Arup Basu Chowdhury vs Uco Bank & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 216 Cal

18.01.2021
     09
 RP Ct.04
                                    F MA 1375 of 2017

                                   Arup Basu Chowdhury
                                          Versus
                                     UCO Bank & Ors.



             Mr. Arup Basu Chowdhury
                                           ....    For Appellant
                                                 (appearing in person)
             Mr. Soumya Majumdar
             Mr. Soumen Das
                                           ....    For Respondents

Appellant appears in person. He wants to ventilate his grievances. It is obvious that he cannot marshal the facts or collect his thoughts, regarding which is the provision of law applicable, for further hearing of his appeal effectively. Even then, from his submissions, we notice that the Enquiry Officer (EO) had submitted his report on 15th January, 2015. In his report he said charge no.4 is not proved. Final order is dated 24 th January, 2015.

It appears there was earlier disciplinary proceeding set aside. In that proceeding there was finding of charge no.2 as not proved but charge no.4 was found proved. In the proceeding thereafter had, charge no.2 has been found to be proved while charge no.4, not proved. We find, in said final order dated 24 th January, 2015, inter alia, following was said.

"The actions of the CSO as above, strongly indicate a nexus with the parties he brought in to the bank, extended credit facilities without any justifications and went on to provide them

bank's money as and when they asked for showing scant regard for the Bank's laid down norms and policies. His actions cost the Bank heavily as showing in the above accounts turning into NPA subsequently and failure of the Bank to recover them except one account that of M/s. Alcon (Allegation No.1, Sl. No.8).

Respondent will indicate whether all accounts dealt with by appellant were mentioned in the documents supporting articles of charge or that only some were. This is in context of us having noticed that in spite of statement of strong indication had of appellant having nexus with parties, there is no evidence tendered in support of the same. It is all about exceeding his power and bad judgment.

List on 29th January, 2021.

(Arindam Sinha, J.)

(Suvra Ghosh, J)