The Calcutta High Court has set aside the premature retirement of a former senior manager of the erstwhile United Bank of India, now merged with Punjab National Bank, holding that the bank failed to follow fair procedure before removing him from service.
Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay observed that administrative authorities cannot use premature retirement rules as a shortcut to avoid disciplinary proceedings and must act with “fairness, transparency and constitutional fidelity.”
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Md. Shams Biswas alias Tapan Biswas, challenged a March 22, 2016 order through which he was compulsorily retired under Regulation 19(1) of the United Bank of India (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979. He had joined the bank in 1981 and later rose to the post of Senior Manager.
Before the court, the petitioner claimed that the bank acted arbitrarily and relied on a medical opinion without giving him access to the underlying reports or committee recommendations. He also alleged workplace discrimination linked to caste and religion and argued that he was targeted after raising concerns about irregularities within the bank.
The bank, however, defended its decision by stating that the officer had been sending repeated abusive and accusatory communications to various authorities and that a medical board had found him unfit to continue in service due to a “persistent delusional disorder.”
Court’s Observations
The High Court closely examined Regulation 19(1), which allows a bank to prematurely retire an officer in public interest after review by a special committee.
Justice Bandyopadhyay held that such power is not unlimited and must be exercised with objective assessment and procedural fairness.
“The discretionary nature of the power does not render it unfettered,” the bench observed, adding that it remains “circumscribed by the principles of reasonableness, transparency and procedural fairness.”
The court found several flaws in the process adopted by the bank. It noted that the competent authority had mechanically approved the recommendation of the special committee without independent reasoning.
The bench also criticised the bank for not supplying the medical report and committee recommendations to the employee despite repeated requests.
“The right to be heard is rendered illusory if the affected party is not apprised of the material forming the basis of the adverse action,” the court said while holding that non-disclosure violated principles of natural justice.
Another issue flagged by the court was that the officer was retired on March 22, 2016 instead of the last day of the month, without any explanation from the bank.
The court drew a distinction between misconduct proceedings and administrative review under Regulation 19(1).
Justice Bandyopadhyay observed that if the bank believed the employee’s conduct amounted to misconduct, it ought to have initiated disciplinary proceedings instead of using premature retirement as an alternative route.
“Administrative frustration, however genuine, cannot be elevated to a legal ground for exercise of statutory power,” the judgment said.
The court further noted that while allegations relating to caste and religion were not conclusively proved, such claims imposed a “heightened duty” on authorities to ensure fairness and neutrality in decision-making.
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the premature retirement order dated March 22, 2016 along with all consequential and appellate orders.
The matter was remanded back to the competent authority for fresh consideration. The court directed the bank to provide the petitioner with all materials proposed to be relied upon, including medical reports and committee recommendations, and then pass a fresh reasoned order after granting him an opportunity to respond.
Case Details
Case Title: Md. Shams Biswas @ Tapan Biswas vs United Bank of India (at present Punjab National Bank) & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 16800 of 2016
Judge: Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
Decision Date: May 5, 2026
