Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 531 (CAL)

Asoke Kumar Sinha v. Allahabad Bank

2014-06-19

SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI

body2014
JUDGMENT Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. Let Affidavit-in-Opposition and Affidavit-in-Reply filed in Court today be taken on record. The petitioner is a retired officer of Allahabad Bank. He retired on January 31, 2010 as Manager, RRB, Khosh Bagan, Burdwan. Three weeks before his retirement, a charge-sheet, containing various irregularities having financial implications, was issued to the petitioner by the then Assistant General Manager and Disciplinary Authority. An inquiry was held into the charges. The petitioner has given his replies and the same was not found satisfactory. The respondent bank decided to hold an inquiry into the charges. After a lengthy inquiry, the Inquiry Officer had practically found the writ petitioner guilty of almost all the charges and the Disciplinary Authority, after considering the report of the Inquiry Officer and the documents, concurred with the views and findings of the Inquiry Officer that fourteen charges levelled against him had been proved, thirteen charges were partially proved and one charge was not proved. The Disciplinary Authority had further observed that the charges were very serious in nature, as the petitioner had not followed the stipulated terms of sanction of loan and failed to comply with the guidelines of the bank relating to credit dispensation, monitoring and follow-up. This, he found, was done deliberately by the petitioner and such acts were prejudicial to the interest of the bank and amounted to violation of the conduct regulations applicable to the Allahabad Bank officers and amounted to misconduct. He, therefore, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment. Such order was passed on the date of his retirement. The petitioner has challenged this order of termination as well as the charge-sheet and the inquiry report by the present petition. Mr. Sarbadhikari, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has assailed the acts of the bank on various counts. For the present, I need not go into the details of all those. A very specific point of grievance of the petitioner is that the bank, while initiating the disciplinary proceeding, had chosen not to comply with their own circulars and charges have been levelled against the petitioner in violation thereof. The articles of charge brought against the petitioner recite under different articles including several allegations relating to improper sanctioning of loan in different years starting from September, 2004. According to Mr. The articles of charge brought against the petitioner recite under different articles including several allegations relating to improper sanctioning of loan in different years starting from September, 2004. According to Mr. Sarbadhikari, this is not clearly permissible in terms of bank’s own circular dated May 15, 2009. The said circular, inter alia, reminds the Disciplinary Authority to keep in mind the time limit for initiation of disciplinary proceedings. It has been provided in the said circular that no disciplinary proceeding will ordinarily lie against any official for any lapse, not detected within two successive internal regular audits/inspections of the same account or four years from the date of event, whichever is later. According to Mr. Sarbadhikari, since the charge-sheet was issued in January, 2010, no act of an official can be brought under the schedule of disciplinary proceeding after more than four years and the respondent authorities, by introducing the scheme relating to 2004 and 2005, have violated the same. His next limb of submission is that some very important and material documents have not been provided to the petitioner, to which the Inquiry Officer has placed reliance while holding the inquiry proceedings. The petitioner alleges that out of sixty-six documents, wanted by him, the bank only supplied thirty-three documents. Thereby, the petitioner has been deprived of his very valuable right of defence, as those documents had a bearing on the subject matter of the departmental disciplinary proceedings that he had faced. Mr. Sarbadhikari further submitted that for not supplying those documents, the petitioner had been substantially prejudiced in his defence to the charges he was facing. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent bank, submitted that the petitioner, in course of inquiry, had asked for several documents which did not have any relevance on the charges levelled against him. Relevance of a document asked for the purpose of defence of a charged employee is not to be decided by the prosecution at the stage of holding the inquiry. It was not proper for the respondents to prejudge the issue and deny a charged employee of the documents asked for by a former officer of the said bank. There is substance in the submission of the petitioner. It was not proper for the respondents to prejudge the issue and deny a charged employee of the documents asked for by a former officer of the said bank. There is substance in the submission of the petitioner. If the circular referred to above had been issued by the bank authorities, they should not have issued the charge-sheet alleging some misdeeds purportedly committed by the petitioner more than four years before the issue of the charge-sheet. If this is the result of non-application of mind at the stage of issuing the charge-sheet, the Disciplinary Authority too did not advert itself to this aspect of the matter to find the petitioner guilty of the charges. Mr. Sarbadhikari candidly submitted that this point could not be taken by the petitioner at the inquiry as he was not aware of that at that stage. The innocence of the petitioner is understandable while the Disciplinary Aurhority cannot be given the benefit of doubt of innocence their own circular which prohibits initiation of any proceedings relating to a period four years before the issue of charge-sheet. The charges and the finding of the inquiry officer as well as the order of the Disciplinary Authority to that extent call for modification. It is also not understood why documents like auditor’s report and inspection report were not provided to the petitioner at the inquiry because understandably they were likely to throw light on the issues involved in the proceeding and might have helped the petitioner in the preparation of his defence to the charges. It may not be out of place to mention that after all the petitioner was facing charges of some events and incidents which had taken place several years ago and it might not have been possible for him to remember all the details of loans he had sanctioned in course of his official business after he had retired. The respondents by not supplying those documents must have taken away a very valuable right of the petitioner in defending himself in a more meaningful and appropriate manner. This is all the more so when the Disciplinary Authority had concluded that the charges were very serious in nature. In such a case, the authorities ought to have been more careful to provide all the documents asked for by the petitioner to the extent these were within their possession. This is all the more so when the Disciplinary Authority had concluded that the charges were very serious in nature. In such a case, the authorities ought to have been more careful to provide all the documents asked for by the petitioner to the extent these were within their possession. In such view of it, I set aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the Enquiry Report and the charge-sheet. I give liberty to the respondents to issue a fresh charge-sheet to the petitioner on the selfsame allegations, but strictly following the provisions in the relevant circular. The Disciplinary Authority is directed to disclose the remaining documents to the extent possible to the petitioner and the petitioner shall be entitled to submit his written notes thereon and shall be provided with an opportunity to cross-examine any witness only on the points which may emerge from these additional documents. I have been informed that the officer, who had conducted the inquiry, had already retired from service. Therefore, the authorities shall engage an officer who shall not be required to proceed afresh with the inquiry, but shall file a report modifying the earlier one, if necessary, on the basis of the materials already on record as well as those which may emerge from the filing of the additional documents and the written submission of the parties and the cross-examination of the witnesses after the matter is sent back to them. The Disciplinary Authority shall, in compliance of principles of natural justice, reconsider the matter afresh and pass a reasoned order. The petitioner will be at liberty to take the point of grant of provisional pension with the authorities and they shall consider the same strictly in accordance with the existing rules. Since the writ petitioner has retired more than four years ago, I direct the bank authorities to complete the entire procedure within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of the order and the result of the same is to be communicated to the petitioner within a week thereafter. Needless to mention, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case or this order should not be construed as an expression of any opinion by the Court on the merits of the case. That shall be decided by the appropriate authority of the respondent bank strictly in accordance with law. Needless to mention, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case or this order should not be construed as an expression of any opinion by the Court on the merits of the case. That shall be decided by the appropriate authority of the respondent bank strictly in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.