Calcutta High Court deprecates attitude of bank officials to act only after intervention of courts, imposes Rs. 25,000 costs on Indian Bank

The Calcutta High Court has pulled up Indian Bank and imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 for stalling the back wages payable to an employee for over 5 years and for using its dominant position to continuously harass the employee. .A single-judge Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf said that imposing costs was necessary to ensure that such unnecessary litigation is avoided and State authorities comply with the "letter and spirit" of law. ."The present case falls in the category wherein the petitioner has been made to wait for over five years for his just dues. the respondent bank has continued to use its dominant position to harass the petitioner of his original dues," the Court noted..It also deprecated bank officials' attitude of acting only once the matter is settled by Constitutional courts leading to umpteen litigations. "This attitude of the bank officials in pushing the monkey of their shoulders and only acting once the matter is settled by a Constitutional Court is leading to the umpteen litigations and unless such actions are punished with costs, the plague that is embedded in the psychology of such officials cannot be obliterated," the judgment said. .The Court, therefore, opined that imposing costs was necessary to reduce such actions leading to litigation. "The bank had refused to comply with the letter and spirit of law forcing Gangopadhyay to knock the doors of courts for justice to be subserved," the court noted. .The judgment was rendered in a plea by one Sandipta Gangopadhyay who had been denied back wages during the time he was in suspension from service. .This attitude of the bank officials in pushing the monkey of their shoulders and only acting once the matter is settled by a Constitutional Court is leading to the umpteen litigations.Calcutta High Court .Gangopadhyay was placed under deemed suspension in 2014 after police detained him based on corruption charges levelled by a customer. .Gangopadhyay challenged the suspension order of the bank before the High Court. A single-judge ruled in his favour in 2015 but a Division Bench gave a split verdict on the bank's appeal. Hence, the case came to be heard by a referral Bench which in August 2019 ruled in favour of Gangopadhyay who was reinstated in service on that basis. But the bank refused to pay his back wages for the period during which he was in suspension which prompted Gangopadhyay to approach the High Court once again. .Advocate SP Lahiri submitted on behalf of Gangopadhyay that based on a co-joint reading of the orders of 2015 and 2019, back wages should be given for the period between 2014 to 2019. He relied upon the Regulation 15 of the Allahabad Bank Officer Employees‟ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 which stated that the employee should be paid fully if 'employee is fully exonerated or suspension is unjustifiable'..Advocate ON Rai for the bank opposed the plea pointing out that the orders of 2015 and 2019 did not explicitly order payment of back-wages to Gangopadhyay for the period under deemed suspension..They Court found the plea by Gangopadhyay meritorious on the ground that "it has been more than five years and no departmental proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and this Court had directed that the petitioner was entitled to get "all benefits‟ pursuant to the impugned order dated April 21, 2015.".The court directed the bank and its authorities to pay the differential salary to Gangopadhyay within a period of 4 weeks for the period commencing from May 2-15 till his date of joining along with interest at the rate of 8 percent..In the event, the bank fails to make the payment, the court provided for further penal interest at the rate of 4 percent per annum on the differential salary till the payment..Though they have a right to appeal, the said right may not always be the right course of action.Calcutta High Court.The Court also expressed hope that the bank would not go for further litigation by pursuing an appeal. "This Court sincerely hopes that the wiser minds in the decision making process in the bank shall now comply with these orders and not continue the litigation any further to bring quietus to the lis." Even though they have a right to appeal, the said right may not always be the right course of action, the Court added. .[Read judgment]