Authority: High Court of Judicature at Patna

Order Date: 15-10-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner Rahul Kumar Gautam (S/o Shri Arun Kumar) vs. Punjab National Bank (through its General Manager and Zonal Manager) and other bank officials; Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) appeared as intervenor.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Civil writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of dismissal order dated 31.03.2018 and related appellate order dated 07.05.2024, reinstatement, back wages, and interim relief.
  • Background: Gautam applied for the IBPS Common Written Examination (CWE/PO/MT‑III) advertised on 10.07.2013, qualified, interviewed on 06.01.2014, received appointment letter on 02.07.2014, completed pre‑induction training and joined PNB on 16.02.2015 as Management Trainee/Probationary Officer at Bhadseni branch.
  • Allegations: A complaint dated 20.03.2015 alleged impersonation in the CWE. Forensic Science Laboratory, Shimla (CFSL) issued Report No. BX‑90/2016 (07.10.2016) stating divergent handwriting characteristics; Central Finger Print Bureau report (17.08.2016) found thumb impressions blurred and unfit for comparison.
  • Disciplinary Process: Show‑cause notice issued 24.03.2017; chargesheet dated 30.06.2017; Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer appointed on 11.09.2017; hearings 12.10.2017‑06.11.2017; eight management exhibits (ME‑1 to ME‑8) produced; no witnesses, including the CFSL expert or IBPS invigilator, were examined.
  • Findings of Inquiry: Inquiry Officer’s report (12.12.2017) concluded charge proved on basis of CFSL report; Disciplinary Authority dismissed petitioner on 31.03.2018.
  • Statutory Appeal: Filed on 18.03.2024, dismissed as time‑barred on 07.05.2024 without merits.
  • Petitioner’s Submissions: Argued that impersonation in a pre‑employment exam is not “misconduct” under Regulation 3(1) & 24 of PNB Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1977; reliance on unexamined CFSL report violates evidentiary rules; handwriting analysis is frail science; procedural fairness breached.
  • Bank’s Submissions: Contended departmental inquiries follow pre‑ponderance of probabilities, not strict Evidence Act standards; CFSL report sufficient; cited Airports Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee.
  • Legal Issues Considered: (i) Whether dismissal based solely on an unexamined forensic handwriting report can be sustained; (ii) Whether pre‑employment impersonation can be treated as misconduct under the 1977 Regulations.
  • Court’s Reasoning: Cited Roop Singh Negi v. PNB and State of U.P. v. Ram Prakash Singh establishing that documentary evidence must be proved by oral testimony; highlighted frailty of handwriting evidence; noted absence of any witness to corroborate CFSL report; fingerprint report offered no adverse identification; emphasized natural justice and right to cross‑examination; held that pre‑employment conduct cannot be retrospectively classified as misconduct under the Regulations without clear statutory basis.

Final Outcome

  • The dismissal order dated 31.03.2018 and the appellate order dated 07.05.2024 are quashed and set aside.
  • Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in the post he held immediately prior to dismissal (or an equivalent post) with continuity of service.
  • Respondents must pay back wages and consequential service benefits from 31.03.2018 until actual reinstatement, to be released within three months of receipt/production of the judgment copy.
  • No fresh disciplinary inquiry shall be ordered, as the defect lies in the evidentiary foundation, not a curable procedural lapse.

Topics: Banking Discipline, Employment Law, Judicial Review