United Bank of India vs. Biswanath Bhattacharjee
Background
The respondent, a bank employee who had risen to Branch Manager, was issued a charge sheet seven years after his transfer, alleging he had disbursed loans under a rural development subsidy scheme to fictitious beneficiaries and misappropriated funds, partly relying on a confessional statement made by two other bank employees (not the respondent himself). A departmental enquiry found him guilty and he was dismissed; his appeal within the bank was rejected, and a single judge of the Calcutta High Court upheld the dismissal, but a Division Bench of the same High Court later set aside the dismissal, prompting the bank's appeal to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the key piece of evidence against the respondent (a confessional statement made and signed only by two other employees, which he never signed and whose makers never deposed in the enquiry) could not lawfully be used to fix guilt on him, since a confession binds only its authors, not third parties, and relying on it was a case of making him "a scapegoat for the confession of others." The Court also noted that there was no credible evidence for the other charges (removal of documents, and diversion of the subsidy amount), the charge sheet came seven years late, and tellingly, the employee who actually confessed received only a minor penalty while the respondent, who never confessed and against whom there was no real evidence, was handed the extreme penalty of dismissal, with his unrelated past minor misconduct record apparently weighing heavily in that decision. Holding that the Division Bench's judgment could not be faulted, the Supreme Court dismissed the bank's appeal and directed the bank to reinstate the respondent with full back wages, increments, and all consequential and pensionary benefits within three months.
Lesson Learnt
A departmental disciplinary finding cannot rest on a confession or admission made by someone other than the employee being charged: the employer must produce direct or credible evidence specifically implicating that employee, or the punishment, however severe, will not survive judicial scrutiny.