Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 890 (GAU)

Tarani Kanta Pathak v. State of Assam

2017-07-11

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) : None appears for the petitioner, when the matter is called upon. Heard Mr. K.K. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 as well as Mr. M.R. Adhikary, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1. 2. The petitioner had joined the Assam Cooperative Apex Bank Limited herein after referred as “Apex Bank” as an Asstt. on 01.08.1967. In the month of August, 2006, the petitioner was transferred to the Halflong branch of the bank as per order dated 17.08.2006, where he had joined as Branch Manager. It is stated that on 29.02.2008, the petitioner had superannuated from service. 3. The petitioner in this writ petition is aggrieved by an order dated 24.06.2008 of the General Manager (Admn.) of the respondent Apex Court by which, the petitioner was informed that as per the decision of the Board of Directors of the Bank in its meeting held on 15.05.2008, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- had been recovered from his admissible service benefits and further an amount of Rs.7016/- had been recovered being outstanding amount of T.A. advance given to the petitioner. 4. It is stated that in respect of the recovery of the amount of Rs.50,000/- an incident had occurred during the service period of the petitioner as the Branch Manager at Halflong. On 07.05.2007 at about 3.30 p.m. three men belonging to some of the extremist group came to the branch and told the petitioner that they will speak with him over the phone. Next day, the petitioner was told over the phone that one person had been sent to the bank and the petitioner was asked give him an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as their yearly donation. The petitioner accordingly informed the Managing Director of the respondent Apex Bank by its letter dated 11.05.2007 that the said persons have threatened the petitioner several times and made a demand for payment. 5. The petitioner by duly informing the respondent bank about the aforesaid incident regarding the threat by the extremist elements had sought for necessary help from the bank for his protection and also for instruction regarding the donation. 5. The petitioner by duly informing the respondent bank about the aforesaid incident regarding the threat by the extremist elements had sought for necessary help from the bank for his protection and also for instruction regarding the donation. Subsequently, by another letter dated 25.08.2007, the petitioner had informed the Managing Director of the Bank that on the said day, at 1.00 p.m. two young persons with pistol had entered the branch and demanded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as the yearly donation for their organization. When the petitioner had expressed his inability to make the payment and offered only Rs.6,000/- being the collection made by the entire staff of the branch, the concerned persons had refused to take it and demanded atlest Rs.50,000/-. 6. The petitioner was threatened that in the event, the payment was not made, all the employees of the respondent Apex Bank would face serious consequences. Finding no alternative, the petitioner and the other staff members had to pay out of compulsion a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the extremists. Accordingly, the petitioner had made a request to the Managing Director seeking his advise as to how the amount of Rs.50,000/- is to be adjusted. It was also stated in the letter dated 25.08.2007 that the matter was not informed to the police as the same would invite serious consequence from the extremist elements. Subsequently, the petitioner writes another letter dated 25.08.2007 to the Managing Director that all the employees of the bank had entered into a negotiation with the extremist elements and ultimately they were required to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-. In return the General Manager of the Bank by letter dated 11.09.2007 had written to the petitioner Branch Manager that it is the primary duty of the Branch Manager to inform the police as soon as he receives any threatening call from the extremist outfit demanding money. Accordingly, it was stated that the concerned Zonal Manager had been asked to cause an enquiry into the incident. 7. The petitioner thereafter prefers a writ petition being WP(C) No.8542/2003 and this Court by order dated 01.06.2005 had provided that the respondent authorities shall consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.06.2008 and dispose of the same by making a speaking order by communicating the same in writing to the petitioner. 7. The petitioner thereafter prefers a writ petition being WP(C) No.8542/2003 and this Court by order dated 01.06.2005 had provided that the respondent authorities shall consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.06.2008 and dispose of the same by making a speaking order by communicating the same in writing to the petitioner. Consequent thereto, the order impugned in this petition dated 24.06.2008 had been passed by which the petitioner was informed that as per the decision of the Board of Directors of the Bank in its meeting held on 15.05.2008, an amount of Rs.50,000/- had been recovered from the admissible service benefit of the petitioner. As regards the other recovery of an amount of Rs.7016/- as against the outstanding T.A. advance, it is the case of the respondent authorities that the petitioner had availed certain T.A. advance, but for some purpose had misused it and therefore, a justification is sought to be made for the recovery. 8. As regards the recovery of the amount of Rs.50,000/-, learned counsel for the respondent Apex Bank seeks to justify the same by referring to the aforesaid letters dated 11.05.2007 and 25.08.2007 of the petitioner by stating that the same amounts to an admission by the petitioner. On the basis of such submission, the respondent authorities seek to justify the recovery by taking a stand that no proceeding or enquiry is required in this case as the amount recovered has been admitted by the petitioner. 9. On a closure perusal, it is seen that the said letters dated 11.05.2007 and 25.08.2007 are a communication from the petitioner to the higher authorities in the respondent Apex Bank indicating that the employees of the bank are facing serious situations and certain demands being made by the extremist organization. By the letter dated 11.05.2007, the petitioner seeks for an advice from the higher authorities in the bank as to what decision is to be taken under the circumstances. No response had been made by the bank against such request of the petitioner and nor any advise had been given by the Bank requiring the petitioner to either file a complaint before the police or to withdraw themselves from the said location. No response had been made by the bank against such request of the petitioner and nor any advise had been given by the Bank requiring the petitioner to either file a complaint before the police or to withdraw themselves from the said location. Although by a communication dated 11.09.2007, the General Manager of the Bank subsequently stated that the petitioner ought to have informed the police regarding such extremist activity, but is noticed that such advise came much later after the events had already taken place. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that both the letters dated 11.05.2007 and 25.08.2007 in fact constituted an explanation by the petitioner as to under what circumstance he was required to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the extremist organization rather than it being an admission. 10. Accordingly, the considered view of the Court is that if the Bank intends to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of the said amount, atleast a hearing and an appropriate proceeding against the petitioner is required to be made. The said recovery clearly results in adverse civil consequence against the petitioner and the principles of natural justice also demands that appropriate hearing be given to the petitioner before embarking on a decision to recover the amount from the retirement benefit of the petitioner. 11. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the order dated 24.06.2008 providing for recovery of an amount of Rs.50,000/- and an amount of Rs.7016/- from the retirement benefit of the petitioner is not sustainable in its present form. Accordingly the said order dated 24.06.2008 is hereby set aside on the sole ground that no proceeding was held against the petitioner before such recovery and that the same was made in violation of the principle of natural justices. This Court also deems it appropriate that the respondent authorities be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner as per law, if so advised. With the above observation, this petition stands disposed of.