Arup Basu Chowdhury vs Uco Bank & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 739 Cal

29.01.2021
     13
 PG Ct.04
                                     FMA 1375 of 2017

                                  Arup Basu Chowdhury
                                         Versus
                                    UCO Bank & Ors.


             Mr. Arup Basu Chowdhury
                                  . .......            appellant
                                             (appearing in person)
             Mr. Soumya Majumdar
             Mr. Soumen Das
                                             ....    For respondents

We are yet to be answered on the query put in our

order dated 18th January, 2021.

We have perused some of the materials in volumes

I and II of paper books. It appears the earlier proceeding

was set aside on finding procedural lapse of omission to

give inspection of documents to appellant. Appellant's

earlier writ petition (W.P. 172 of 2014) was dealt with by

order dated 10th March, 2014 setting aside the earlier

proceeding. The bank accepted the position and launched

disciplinary proceeding afresh, giving rise to this appeal.

We have already found that in the earlier

proceeding charge no. 2 was not proved but charge no. 4

found proved. In that context, charge no. 2 was found

proved in the subsequent proceeding along with charge

nos. 1 and 3, as in the inquiry report and concurred by the

disciplinary and appellate authorities. Charge no. 4 was

found not proved by the inquiry officer, concurred by the

disciplinary authority but the finding overturned by the

appellate authority. Charge no. 1 is that appellant failed to

discharge his duties with devotion and diligence. Charge

no. 2 is he acted otherwise than in his best judgment.

Charge no. 3 is he having abused his power and position

and acted in a manner unbecoming of an officer. Charge

no. 4 is his failure to ensure and protect interest of the

bank.

We have perused the report and orders of the

disciplinary and appellate authorities in the earlier

reference regarding charge no. 2. We have also perused the

report and consequent findings in the subsequent

proceeding in respect of that charge. The consistent

defence was that appellant had acted under pressure to

increase business of the bank in meeting targets. We have

not found any fresh material, at this stage for a different

finding of 'proved' against an earlier finding of 'not proved',

subject to there being demonstration by respondents.

So far as charge no. 4 is concerned, finding in

the earlier proceeding was that there was sufficient security

in all the accounts to hold that bank's interest had not

been exposed to risk. In the subsequent proceeding, the

appellate authority has overturned the finding. We are yet

to see the reason why. Furthermore, we will hear

respondents on regulation 17 in UCO Bank Officers

Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, on

what is confirmation, enhancement, reduction or setting

aside of penalty.

Of course, respondents and appellant will be

heard on other points, if they argue.

List next Friday (05.02.2021.)

(Arindam Sinha, J.)

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)