Bringing Police to Question Bank Manager Over Transfer May Be Workplace Intimidation: Bombay High Court
Labour Court Cannot Label Domestic Enquiry Findings “Perverse” When Some Evidence Supports the Charges; Proportionality of Dismissal Left Open
The Bombay High Court has held that an employee’s act of bringing police officers to the workplace to question a managerial decision concerning her transfer can amount to misconduct, even if no violence, abusive language or heated altercation takes place.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne set aside orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court which had declared the findings of a domestic enquiry against a dismissed bank employee to be perverse.
The Court found that there was sufficient evidence supporting the principal allegations that the employee had brought two policemen to the bank to question her transfer and had submitted complaints concerning the bank’s functioning to several external authorities.
However, the High Court clarified that its decision did not automatically validate the punishment of dismissal. The Labour Court must now independently determine whether dismissal was lawful and proportionate to the misconduct proved.
Background
The respondent employee was initially appointed as a clerk with Citizens Cooperative Bank, Pune. After that bank merged with Abhyudaya Cooperative Bank Ltd. in 2006, her services were absorbed by Abhyudaya Bank.
She was transferred from the bank’s Accounts Department in Mumbai to its Vashi Branch by an order dated 16 May 2012. She was relieved on 17 May 2012 and directed to report to the Vashi Branch the following day.
According to the bank, after being relieved, the employee arrived at its office accompanied by two policemen. She allegedly complained that the HR manager had transferred her to Vashi to harass her.
The policemen questioned the manager regarding the transfer. The manager informed them that the transfer was routine and based upon administrative requirements, after which they left.
The employee reported for duty at the Vashi Branch on 18 May 2012.
Departmental Charges and Dismissal
The bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against the employee.
The charge-sheet alleged that she had:
- brought two policemen to the bank and caused the HR manager to be questioned about her transfer;
- misbehaved with and attempted to intimidate the manager;
- submitted false, vexatious and frivolous complaints against the bank to various authorities; and
- acted in a manner prejudicial to the bank’s interests, discipline and reputation.
The authorities named in the charge-sheet included the Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission, Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister and other governmental and regulatory bodies.
After completing the domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the charges proved.
The bank dismissed the employee from service on 28 January 2015.
Labour Court Finds Enquiry Fair but Conclusions Perverse
The employee challenged the disciplinary action before the Labour Court under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
The Labour Court decided two preliminary issues.
It held that the domestic enquiry was legal, fair and proper and that the employee had been given a complete opportunity to defend herself.
Despite this, it held that the Enquiry Officer’s findings were perverse and unsupported by the evidence.
The Industrial Court dismissed the bank’s revision application and affirmed the Labour Court’s decision.
Abhyudaya Bank thereafter approached the Bombay High Court.
Labour Court Misread the First Charge
The High Court found that the Labour Court had fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the first charge.
The charge was not that the employee had disobeyed the transfer order. The bank’s allegation was that she had approached the police regarding an internal transfer and brought policemen to the bank to question its manager.
The fact that she ultimately joined the Vashi Branch did not answer or disprove this allegation.
The evidence of the HR manager established that the employee had arrived with two policemen and that the policemen questioned him about the reason for her transfer.
The employee herself did not dispute that the policemen had accompanied her to the bank.
The High Court therefore held that the allegation of bringing the police to the bank and causing the manager to be interrogated was supported by evidence.
No Violence or Abusive Language Was Required
The Labour Court had reasoned that the incident did not constitute misconduct because there had been no violence, heated discussion or abusive language.
The High Court described this reasoning as perverse.
The bank had never alleged that the employee or the policemen had used violence or abusive language. Its case was that the employee had involved the police in a routine administrative transfer and caused a bank officer to face police questioning.
The absence of physical aggression did not make that conduct permissible.
The Court observed that an employee aggrieved by a transfer should ordinarily use established remedies, such as representations before senior officials or appropriate legal proceedings.
Approaching the police and taking them to the workplace to question the transfer decision could reasonably be treated as an attempt to intimidate the concerned manager and as conduct subversive of workplace discipline.
Allegation of Personal Misbehaviour Not Proved
The High Court nevertheless distinguished the allegation that the employee had personally misbehaved with the HR manager.
The manager admitted in cross-examination that there had been no direct conversation between him and the employee during the incident.
The Court therefore held that the specific allegation of personal misbehaviour with the manager was not proved.
However, the allegation of attempting to intimidate him by bringing policemen and subjecting him to questioning remained supported by the evidence.
Complaints to External Authorities May Constitute Misconduct
The second charge concerned complaints submitted by the employee to several regulatory, political and governmental authorities.
The Labour Court held that merely making complaints could not constitute misconduct because the bank had not proved that its reputation was actually damaged.
The High Court found that this approach was legally incorrect.
An employee has the right to raise genuine service-related grievances within the organisation. However, the Court observed that the respondent had gone beyond raising individual grievances with the bank’s senior management.
Her complaints reportedly contained allegations concerning the bank’s functioning and were sent to numerous outside authorities, some of which had no direct relationship with banking operations.
Those authorities consequently sought explanations from the bank.
The Court held that actual proof of defamation or measurable reputational damage was not essential at the preliminary stage. The nature of the allegations, the persons or authorities to whom they were communicated and their impact upon the employer’s functioning could all be relevant while determining misconduct.
The seriousness of the conduct and the appropriate punishment were separate questions to be examined at the final stage.
“Some Evidence” Is Sufficient in a Domestic Enquiry
The High Court reiterated that a domestic enquiry is not governed by the strict rules of evidence applicable to a criminal trial or ordinary civil proceedings.
Misconduct in departmental proceedings is established on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
A finding can be declared perverse where it is based on no evidence, wholly unreliable material or conclusions that no reasonable person could reach.
However, where some logically probative evidence supports the Enquiry Officer’s conclusion, the Labour Court cannot interfere merely because it would have assessed the evidence differently.
The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence ordinarily lies outside the scope of review at the preliminary stage.
In the present case, the manager’s testimony, the employee’s own cross-examination and the documentary record of complaints submitted to outside authorities constituted evidence supporting the charges.
The findings of the Enquiry Officer could therefore not be characterised as perverse.
Dismissal Not Automatically Upheld
The High Court expressly clarified that setting aside the findings of the Labour and Industrial Courts did not mean that the punishment of dismissal stood automatically confirmed.
The remaining question was whether dismissal from service was proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct established.
The Labour Court was directed to examine:
- the nature and seriousness of the misconduct;
- the fact that the specific allegation of personal misbehaviour was not proved;
- whether dismissal was excessive or disproportionate; and
- whether the disciplinary action constituted an unfair labour practice.
The Labour Court was directed to decide the remaining issues independently and without being influenced by observations in the High Court’s judgment.
Final Decision
The Bombay High Court allowed the bank’s writ petition and held that:
- the employee’s act of bringing policemen to question the bank’s manager regarding her transfer was supported by evidence and could constitute misconduct;
- the Labour Court wrongly treated compliance with the transfer order as a complete answer to that charge;
- absence of violence or abusive language did not prevent the conduct from amounting to misconduct;
- the allegation of personal misbehaviour with the manager was not proved;
- complaints concerning the bank’s functioning sent to several external authorities could amount to misconduct depending upon their nature and context;
- the Enquiry Officer’s findings, except on personal misbehaviour, were not perverse; and
- the proportionality and legality of dismissal must still be decided by the Labour Court.
As the complaint had remained pending since 2014 and the employee had been dismissed in 2015, the Labour Court was requested to decide the remaining issues preferably within six months.
Key Legal Principle
A finding in a domestic enquiry cannot be declared perverse merely because the Labour Court considers the evidence insufficient.
If some relevant and logically probative evidence supports the disciplinary finding, its adequacy cannot ordinarily be reassessed as though the Labour Court were conducting a criminal trial.
At the same time, proof of misconduct does not automatically justify dismissal. The proportionality of the punishment remains open to independent judicial examination.
Why the Judgment Matters
The ruling distinguishes an employee’s legitimate right to raise workplace grievances from conduct that may undermine institutional discipline.
Employees may use internal representations and lawful remedies to question transfers or employment decisions. However, involving the police in a routine administrative matter and taking police officers to the workplace to question management may cross the boundary into misconduct.
The judgment also reinforces the limited scope of interference with domestic enquiry findings. Labour Courts must examine whether evidence exists—not substitute their own view on its weight or sufficiency.
Case Details
Case: Abhyudaya Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Smita Virendra Patil
Court: Bombay High Court
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 10929 of 2024
Judge: Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Date: 18 June 2026
Result: Bank’s petition allowed; finding of perversity set aside, proportionality of dismissal left for Labour Court
