Case Details

  • Case Name: Bank of Baroda (originally Vijaya Bank) vs. Ashok Kumar Singh and others
  • Civil Appeal No.: 4814 of 2017
  • Court/Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
  • Judgment Date: 29 May 2026
  • Relevant Prior Orders: High Court of Calcutta final judgment dated 16‑10‑2015 (APO No. 30 of 2013); Single Bench order dated 18‑10‑2012 (W.P. No. 2177 of 2005); Division Bench order granting liberty to the Bank to proceed further.
  • Period of Dispute: Probationary appointment from 05‑01‑2004; suspension on 15‑01‑2005; termination order dated 05‑11‑2005.

Parties Involved

  • Appellant: Bank of Baroda (substituted for Vijaya Bank after amalgamation on 02‑01‑2019)
  • Respondent: Ashok Kumar Singh (Assistant General Manager – Networking, on probation)
  • Other Respondents: Senior officers (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, unnamed)
  • Regulators/Advisors: Central Vigilance Commission, Central Vigilance Department, Office of the Chief Vigilance Officer
  • Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General
  • Counsel for Respondent: Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Senior Counsel
  • Judges: Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Justice Atul S. Chandurkar

Issues / Allegations / Violations

  • Alleged Misconduct: Attempt to remove four boxes of highly confidential tender documents on 13‑01‑2005, leading to suspension on 15‑01‑2005.
  • Performance‑Related Memos:

1. 23‑07‑2005 Memo: Cited irregularities in OLTAS (Online Tax Accounting System) reconciliation; later contradicted by a Government of India appreciation letter dated 15‑07‑2005 praising the Bank’s OLTAS implementation and recommending Singh’s assistance.

2. 14‑09‑2005 Memo: Attributed delay of a Rs 66 crore telegraphic transfer to Singh’s alleged failure to use RTGS; SBI later admitted a technical fault caused the delay and Singh had sought interest for the one‑day loss.

3. 31‑10‑2005 Memo: Listed multiple alleged breaches (unauthorised system access, security lapses, misconduct towards a field engineer, etc.) but was never communicated to Singh, violating natural‑justice principles.

  • Procedural Questions: Whether the termination under Regulation 16(3)(a) of the Vijaya Bank (Officers’) Regulations 1982 was based on genuine unsatisfactory performance or on misconduct; whether a departmental enquiry was required; whether the suspension and show‑cause notice had any bearing on confirmation.
  • Regulatory Advice: Central Vigilance Commission initially advised disciplinary action for the alleged document‑theft, but the Bank opted to invoke Regulation 16(3)(a) to terminate without a formal enquiry.

Findings & Observations

  • The Court held that the termination was not a simple exercise of discretion based on unsatisfactory performance; it was fundamentally rooted in the alleged misconduct.
  • The suspension and show‑cause notice, later revoked, had no bearing on the confirmation decision, as correctly observed by the Single Bench.
  • Memo 23‑07‑2005 was rendered irrelevant because the Government’s appreciation letter of 15‑07‑2005 directly contradicted the alleged OLTAS deficiencies.
  • Memo 14‑09‑2005 could not be attributed to Singh’s fault; SBI’s own correspondence (letter 05‑10‑2005) confirmed a technical error on its part.
  • Memo 31‑10‑2005 was never served on Singh, breaching the principles of natural justice; therefore, it could not be used to justify termination.
  • No disciplinary enquiry was ever initiated despite the suspension, contrary to the requirement that misconduct‑based termination must be preceded by a proper enquiry.
  • The Bank’s reliance on the Central Vigilance Commission’s advice to terminate under Regulation 16(3)(a) without conducting the advised enquiry was deemed legally untenable.
  • The Court emphasized that an employer cannot disguise a punitive, stigma‑laden termination as a mere performance‑based action.

Penalties / Settlements / Directions

  • The termination order is set aside.
  • Backwages: Respondent Singh is entitled to 50 % backwages from the date of termination (05‑11‑2005) up to his superannuation date, inclusive of all consequential benefits.
  • Payment Timeline: All amounts must be settled within three months of the judgment.
  • Compliance: The directions are to be complied with by Bank of Baroda, the successor to Vijaya Bank.
  • No order as to costs was made.

Corrective Actions & Future Obligations

  • Bank of Baroda must calculate and disburse the stipulated backwages and benefits to Singh within the three‑month period.
  • The Bank must ensure adherence to natural‑justice standards in any future probation‑related actions, including proper communication of adverse memos and conducting disciplinary enquiries where misconduct is alleged.

Final Ruling & Enforcement

  • The appeal is disposed of; the High Court’s order quashing the termination is upheld.
  • The Bank’s attempt to reinstate the termination is rejected.
  • The Court’s directions regarding backwages and benefits are binding and enforceable.
  • Any pending applications in the matter are also disposed of.

---

Judgment delivered by Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, New Delhi, 29 May 2026.