Calcutta High Court Quashes Bank Officer's Premature Retirement Citing Religious Discrimination
The Calcutta High Court has set aside the premature retirement of a senior bank officer, ruling that his constitutional right to choose and practice his faith is protected under Article 25. The petitioner, who joined United Bank of India (now merged with Punjab National Bank) in 1981, alleged that he faced targeted harassment and discriminatory treatment after converting from Hinduism to Islam due to caste-based discrimination. Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay emphasized that no adverse administrative action can be based on an individual's choice of religion. The court highlighted that while conclusive proof of discriminatory intent was not established, such allegations demand heightened fairness, transparency, and objectivity from administrative authorities. The judgment reaffirmed that constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15, and 25 are enforceable mandates, not merely ornamental declarations. The court noted that deviating from the normative standard of retiring employees at the age of superannuation requires compelling justification. This decision underscores the state's obligation to maintain religious neutrality and ensures that service records are handled with statutory propriety, protecting employees from retaliatory measures cloaked as administrative decisions.
Wire timeline
Calcutta High Court Quashes Bank Officer's Premature Retirement Citing Religious Discrimination
The Calcutta High Court has set aside the premature retirement of a senior bank officer, ruling that his constitutional right to choose and practice his faith is protected under Article 25. The petitioner, who joined United Bank of India (now merged with Punjab National Bank) in 1981, alleged that he faced targeted harassment and discriminatory treatment after converting from Hinduism to Islam due to caste-based discrimination. Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay emphasized that no adverse administrative action can be based on an individual's choice of religion. The court highlighted that while conclusive proof of discriminatory intent was not established, such allegations demand heightened fairness, transparency, and objectivity from administrative authorities. The judgment reaffirmed that constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15, and 25 are enforceable mandates, not merely ornamental declarations. The court noted that deviating from the normative standard of retiring employees at the age of superannuation requires compelling justification. This decision underscores the state's obligation to maintain religious neutrality and ensures that service records are handled with statutory propriety, protecting employees from retaliatory measures cloaked as administrative decisions.
The Indian Express