Meghalaya High Court slaps ₹25k costs on bank employee for seeking dues years after he was fired for stealing

The Meghalaya High Court recently slapped ₹25,000 as costs on a former State Bank of India (SBI) employee who had sought payment of provident fund and gratuity dues from his former employer, years after he was dismissed from service for stealing funds [Pranesh Biswas vs Union of India and ors]..In a strongly-worded order dated September 26, the bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice B Bhattacharjee also praised the bank for denying the former employee (appellant) the provident fund and gratuity dues.."An officer of a bank in the position of a branch manager had been found guilty of stealing, no less; and he appeared to stamp his foot and demand what he perceived was his pound of flesh. Such employees have to be dealt with ruthlessly," the Court observed while criticising the appellant..The judges also found that no exceptional reasons were cited by the employee for bringing this case to the High Court. "Here was a disgraced bank official who was shamelessly pursuing demands for payment as if he was entitled to receive such perceived dues. There was no such right in favour of the appellant and the bank, particularly as a nationalised bank, has done well to exercise its discretion against a recalcitrant erstwhile employee," the Court held. .The High Court was hearing an appeal challenging a single-judge order against the former employee's claim. .He had been dismissed from service in 2007 after the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings pertaining to certain incidents in 2004 and 2005. .In 2012, a single-judge of the High Court ruled against the former employee in the matter eventually leading him to file an appeal before a division bench of the High Court. .The division bench noted that the appellant had accepted the bank's findings in the disciplinary proceedings which had attained finality and it could only be set aside in exceptional circumstances. No such exceptional circumstances were found by the Court in this case. "It was open to the appellant, if the circumstances so existed, to make out an exceptional case of financial hardship or distress in some other form that may have prompted the bank to exercise its discretion in favour of the appellant despite his proven guilt and his dismissal from service. The appellant‟s appeal to the bank was not on such lines. The appellant asserted a right, which the appellant did not possess," the Court opined. .Therefore, the Court ruled against the appellant and dismissed his appeal with ₹25,000 as costs. .Senior Advocate S Chakrawarty with advocates E Slong, and E Laloo appeared for the former employee and appellant, one Pranesh Biswas.Central government counsel R Debnath appeared for the SBI..[Read Judgment]