Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Wpa 2728 (W) Of 202 vs United Bank Of India & Ors on 11 June, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present: - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhendu Samanta.
IN THE MATTER OF
WPA 2728 (W) of 2020
With
CAN 1 of 2022
Pratul Kumar Nayak
Vs.
United Bank of India & Ors
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sidhartha Banerjee, Adv.,
Ms. Chittapriya Ghosh, Adv.,
Mr. Gautam Acharya, Adv.,
Ms. Priyanka Saha, Adv.
For the respondent
Bank : Mr. RN Majumder, Adv.
Mr. S.M. Obaidullah, Adv.
Mr. R. Chowdhury Adv
Reserved on : 27.03.2025
Judgment on : 11.06.2025
Subhendu Samanta, J.
1. Petitioner was working as a Head Cashier, United Bank of India
Raghurampur Branch, under Purba Medinipur region. He was served
with a memo Dated 17th March 2018 issued by Chief Manager (DIR)
and a competent Authority, by such he had been suspended from
service with immediate effect pending disciplinary action and disposal
thereof. Subsequently a charge sheet dated 17.11.2018 was issued
against the petitioner alleging gross misconduct in terms of Clause 5
2
(a) and Clause 5 (k) read with Clause 5 (j) of memorandum of
settlement dated 10.04.2002.
2. Petitioner submitted written statement of defence against the
said charge sheet. Chief Manager (DIR) and Disciplinary Authority also
forwarded a list of documents relied by the authorities to the
petitioner. By placing the written statement of defence, the petitioner
denied and disputed the allegation contained in the charge sheet,
inquiry officer was appointed. The Disciplinary Authority vide its order
dated 31st May, 2019 has passed the final order of punishment as a
major punishment imposed upon petition to the effect that “removal
from service with superannuation benefits, i.e., Pension and/or
Provident funds and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the
rules or regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without
disqualification from future employment” in terms of Clause 6 (b)
of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th April, 2010 with immediate
effect.
3. Petitioner approached to the appellate authority, the appellate
authority after hearing the petitioner has affirmed the final order of
punishment issued by the disciplinary authority by its order dated
16.09.2019.
4. Being aggrieved by against the order dated 16.09.2019,
petitioner approached this court through a writ petition being WP No.
20728 (w) of 2019 for seeking necessary direction. After hearing the
parties a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated-
November 19, 2019 remanded back the matter to the appellate
3
authority to take a fresh decision with regard to ground Nos. (X) to
(XIV) of Paragraph (XVI) of memo of appeal filed by the petitioner.
5. In terms of the said direction the concerned authority has
passed the impugned order on 21st January 2020.
6. Hence this writ.
7. It is the contention of the petitioner that order of the
disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority and
punishment thereof against the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. The
petitioner is suffering double jeopardy in this matter. The concerned
authority/respondent authority has already imposed punishment
upon the petitioner on the earlier occasion against the selfsame
alleged charges. Now the impugned order of punishment by the
disciplinary authority is a complete non-application of mind. He
submits that it would be revealed from the charges that for Para-B of
the charges the concern authority has passed a punishment to the
petitioner in terms of “sensor” vide a memorandum dated 22nd
December 2017 issued by Chief Manage (Admin).
8. He further submits that according to Clause 9 of bipartite
settlement “sensor” come under punishment for gross misconduct.
The authority concern has already imposed the punishment. Thus
they cannot again impose punishment for the same offence. It is the
further contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that at the
time of serving show cause upon the petitioner the respondent
authority has served 16 Nos. of relied documents but during the
4
course of departmental proceedings the concerned authority has used
17 Nos. of documents to pass the purported order. He submits that
the alleged confession letter of petitioner dated 15.02.2018 never
handed over to the petitioner. It is the further contention of the
Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the concerned authority has
not followed direction of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. WP
20728 (w) of 2019. He prayed for setting aside the entire order of
punishment.
9. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank
Authorities submits that the instant writ petition is not maintainable.
As the petitioner is of workmen under definition of Section 2 (3) of
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, the grievance of the petitioner is
available under the Industrial Disputes Tribunal, so the instant writ is
not maintainable.
10. It is the further contention of the respondent that the concerned
disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority has properly
followed the Principles of natural justice, proper opportunity being
heard to the petitioner has already been given. The petitioner was
placed his defence by filing the written statement, after hearing the
petitioner the concerned authority has passed the order of
punishment according to the Bipartite Settlement.
11. It is the further contention of the respondent bank that this writ
court cannot interfere with the well deserved decision of the
disciplinary authority.
5
12. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties to determine
the entire issue it is required to set out. The charges framed against
the petitioner.
Ref No.: PD/DIR/12/3355/4985/2018
17.11.2018
During the tenure of your service as Single Window
Operator at Bank’s Raghurampur Branch since 29.05.2017, you
had allegedly committed the following irregular acts;
A. On 15.02.2018, you had misappropriated Rs. 3.00 Lacs
from the cash department at Raghurampur Branch. A Cash
Shortage of Rs. 3.00 Lacs was found by the Branch Manager, the
joint custodian of cash, while undertaking cash verification of
closing cash on 15.02.2018. The Branch Manager found
difference of the said amount in physical cash while verifying
with the safe guide register. You have confessed to have taken
away the cash from Branch for self use to meet the expenses of
treatment of some kidney related ailment of your son and also
you had borrowed a large sum of money from outside. On “being
asked, you made good the shortage of Rs. 3.00 Lac within 30-35
minutes. Thus, you have allegedly committed a fraud to Bank’s
treasure to the extent of Rs. 3.00 Lac for your personal gain and
purpose.
B. During the tenure of your service as Sub Staff of
Brajballavpur Branch from 07.08.2014 to 26.05.2017, you have
committed the following irregularities:
1. You have accepted bribe of Rs. 7000/- on 15.12.2016 from a
customer Sri Arabinda Pal for facilitating a loan for him which
you have confessed and the amount so taken was returned by you
by crediting the account of Sri Arabinda Pal on 19.01.2017.
2. You have taken money from three BC agent with a promise to
arrange Govt/Bank’s job for them and handed over stamp papers
to this effect to three BC agent/complainant. Thus, you were
found to be indulged in illegal/fraudulent activities and duped 3
BC agents of the Branch. Your above act which is unbecoming of
an employee of the Bank has tarnished the image of the Bank.
Thus, your above fraudulent acts during the course of Bank’s
business tantamount to gross misconduct in terms of Clause 5 (a)
6
and Clause 5 (k) read with Clause 5 (j) of the Memorandum of
Settlement dated 10.4.2002, which read as under: –
(a)-” engaging in any trade or business outside the scope of his
duties except with the written permission of the Bank”
5 (k)-“giving or taking a bribe or illegal gratification from a
customer or an employee of the Bank”
5 (J)- “doing an act Prejudicial to the interest of the Bank or gross
negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss”.
You are hereby directed to submit your written statement of
defence to the aforesaid charges within a period of 7 (seven) days
from the date of receipt of this letter, failing which it will be
presumed that you have no defence to offer and under the
circumstances the Bank will be at liberty to proceed against you
as would be deemed fit and proper.
13. The alleged earlier punishment which was imposed upon
petitioner vide memo dated 22.02.2017 required to be set out herein
under
Ref. No. PRBMRO/ADMN/Complaint/ 1527/2017-18
Date: 22-12-2017
Dear Sir,
Re:- Complaint of a customer Sri Arabinda Pal against you for
taking Rs.7000/- illegally alongwith KYC documents in
consideration of arranging sanction of Loan.
With reference to Letter No PUMED/ADMN/SWO/233/2017-18
dated 31.05.2017 and your reply dated 19.06.2017 and inquiry
conducted by Sr. Manager (Admin), Purba Medinipur Region, it is
observed that:
7
1. You have received the money from the complainant Sri
Arbinda Pal and deposited back in his A/c no-1318010580848on
19.01.2017 and it has been confessed by you in your letter dated
19.06.2017.
2. You are in a habit of taking money from Bank’s customers and
general public of the locality in the pretense of arranging their
loan sanctioned from Bank or business purpose.
3. You have also in the habit of taking money from BC agents in
the pretense of arranging employment in the bank or other
departments.
4. You are maligning the image of the Bank in the locality and
general public with such type of activities.
Your such type of dubious activities has been taken by the
competent authority very seriously and you are warned to refrain
from such activities in future.
Yours faithfully
14. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is suffering from
double jeopardy, vide memo dated 22.12.2017 he was imposed
punishment of “sensor”, and again the said charge was placed in the
impugned charge dated 17.11.2018.
15. This issue was also raised before the appellate authority
wherein the appellate authority, in the impugned order, has set aside
8
the issue. For better understanding, portion of the order impugned
order is set out below-
After going through the submissions, I find that above
submissions are based on misconception. The appellant had
failed to understand the fact that the letter issued by the
Chief Manager (Admn) of Purba Medinipur Region was issued
in his administrative capacity. The appellant through the
above pleadings had tried to intertwine the calling of
explanation by the controlling authority with that of the
disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the Bank.
The appellant is also aware of the fact that the Chief
Manager (D & IR Division) of the bank is designated as the
disciplinary authority for award staff employees of the
Bank. I find that the charge sheet no.
PD/DIR/12/3355/4985/2018 dated 17/11/2018 issued
against the appellant under Clause 5 (Gross misconduct)
was issued by the Chief Manager (D & IR Division) and
hence, I do not find any anomaly in disciplinary
proceedings initiated against the appellant as alleged by
him.
The appellant was not awarded any punishment prior to the
questioned order of the DA dated 31.05.2019 on the issue.
Hence, I find that the contention of the appellant that he
has been prosecuted for the same offence is false and does
not merit consideration.
16. Let me consider whether the decision of the concern authority is
unreasonable, perverse or illegal in present facts and circumstances of
this case. Vide memo dated 22.12.2017, it appears that one enquiry
was conducted by Senior Manager (Admin) Purba Medinipur region in
respect of complaint of a customer namely Arabind Pal against
petitioner for taking Rs. 7,000/- illegally in consideration of arranging
sanction loan. On the basis of such enquiry Chief Manager (Admin)
had cautioned to petitioner by memo dated 22.12.2017. The above
mentioned memo issued by Chief Manager (Admin) does not reflect the
fact that any departmental proceedings had ever been initiated against
the petitioner for alleged complaint by one customer namely Arabinda
9
pal. It is the contention of the appellate authority that Chief Manage
(Admin) of Purba Medinipur region has issued the Memo in his
administrative capacity.
17. The term double jeopardy means imposition of punishment
twice upon a convict for similar offence. The alleged illegality by the
petitioner reflected in the complaint of a customer namely Arabinda
Pal, never placed before any disciplinary authority moreover petitioner
was never asked to submit his explanation/defence again such
complaint. Thus the memo dated 22.12.2017 cannot be set to be a
punishment of caution/”sensor” by petitioner.
18. Moreover it appears that view of the Appellate Authority in
terms of the direction of this court vide its impugned order dated 21st
January, 2020 in respect of memo dated 22.12.2017 issued by the
Chief Manager (Admin) to the petitioner, is plausible and acceptable;
thus the plea of double jeopardy as raised by the Learned Counsel for
the petitioner is turned down.
19. During the course of argument the Bank Authority has raised a
point that the instant writ petition is not maintainable in terms of
Bipartite Settlement between the Bank Authority and the present
petitioner. It is the contention of the Bank Authority that petitioner
has its alternative remedy before the Industrial Tribunal, thus this
writ court must not entertain petitioner.
20. Several decisions have been placed by the Bank Authority as
well as the petitioners on that point. It appears that this issue has
10
already been agitated before this court in writ petition No. 20728 (W)
of 2019, wherein a Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 19.11.2019
has settled the issue that the writ petition is maintainable whereas
allegation of violation of natural justice has been raised. None of the
parties have preferred appeal against the order, rather both of them
has accepted the order, thus the issue of maintainability as raised by
the Learned Counsel for the Bank Authority appears to be not tenable
at the stage.
21. Another issue for non-supplying of a particular document/letter
dated 15.02.2018 is raised by the petitioner. It has been argued by the
petitioner that during the course of departmental proceeding the said
document was not handed to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner argued that for non-supplying of the relevant document, the
petitioner could not bring out his grievance in the departmental
proceeding, by such, natural justice has been violated. Thus the
impugned order of punishment required to be set aside.
22. In support of his contention he cited a decision of Hon’ble Apex
Court passed in South Bengal State Transport Corporation Vs.
Swapan Kumar Mitra and Ors reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court
3533.
On the question, whether copies of the
documents relied on the Inquiry Officer
and the disciplinary authority must be
served on respondent No. 1 before passing
any order of removal from service, it is no
doubt true that such order of punishment,
ought not be passed without supplying the
copies of the documents to the respondent
No. I. Now the question is whether non-
11
supply of the documents, as referred to
herein before, would vitiate the
departmental proceeding in its entirety
and directions for reinstatement should be
passed or directions to supply copies of
documents relied on the by authorities
should be made and thereafter direct
reinstatement of respondent No. 1 into
service on condition that the disciplinary
authority shall continue with the
disciplinary proceeding from the stage of
supplying copies of the documents to the
respondent No. I to reach a fresh and final
conclusion. It cannot be disputed that
serious prejudice would be caused to the
respondent No. 1 if the documents on
which reliance was placed by the
authorities in removing him from service
were not supplied to him. This will cause
denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing
to him. This view was also expressed by
the decision of this Court in the case of
Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan
(1991 (1) SCC 588), which was approved by
the Constitution Bench of this Court in
Managing Director, ECIL Hyderabad and
others v. B. Karunakar and others (1993
(4) SCC 727). This Court in Ramzan Khan’s
case (supra) at paragraph 18, has clearly
observed as follows:
“… wherever there has been an inquiry
officer and he has furnished a report to the
disciplinary authority at the conclusion of
the inquiry holding the delinquent guilty
of all or any of the charges with proposal
for any particular punishment or not, the
delinquent is entitled to a copy of such
report and will also be entitled to make a
representation against it, if he so desires
and non furnishing of the report would
amount to violation of rules of natural
justice and make the final order liable to
challenge hereafter.”
23. Petitioner further argued that due to non-supply of the
document, serious prejudice has been caused upon the petitioner. So
the impugned order of punishment required to be set aside.
12
24. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank Authority
submits that all the documents have been served before initiation of
the proceeding. He submits that during departmental enquiry full sets
of documents including three exhibits and 17 MEs were handed over
to the petitioner. Enquiry proceedings was started to the record of
receiving of the documents and contends thereof by the petitioner. At
this juncture, before the writ court, the issue has been raised
purportedly. Learned Counsel for the Bank Authority submits that
writ court is not as appellate authority to the decision of the Bank.
Under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the High Court has only
supervisory power; neither any serious prejudice has been caused
upon the petitioner nor departmental enquiry suffers arbitrariness.
25. In support of his contention he cited a decision of Hon’ble Apex
Court passed in JD Jain the Management, State Bank of India
reported in 1982 Supreme Court SCC 673
In an application for a Writ of Certiorari under
Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing an
award of an Industrial Tribunal, the jurisdiction
of the High Court is limited. It can quash the
award, inter alia, when the Tribunal has
committed an error of law apparent on the face
of the record or when the finding of facts of the
Tribunal is perverse. In the case before us,
according to the Tribunal as Kansal was not
examined, the evidence before it was hearsay
and as such on the basis thereof the appellant
could not be legally found guilty.
26. Lalit Popli Vs. Canara Bank and Ors (2003) 3 Supreme Court
583
17. While exercising jurisdiction ‘under Article
226 of the Constitution The High Court does not
13
act as an appellate authority. Its jurisdiction is
circumscribed by limits of judicial review to
correct errors of law or procedural errors leading
to manifest injustice or violation of principles of
natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to
adjudication of the case on merits as an
appellate authority.
18. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India the
scope of judicial review was indicated by stating
that review by the court is of decision-making
process and where the findings of the
disciplinary authority are based on some
evidence, the court or the tribunal cannot
reappreciate the evidence and substitute its own
finding.
27. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and
considering the matter of non-supplying of a document, it appears to
me that the alleged document i.e. a letter of explanation of the
petitioner dated 15.02.2018 is in question here. It has been alleged by
the Bank Authority vide that letter dated 15.02.2018., petitioner has
admitted his guilt before the authority concern. In the impugned order
the same issue was dealt with by the concern authority as follows:
Since, the detailed facts of the case are
already stated in the final order of the DA,
the same is not reiterated herein for the
sake of brevity. The appellant through the
instant appeal inter-alia contends that the
final order of the DA is illegal and that the
impugned punishment imposed upon him
is not commensurate with the
irregularities committed by him. He has
also argued that the document ME-3(Reply
of appellant to explanation letter dated
15.02.2018) was not provided to him
which seems to be a false allegation as
before commencement of the
departmental enquiry full set of
documents (3 Exhibits and 17 MEs) were
handed over to the appellant and enquiry
proceedings started subject to recording of
their satisfaction of receipt of the
documents and exhibits in the enquiry and
14the enquiry proper was completed subject
to the satisfactions of the appellant/DR.
Thus, the allegation of closing of the
enquiry in a haste is also a false allegation
and without any factual merit and hence,
cannot be considered. As against the other
contentions mentioned above, the
undersigned has gone through the entire
facts and records of the case and observe
that the findings of the Disciplinary
Authority are based on logically probative
material. The charges proved against the
appellant were related to misappropriation
of bank’s fund, acceptance of bribe and
duping of BC agents with promise to
arrange Bank’s job after taking money as
consideration from them. The appellant
being a bank employee was expected to act
with absolute honesty and integrity in
handling funds of the
customers/borrowers of the Bank and its
constituents.
28. It further appears from the document of departmental
proceedings that the petitioner never raised this point regarding non-
service of letter dated 15.02.2018 before the departmental authority
during departmental enquiry or before the first Appellate Authority. It
further appears that the observation of departmental enquiry and the
first Appellate Authority as well as the observation of the authority in
the impugned order justifies the imposition of punishment upon the
petitioner apart from the said document.
29. The authority concern has explained the position whether the
document was supplied or not, they have firmly stated that all the
documents and exhibits has been handed over to the petitioner before
the initiation of the departmental enquiry. Now in dealing with the fact
of denial by the petitioner regarding non-supplying of the document
and positive assertion of the Bank Authority regarding services of
15
such document- let me consider what would be the plausible and
justifiable view of this court in dealing with the issue.
30. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Case of Union of India and Ors Vs.
P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610 has held that
Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India can only see whether-
“a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in
that behalf;
c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in
conducting the proceedings;
d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair
conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence
and merits of the case;
e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by
irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary
and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have
arrived at such conclusion;
g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the
admissible and material evidence;
16
h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted
inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, gave a note of caution by
observing that the High Court shall not –
“(i). re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the
same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv). go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings
can be based.
(vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks
its conscience.”
31. By virtue of the guideline of Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.
Gunashekhara it appears that the High Court cannot reappreciate the
evidences, the High court cannot go into the adequacy of the
evidences. At this juncture the explanation of the concern authority by
the impugned order regarding supply of document appears to me very
plausible. It is justified to hold that the petitioner never raised any
objection for non-supply of document. Moreover, there are other
17
glaring evidences against the petitioner to justify the punishment
imposed upon him. Thus in my view the objection raised by the
petitioner for non-supply of document is appears to be not tenable.
32. Let me consider whether the punishment imposed upon the
petitioner is commensurate to the offence. It is the observation of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in BC Chaturvedy Vs. Union of India (1995)
6 SCC 749 that if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary
authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of High
Court, which would properly mould the relative either directing
disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or
to shorten litigation, it may itself in exceptional and rare cases,
imposed proper punishment with cogent reasons in respect thereof.
33. The banking business and services are vital affected by
catastrophic corruption. Disciplinary measures should, therefore, aim
to eradicate the corrupt proclivity of conduct on the part of the
employees/officers in the public offices including those in banks. It
would, therefore be necessary to consider, from this perspective, the
need for disciplinary action to eradicate corruption to properly
channelize the use of the public funds, the life wire for effectuation of
socio- economic justice in order to achieve the constitutional goals
settled down in the Preamble and to see that corrupt conduct of the
officers does not degenerated of efficiency of service leading to de-
nationalisation of the banking system. What is more, the
nationalisation of the banking service was done in public interest.
Every employee/officer in the bank should strive to see that bank
18
operations or services are rendered in the best interest of the system
and the society so as to effectuate the object of nationalisation.
34. In the present case the reputation of the petitioner regarding his
earlier conduct shows that he was performing his job in a most
uncleaned manner which is derogatory to the interest of the bank
conducting business with public money and it must be lowered the
prestige of the banking institution.
35. Thus in my view the punishment, as imposed upon the
petitioner is commensurate to the offence conducted by the petitioner.
36. At this juncture I find no justification to interfere with the
impugned order passed by the banking authority.
37. Hence, the instant writ petition being meritless, is dismissed
and disposed of.
38. Parties to act upon the server copy and urgent certified copy of
the judgment be received from the concerned Dept. on usual terms
and conditions.
(Subhendu Samanta, J.)
[ad_1]
Source link