Authority: High Court at Calcutta (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, Appellate Side)

Order Date: 24 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: petitioner Shree Vijay Prakash Kumar (mobile inspector, UCO Bank) vs. UCO Bank & others.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ petition under Article 226 challenging the disciplinary dismissal of the petitioner.
  • Background: Kumar joined UCO Bank on 29 Aug 2011, retired 31 Dec 2044. In May 2019 he was attached to Field Inspectorate, Kolkata as Mobile Inspector.
  • Allegations: While inspecting the Layek Bandh branch, Kumar was directed to examine accounts sanctioned by Senior Manager Mr. Abhijat Srivastav and report irregularities. He submitted an initial report; the Deputy GM asked for a more exhaustive report, which Kumar filed (52 pages).
  • Extortion Incident: Srivastav received a call from a stranger demanding money to settle departmental cases. The stranger, later identified as Mr. Guddu Kumar (Grade‑D Railway employee), sent forged bank documents, negotiated a Rs 1,00,000 deal (50% upfront) and arranged a meeting at Howrah Station. Bank vigilance and security teams, monitoring the conversation, apprehended the stranger at the meeting.
  • Confession: During police interrogation, Guddu Kumar alleged that Kumar was the mastermind and had shared confidential bank documents via his wife Sangita Kumari’s email. Kumar later confessed to the Chief Security Officer on 2 July 2019, later retracting the confession on 24 Oct 2019, claiming coercion.
  • Disciplinary Process:
  • 4 July 2019 – Kumar suspended pending disciplinary proceeding.
  • 9 Aug 2019 – Show‑cause notice issued for sharing confidential documents.
  • 11 Oct 2019 – Statement of allegations and charges forwarded.
  • 14 Aug 2020 – Enquiry officer’s report found all allegations proved.
  • 29 Sep 2020 – Disciplinary authority dismissed Kumar, revoking suspension and denying any benefits.
  • 8 Dec 2020 – Appellate authority dismissed Kumar’s appeal.
  • 20 Feb 2021 – Reviewing authority dismissed Kumar’s review application.
  • Criminal Proceedings: FIR filed 2 July 2019; Guddu Kumar arrested 3 July 2019, Kumar arrested 7 July 2019. The case (GR No. 784 of 2019) was tried before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, which acquitted both accused on 18 Jan 2024 due to lack of evidence.
  • Petitioner’s Contentions: Kumar claimed his confession was made under fear, that he never accessed confidential documents, that the best witness (Guddu Kumar) was not produced before the disciplinary authority, and that the criminal acquittal should compel the bank to recall the dismissal.
  • Bank’s Counter‑Arguments: The bank asserted that Kumar voluntarily confessed, that natural justice was observed, that the disciplinary charge was specific and not vague, and that the criminal acquittal does not bind the bank’s internal proceedings.
  • Legal Precedents Cited: Surath Chandra Chakrabarty (1970), Narinder Mohan Arya (2006), Hari Krishna Mandir Trust (2020), Ram Lal (2024), Maharana Pratap Singh (2025), Jagdish Prasad Saxena (1961), Jayanta Kumar Sikdar (2005), S. Janaki Iyer (2025), State Bank of India v. P. Zadenga (2023), State of Rajasthan v. Heem Singh (2021).
  • Court’s Reasoning: The Court held that the disciplinary authority complied with natural justice, that the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend, that the confession was voluntary, that the charge sheet was clear, and that the pre‑ponderance of probabilities standard applies in departmental enquiries. The Court found no error, perversity, or violation of natural justice, and noted that the criminal acquittal does not affect the disciplinary findings.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed; the dismissal order dated 29 Sep 2020 stands affirmed.
  • No order as to costs.
  • Parties to act on the server copy of the judgment.

Topics: Banking Discipline, Judicial Review, Confidential Information Misuse