Authority: Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Justice M. Dhandapani

Order Date: 08.07.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: N. Jagannath, a physically challenged employee (76% disability) who entered service of The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. in 1986, initially as Clerk and later promoted to Deputy Manager.
  • Respondents: 1) The Joint Commissioner (Labour), Office of the Labour Commissioner (Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act), Dindigul; 2) The Vice President, The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd., HRD, Corporate Office, Chennai; 3) The Vice President, The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. (now DBS Bank India Ltd.); 4) The Assistant Vice President, The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd., HRD, Corporate Office, Chennai.
  • Incident: On 19.03.2018, while traveling from Bengaluru to Karur on the Yeshwanthpur–Dadar Express, the petitioner and a companion were intercepted by the Prohibition Enforcement Wing at Karur Railway Station. Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) bottles were allegedly recovered, alleged to have been purchased in Bengaluru for sale in Karur.
  • Criminal Proceedings: A criminal case (Crime No. 436 of 2018) was registered under Section 4(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. After investigation, a final report was filed in C.C. No. 317 of 2018 before Judicial Magistrate No. I, Karur. The petitioner was subsequently acquitted of all charges.
  • Disciplinary Proceedings: The bank initiated departmental proceedings on the same facts, culminating in an order dismissing the petitioner from service.
  • Appeal: The petitioner appealed the dismissal under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act before the Joint Commissioner (Labour). The appellate authority, on 14.02.2022, confirmed the dismissal order.
  • Writ Petition: The petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No. 13850 of 2022 before this Court, seeking a writ of certiorari/mandamus to quash the dismissal and to have his service reinstated with back‑wages and benefits.
  • Petitioner’s Additional Claim: The petitioner retired in 2024 after attaining superannuation. He does not seek back‑wages for the period of dismissal to retirement but requests that the non‑employment period be treated as qualifying service solely for the calculation of pension and other terminal benefits.
  • Respondents’ Argument: The respondents contended that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically invalidate disciplinary action, emphasizing the lower standard of proof (pre‑ponderance of probabilities) in departmental proceedings and the reputational damage to the bank.
  • Judicial Precedent Cited: The Court referred to Prem Nath Bali v. High Court of Delhi (2015 (16) SCC 415), emphasizing that courts intervene in disciplinary punishments only when they are “wholly unreasonable, arbitrary or disproportionate” and shock the conscience.

Final Outcome

  • The Court partly allowed the writ petition.
  • Respondents 2 to 4 are directed to treat the period of non‑employment as qualifying service only for the purpose of calculating and settling the petitioner’s terminal and retirement benefits, with no entitlement to back‑wages.
  • All consequential terminal and retirement benefits must be settled within twelve (12) weeks from receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law.
  • No costs are awarded.
  • The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Topics: Labour Law, Banking Employment