In a significant judgment on service law and disciplinary proceedings, the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside the compulsory retirement of a Central Bank of India employee, observing that unauthorized absence by itself does not justify removal from service.

Justice Anand Singh Bhurawat, hearing the matter as a single judge, ruled that before imposing a major penalty such as compulsory retirement, the employer must establish through a departmental inquiry that the employee intentionally and deliberately remained absent from duty. Without such a finding, the punishment cannot stand in law.

Bank Employee Challenged Retirement Order

The petitioner, Karan Khare, a Class IV employee and resident of Lashkar in Gwalior, has been serving with the Central Bank of India since 1998.

The bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against him after alleging that he remained absent from duty without authorization for 586 days. Based on the allegation, the bank issued an order on July 24, 2024, directing his compulsory retirement.

After his departmental appeal and review petition were rejected, Khare approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking relief.

Reasoned Orders Are Mandatory

During the hearing, the High Court emphasized that disciplinary authorities exercise quasi-judicial powers and are therefore required to pass well-reasoned orders based on evidence and established facts.

The court observed that a punishment order must clearly explain why the employee's defence was rejected and how the authority concluded that the misconduct had been proved.

After examining the records, the Bench found that the bank's order did not record any finding that the employee's absence was wilful or deliberate. In the absence of such a conclusion, the punishment of compulsory retirement failed to meet the legal standard required under service jurisprudence.

Medical Records Were Submitted, Court Notes

Khare contended before the court that he had filed a complaint in 2019 alleging caste-based harassment by the then branch manager, following which disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him.

He also argued that he had been suffering from serious health problems during the period of absence and had submitted medical documents to the bank to explain his condition.

According to the petition, the bank neither conducted an independent medical verification nor properly examined the documents before treating his absence as unauthorized. Instead, it proceeded with disciplinary action without adequately considering his explanation.

Employee Cannot Be Punished Twice for the Same Period

The petitioner further argued that part of the period between 2019 and 2021, which formed the basis of the compulsory retirement order, had already been the subject of an earlier departmental inquiry.

He claimed that he had already received a minor penalty for that portion of the alleged misconduct. Therefore, imposing a second and much harsher punishment for the same period amounted to double punishment and was contrary to established service law principles.

The High Court took note of this submission while examining the fairness of the disciplinary process.

Fair Procedure Is Essential

Setting aside the compulsory retirement order, the High Court reiterated that disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice, fairness, and procedural compliance.

The court observed that serious penalties affecting an employee's career and livelihood cannot be imposed solely on allegations or assumptions. Authorities must conduct a proper inquiry, evaluate all available evidence, and record clear findings before taking such action.

The judgment reinforces the principle that employers, including public sector institutions, must ensure transparency, reasoned decision-making, and strict adherence to legal procedures while dealing with disciplinary matters.