority found the charges proved, concluding the petitioner acted beyond his authority and caused financial risk/loss

Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) passed an order dated 22.03.2007 removing the petitioner from service

This was upheld by the Appellate and Reviewing Authorities. The petitioner challenged these orders primarily on grounds of procedural irregularity and lack of original documents

1. Whether the departmental inquiry was conducted by a competent authority and followed the principles of natural justice regarding the production of documents and cross-examination

2. Whether the findings of misconduct were based on sufficient evidence in the absence of original Bank Guarantee bonds

3. Whether the punishment of removal from service was in violation of the Bipartite Settlement regarding superannuation benefits

The court applied the scope of judicial review under Article 226 as defined in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, which limits the High Court's intervention to procedural errors, competence, or "no evidence" cases

It relied on Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik to establish that acting beyond authority in a bank constitutes misconduct regardless of actual loss

Regarding the penalty, the court applied Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002 and the Supreme Court’s interpretation in UCO Bank v. Vijay Kumar Handa (2025 INSC 442), which mandates that removal for gross misconduct may include superannuation benefits if the employee is otherwise eligible

The Court first held the inquiry was competent under Regulation 6(2) of the 1976 Regulations as the DA can appoint any public servant (including retired officers) as Enquiry Authority

It rejected the plea of natural justice violation, noting that the petitioner was granted numerous opportunities to cross-examine witnesses but failed to do so, thus waiving his right

The Court observed that in disciplinary proceedings, charges are proved on a "preponderance of probability"; the absence of original documents did not invalidate the case as secondary evidence and witness testimonies (MW-1 to MW-3) sufficiently linked the petitioner’s signature to the "Fake BG"

However, the Court found merit in the argument regarding the nature of the punishment. It noted that the DA failed to consider the Bipartite Settlement which allows for removal "with superannuation benefits"

The Court remanded the matter to the Respondent-Bank to pass a fresh order specifically on the nature of punishment, taking into account Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement and the Vijay Kumar Handa precedent regarding superannuation benefits

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly