Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 329 (TRI)

Jiban Krishna Banik v. Tripura Garmin Bank

2022-08-08

ARINDAM LODH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent-Tripura Gramin Bank. 2. The petitioner was an officer of Tripura Gramin Bank. He retired on 31.01.2017. During the continuation of his service he was promoted to the post of Scale-III Officer. When the petitioner was discharging his duty as scale-III Officer under the respondents, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. The petitioner participated in the proceeding. Some relevant documents were introduced by the respondent-bank to substantiate the Article of Charges framed against the petitioner. Inquiry Officer reported his finding to the Disciplinary Authority. On receipt of the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority reverted the petitioner from the post of Scale-III Officer to the post of Scale-II Officer. The petitioner preferred departmental appeal to the appellate authority. The appellate authority after going through the representation submitted by the petitioner dismissed the same and upheld the order of reversal as passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 3. The order of penalty was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing a writ petition before this Hon'ble court. The said writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge of this court. The petitioner preferred an intra-Court appeal. The Division Bench after hearing the parties remitted the matter back to the respondents asking them to furnish inquiry report to the petitioner and proceed in accordance with law. The inquiry report was furnished to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation. On consideration of the said representation, the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment reverting the petitioner from Scale-III Officer to Scale II Officer. Intra-departmental was submitted by the petitioner. The Appellate Authority upheld the order of reversion as passed by the disciplinary authority. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. In course of hearing, Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has submitted that the documents under which the respondents tried to substantiate the Article of Charges have not been proved in accordance with law. None of the officers of the bank came forward to adduce evidence in support of the truthfulness of the contents of those documents. As such, those documents cannot be considered as reliable evidence as the same had been brought on record contrary to establish principle of law. 5. None of the officers of the bank came forward to adduce evidence in support of the truthfulness of the contents of those documents. As such, those documents cannot be considered as reliable evidence as the same had been brought on record contrary to establish principle of law. 5. I have gone through those documents, it is revealed that the presenting Officer had furnished those documents without examining any of the witnesses in support of those documents. As such, I find force in the submissions of learned senior counsel that the documents had not been exhibited and brought on record in accordance with law. The evidence Act, 1872 is also applicable in the departmental proceeding. The documentary evidence was also required to be proved by the respondent-bank in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, which they have failed to do. The party intending to rely upon any documents has to adduce evidence to substantiate the truthfulness of the contents and integrity of the document. Non-examination of witnesses in support of the relevant documents vitiates the entire proceeding. However in my opinion, an opportunity should be provided to the respondent-bank to prove the relevant documents in accordance with law to render justice. 6. In view of this, I again remit the matter to the respondents-bank to adduce fresh evidence in accordance with law. It has already been observed by the Division Bench of this court while disposing of the WA No. 24 of 2016 that the respondent-bank should take into account the important fact that the petitioner has successfully recovered the amount of Rs. 22 lakhs which was temporarily misappropriated by the employee. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this court had further observed that 'These aspects would have to be examined by the Disciplinary Authority which can be done only by taking into account the representation that the petitioner made against the report of the Inquiry Officer.' 7. In the light of above, the respondent-bank is directed to adduce fresh evidence and while considering the evidence on record must keep in mind that the employee had successfully recovered the alleged misappropriated amount. The impugned order of punishment dated 24.01.2020 and the appellate order dated 10.06.2020 are hereby set aside and quashed. While considering the matter afresh, the respondent-bank shall also keep in mind that the petitioner had already retired from service. The impugned order of punishment dated 24.01.2020 and the appellate order dated 10.06.2020 are hereby set aside and quashed. While considering the matter afresh, the respondent-bank shall also keep in mind that the petitioner had already retired from service. If the respondents wish to adduce further evidence that must be done within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date the bank shall receive a copy of this order after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine such witness. It is made clear that if the entire proceeding is not completed within a period of 3(three) months, then the entire Article of Charges shall stand quashed and the service of the petitioner shall be treated and regulated as Scale-III Officer for all purposes. 8. With the aforesaid directions, the instant writ petition is allowed and thus disposed of.