Calcutta High Court asks PNB to pay ₹3 lakh cost for inhuman conduct against bank official with disability

The Calcutta High Court recently directed the Punjab National Bank (PNB) to pay a compensation of ₹3 lakh to a bank official, who has a disability of 70 percent, for its “reprehensible” conduct against him [Anirban Pal vs Punjab National Bank And Others]..Justice Rajashkar Mantha took a serious view of the bank’s refusal to retain the official at Calcutta upon promotion in 2018 and non-consideration of his repeated requests for bringing him back from Patna.The Court thus ordered the Chairman of Punjab National Bank, Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, the Central government and the Vigilance Commissioner to take appropriate disciplinary action against the persons responsible for the actions against the official.“Let appropriate measures be taken to sensitise the Officials of all the Public Sector Banks in respect of the “Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016” and the Special Rules of the bank in that regard,” it ordered further..Anirban Pal, the petitioner, had suffered a motor accident in 2015 in which he sustained serious injuries resulting in a disability of 70 percent. He was a Scale-III officer at that time.Pal did not participate in the bank's promotion process in 2016 due to the fear of transfer. However, after he found that his two colleagues, who also had physical disabilities, were promoted to Scale-IV without transfer, he also participated in the promotion process in 2018. He was successful in the result for promotion to Scale IV but he was issued transfer orders to Patna. He immediately requested reconsideration on the ground that he would have no caregiver at Patna. The PNB declined the request and insisted that he leave for Patna..Though Pal later joined the Patna office, he proceeded on leave because of extreme discomfort and pain. The PNB allegedly threatened him with coercive action if he did not report back to duties. In response, Pal sought repatriation to Calcutta on the promoted post. In the alternative, he said he be reverted to the Scale-III post and transferred back to Calcutta. After the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities directed the bank to exempt Pal from transfer, he was posted back to Calcutta in December 2018 but on the Scale-III post.In 2020, he requested the bank to restore his promotion to Scale-IV but the same was denied. Consequently, he approached the High Court..Taking exception to the PNB’s conduct in the case, the Court noted that as many as four officers in the Scale -IV category had been transferred upon promotion to Calcutta in October 2018 by the bank from different parts of the country. “Therefore, the bank’s pleading that there was no vacancy in Calcutta to accommodate the petitioner on promotion in Scale-IV apart from being specious, is false and dishonest,” it observed.The Court also stated that Pal could easily have been accommodated in Calcutta by invoking the PNB’s transfer policy regarding physically disabled officers..It is quite possible that he must have been suffering substantial difficulties living alone even for a brief period in Patna, it further observed.“He must have been compelled to seek reversion to come back to Calcutta for better care and comfort. The bank has admittedly violated its own transfer policy in particular and the provisions of the Act of 2016 in generally morefully described and set out by the Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities. The conduct of the bank was totally inhuman, in violation of its own Transfer Policy and defeated the object and purpose of the Act of 2016,” the Court said. It also commented that the PNB did not need any order of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities since it had its own guidelines against transfer of persons with disabilities even on promotion.There are serious doubts in the mind of this Court as regards the bona fides of the bank’s conduct in accepting and allowing the petitioner’s prayer for reversion first, the Court said.“This Court’s mind is also not therefore, fully free from doubt that the petitioner’s continuous request for reposting at Calcutta may have ruffled misplaced egoistic feathers of his superiors. This is an unfortunate malaise that festers in hierarchies of Public Sector Bank and other bodies which has and continues to severely impact the man resources and impede the growth and wellbeing of an organization and its employees,” it added..Though the Court censured the PNB, it refused to grant the petitioner's prayer on the ground that he had sought restoration of promotion only in 2020.However, it added that the bank’s conduct against him was reprehensible for which it slapped costs of ₹3 lakh on the bank to be paid to the petitioner. “Court is inclined to impose exemplary and penal costs on the Punjab National Bank formerly known as United Bank of India of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- which hall be paid by the Bank to the writ petitioner within a period of three weeks from date,” the order said. .Advocates Srijib Chakraborty and Rupsa Sreemani represented the petitioner.Advocates Parna Roy Chowdhury and Payel Ghosh represented PNB.[Read Judgment]