Delhi High Court slams Punjab & Sind Bank for denying reward to manager who foiled robbery in 1998

The Delhi High Court recently directed the Punjab & Sind Bank to pay an amount of ₹50,000, along with an annual interest of 12 percent, to a manager who had foiled a robbery attempt at its Najafgarh Branch in 1998 [Surjit Singh Vs Punjab & Sind Bank]..Justice Neena Bansal Krishna also awarded litigation costs of ₹2 lakh to the manager, Surjit Singh, while taking exception to the management’s conduct of making him suffer litigation for 28 years over compensation for his bravery.The Court said that instead of the bank and the government itself rewarding Singh in accordance with the relevant guidelines, they added insult to injury by asserting that his act was not covered by the guidelines."Such conduct is not becoming of the Bank, which itself, in fact, should have rewarded and acknowledged the Petitioner for his exemplary conduct, rather than driving him to seek reward to which he was entitled. It has taken him since 28 years to get the validation of his act," the Court said.The Court added that the question was not of money but of the honour, which should have come to him on its own without litigation. .The Court observed that the robbery incident was straight out of fiction. One winter afternoon in December 1998, five armed robbers stormed into the bank with automatic weapons. The armed security guards surrendered their weapons and the cashier complied with the robbers’ threats for cash.Singh, despite being surrounded by the robbers and a revolver placed on his temple, reached out and pressed the emergency alarm button. This caused the panicked robbers to run towards the door. Singh blocked their way, causing the bag containing stolen cash to fall. Ultimately, the robbers were able to steal only ₹75,000 out of the ₹40 lakh they had initially seized..After the incident, Singh’s bravery in foiling the robbery attempt was publicly lauded in the media by the bank management. The General Manager of the bank recommended Singh for an award. As per a Government of India (GoI) circular issued in 1991, bank employees who actively resist bank robberies may be granted compensation of up to ₹50,000 and an out-of-turn promotion.Accordingly, Singh claimed the benefits of this circular by writing several letters to the bank management. However, the bank rejected his claim, stating that as a bank manager, Singh was only carrying out his duty and his actions cannot be termed as bravery. He then moved the Court in 2005..In the ruling delivered on September 9, the Court observed that the robbery was foiled only due to the presence of mind and unprecedented courage of the manager.The Court stated that Singh's display of exceptional bravado in a life-threatening situation was akin to a combat soldier fighting at the border.“Despite faced with guns pointed at him by two robbers, unmindful to his personal safety, like a soldier on the border, was driven by the sense of commitment towards the Bank and demonstrated presence of mind and unprecedented courage, in call of duty,” the Court said..It observed that the act of pressing the emergency alarm button during the robbery was not a routine act as part of his professional duty. It stated that though Singh was the hero of the incident, he was pushed into anonymity and red-tapism of the bureaucratic procedures. The Court opined that the bank needs to apologise to him for the “indifference and callousness” in forcing him to suffer litigation for past 28 years.“Such act of bravery and presence of mind, has ironically been termed by the Bank, as a part of his duty. It is not only a trivialisation of the extraordinary and exemplary courage shown by the Petitioner, but is almost an insult to a person, who had put his life at risk,” the Court observed..Justice Krishna also lauded Singh for his resilience in his “fight for right” against the “mighty system” for 28 years and asked the bank to pay him the compensation and litigation costs within three months..Advocates Shiv Gupta, Khushal Singh and Keerti Gupta appeared for the manager.Advocates Rajat Arora, Niraj Kumar and Sourabh Mahla appeared for the Ministry of Finance.[Read Judgment]