Mere Administrative Displeasure Or Frustration Not A Valid Ground To Invoke Power Of Premature Retirement: Calcutta High Court
The Bench held that administrative frustration over an employee’s behavior cannot be "elevated to a legal precinct" for premature retirement under Regulation 19(1).
The Calcutta High Court observed that administrative displeasure or frustration, by itself, cannot be a valid ground to invoke the power of premature retirement.
The Court noted that Regulation 19(1) of the United Bank of India (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979, is not an instrument disguised as an expeditious recourse to expel an employee without adhering to the procedural safeguards of punitive action. The Bench ruled that administrative displeasure or frustration, unless translated into objective material demonstrating a detriment to institutional interest, cannot constitute a valid ground for invoking retirement powers.
Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay observed, “Administrative frustration howsoever genuine cannot be elevated to a legal precinct for exercise of statutory power unless it is translated into subjective and objective material demonstrating that the continuance of service of the employee is detrimental to the institutional as well as public interest. The power under Regulation 19(1) as aforesaid must be exercised on the basis of discernible criteria as enumerated therein mandatorily such as inefficient, doubtful integrity or demonstrable incapacity and not on specific and/or categorical irritation or institutional inconvenience”.
Advocate M.R. Sarbadhikari appeared for the petitioner and Advocate R.N. Majumder appeared for the respondent.
For the facts, the petitioner, Md. Shams Biswas, a Senior Manager at the United Bank of India, was subjected to premature retirement on March 22, 2016. The bank alleged that he was in the habit of using impetuous, abusive and derogatory language against the institution in various communications and claimed he suffered from a "persistent delusional disorder" that rendered him unfit for service.
The petitioner countered that he was a victim of systemic discrimination and targeted harassment after he attempted to expose internal corruption.
The petitioner initially challenged the retirement through an internal representation to the Board of Directors, which was rejected in June 2016. He subsequently moved the High Court, asserting that the bank’s refusal to disclose the Medical Board’s findings and the Special Committee’s recommendation deprived him of a meaningful opportunity to contest the decision.
Justice Bandyopadhyay observed that the bank’s decision-making process was vitiated by procedural impropriety and a mechanical manner of approval. The Court found that the bank had used Regulation 19(1) as a "convenient alternative" to avoid the rigors of a disciplinary proceeding despite alleging misconduct.
“The materials on record do not disclose the respondent authorities to invoke disciplinary mechanism against the petitioner in accordance with the service rules of the bank to address such alleged misconduct. The absence of any charge-sheet, enquiry or finding of misconduct assumes significance. The recourse to Regulation 19(1) as aforesaid in such circumstances gives rise to 23 a legitimate apprehension that the statutory power has been employed as a convenient alternative to avoid the rigours of the disciplinary proceeding”, it noted.
“It is also to be borne in mind that an employee’s right to ventilate grievances, even if expressed with dissatisfaction, cannot be altogether stifled, though the manner of such expression must conform to norms of propriety. The line between decent and misconduct is delicate and any administrative response must be calibrated with caution lest it transgresses into suppression of legitimate expression contrary to constitutional provision of freedom of speech. Thus, why this Court does not condone the use of abusive or intemperate language in official communications, if any, does not equally consider to hold that administrative displeasure or frustration, unaccompanying by objective assessment within the framework of law, cannot be a valid ground to invoke the power of premature retirement”, the Bench further observed.
The Court, thus, set aside the order of premature retirement and all consequential appellate orders. The matter has been remitted to the competent authority for fresh consideration. The respondents are directed to provide the petitioner with all materials to be relied upon, including medical reports, and to afford him a reasonable opportunity for representation before passing a reasoned and speaking order.
Cause Title: Md. Shams Biswas @ Tapan Biswas v. United Bank of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: W.P.A. 16800 of 2016)
Appearances:
Petitioner: M.R. Sarbadhikari, Advocate.
Respondents: R.N. Majumder and S.M. Obaidullah, Advocates.