Fired over ‘fake’ certificates, Central Bank workers win relief from Orissa High Court

The petitioners were working as Safai Karmachari-cum-Sub Staff on daily-wage basis at different branches of the Central Bank of India. (AI-generated Image)

The Orissa High Court set aside the dismissal of safai karmacharis of the Central Bank of India (CBI) and directed the authority to reconsider the punishment, excluding dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement, taking into account their education and social status and the loss of livelihood they suffered after being dismissed in 2016.

Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy was dealing with a plea of safai karmacharis-cum-sub staff of the bank, who had been dismissed from service after disciplinary proceedings found them guilty of submitting allegedly false/forged educational certificates to secure regular appointments in 2012.

“This court is inclined to pass such an order, taking into account the education and social status of the petitioners and the loss of livelihood of each of the Petitioners after being dismissed from their services in the year 2016,” the court said on September 8.

The court found that the bank, on verification from the concerned schools in each of the cases, when it found that the petitioners had submitted forged certificates from the schools in question in support of their age and qualification; bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against each of the petitioners.

Bank dismissed workers over certificates

The petitioners were working as safai karmachari-cum-sub staff on a daily-wage basis at different branches of the Central Bank of India. In 2012, the bank issued a notice allowing eligible temporary/casual workers to participate in a one-time recruitment process for regular appointment to the post.

Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy heard the matter on July 10.

The petitioners participated in the process and were appointed to the regular posts in 2013. At the time of joining, they submitted school certificates as proof of their age and educational qualification.

Subsequently, the bank verified the certificates with the concerned schools, which reportedly informed the bank that the certificates had not been issued by them. The bank consequently initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners for allegedly submitting forged certificates to secure regular employment.

Story continues below this ad

Following departmental enquiries in which the petitioners were held guilty, the bank issued show-cause notices and ultimately dismissed them from service. The appellate authority also rejected their appeals against the dismissal orders.

The petitioners then approached the high court, challenging their dismissal and arguing that dismissal was a disproportionately harsh punishment. The bank, however, defended the action, contending that the petitioners had secured regular appointments by submitting forged certificates and that the disciplinary proceedings had established the misconduct.

Senior Advocate, J K Rath, representing the petitioners, argued that the petitioners, without knowing the repercussions, submitted certificates at the time of their joining.

It was argued that all those certificates submitted by the petitioners are forged based on the letters issued by the concerned school authorities; for such a nature of misconduct, an order of dismissal could not have been passed. Not only that, taking into account the status and education of the petitioners, a lenient view should have been taken.

Story continues below this ad

No dismissal, removal or retirement: Order

The court noted that the petitioners were Safai Karmacharis who had initially worked on a daily-wage basis and were later selected for regular appointment. This factor should have been considered while deciding the punishment.

It observed that not every act of misconduct necessarily warrants dismissal. The disciplinary and appellate authorities must consider other relevant circumstances before imposing the major punishment of dismissal.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s principle of proportionality in Ranjit Thakur v Union of India, the court said punishment should be commensurate with the charge and should not be vindictive or unduly harsh.

It consequently set aside the dismissal orders and remitted the matters to the appellate authority to consider a punishment other than dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement.

Jagriti Rai works with The Indian Express (Digital), where she writes from the vital intersection of law, gender, and society. Working on a dedicated legal desk, she focuses on translating complex legal frameworks into relatable narratives, exploring how the judiciary and legislative shifts empower and shape the consciousness of citizens in their daily lives. Expertise Socio-Legal Specialization: Jagriti brings a critical, human-centric perspective to modern social debates. Her work focuses on how legal developments impact gender rights, marginalized communities, and individual liberties. Diverse Editorial Background: With over 4 years of experience in digital and mainstream media, she has developed a versatile reporting style. Her previous tenures at high-traffic platforms like The Lallantop and Dainik Bhaskar provided her with deep insights into the information needs of a diverse Indian audience. Academic Foundations: Post-Graduate in Journalism from the Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), India’s premier media training institute. Master of Arts in Ancient History from Banaras Hindu University (BHU), providing her with the historical and cultural context necessary to analyze long-standing social structures and legal evolutions. ... Read More