Legal Analysis: General Manager, Bank of Baroda and Others vs. Ashok Kumar Singh & Others

Citation: 2026 INSC 589
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Division Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Judgment Author: Justice J.K. Maheshwari
Date of Decision: May 29, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which had dismissed the Bank’s appeal against the Single Judge’s order setting aside the termination of a probationary officer.

Synopsis of the Judgment
The respondent was appointed as Probationary Assistant General Manager (Networking) by Vijaya Bank (later amalgamated with Bank of Baroda). He was placed under suspension for allegedly attempting to remove confidential tender documents. The suspension was revoked, but disciplinary proceedings were never initiated. His probation was extended twice citing unsatisfactory performance. Ultimately, his services were terminated under Regulation 16(3)(a) of the Vijaya Bank (Officers’) Regulations, 1982 read with the appointment letter, which allowed termination of a probationer by one month’s notice or pay in lieu thereof. The Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court set aside the termination, holding it was based on irrelevant considerations. The Division Bench dismissed the Bank’s appeal. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court, holding that the termination was punitive in nature (disguised as simpliciter) because it was founded on allegations of misconduct rather than genuine assessment of performance. The Court found that the three memos relied upon to demonstrate unsatisfactory performance lacked evidentiary value, and that the Bank had sought advice from the Central Vigilance Commission to terminate on grounds of misconduct but changed course to avoid a formal enquiry. The Court upheld the quashing of the termination but directed that the respondent would be entitled to 50% backwages and notional benefits.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

• Case Title: General Manager, Bank of Baroda and Others vs. Ashok Kumar Singh & Others

• Civil Appeal No.: 4814 of 2017

• Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar (Division Bench)

• Judgment Author: Justice J.K. Maheshwari

• Date of Decision: May 29, 2026

• Citation: 2026 INSC 589

• Appeal From: Impugned final judgment dated 16.10.2015 of the High Court of Calcutta in APO No. 30 of 2013, dismissing the Bank’s appeal against the order dated 18.10.2012 of the Single Bench in W.P. No. 2177 of 2005.

2. Legal Framework

Laws and Provisions Involved:

• Vijaya Bank (Officers’) Regulations, 1982: Regulation 16(3)(a) – termination of direct appointee on probation by one month’s notice or payment of one month’s emoluments in lieu thereof, if Competent Authority is of opinion that officer is not fit for confirmation.

• Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14 (equality), Article 16 (equality in public employment), Article 311 (protection to civil servants – not applicable to probationers).

• Indian Contract Act, 1872: Contract of employment – terms of appointment letter.

• Principles of natural justice: Right to be heard before adverse action, especially where termination is stigmatic or punitive.

Key Precedents Cited and Applied:

• Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India (AIR 1958 SC 36) – Distinction between termination simpliciter and termination by way of punishment.

• Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta (1999) 3 SCC 60 – If findings of misconduct are arrived at without enquiry, termination founded on allegations is bad; if no enquiry held and employer not inclined to conduct one, allegations are mere motive and termination is valid. Stigma can be inferred from documents referred to in termination order.

• Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences (2002) 1 SCC 520 – Principles reiterated.

• Mathew P. Thomas v. Kerala State Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 263 – Distinction between foundation and motive; if misconduct is the real basis, termination is punitive even if order is simpliciter in form; court can look behind the order.

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.