Calcutta High Court
Sukla Bagchi vs Uco Bank And Ors on 27 April, 2022
OD-1
ORDER SHEET
WPO/492/2019
THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
SUKLA BAGCHI
Versus
UCO BANK AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA
Date: April 27, 2022.
Appearance
Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arjun Ray Mukherjee, Adv.
Ms. Saheli Mukherjee, Adv.
Ms. Sarda Sha, Adv.
...for the petitioner
Mr. Soumen Das, Adv.
......for the respondents
The Court: In the writ petition, the petitioner has claimed
promotion from MMGS-III to SMGS-IV. Since at the material point of time
she was serving as branch head at Habra, the petitioner participated in the
promotional process and as per the promotional policy which is at page 49
onwards of the writ petition, petitioner's Annual Performance Appraisal
Report (for short 'APAR') for three consecutive years 2015, 2016 and 2017
were considered by the Appropriate Authority in terms of the said
promotional policy and marks were allotted accordingly. The grievance of
the petitioner is for the year 2017, though the Reviewing Authority and the
Reporting Authority awarded 75.5 marks separately, whereas the Accepting
Authority has awarded 69.5 marks which threw the petitioner out of zone of
consideration for being promoted.
Such reduction of marks on APAR of the petitioner for the year
2017 was questioned by the petitioner and ultimately the matter travelled
before the Hon'ble Division Bench as submitted by Mr. Bikash Ranjan
Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner. The
Hon'ble Division Bench while disposing of the appeal preferred by the UCO
Bank vide order dated 16th July, 2019, passed following order:
Perusing the writ petition we notice that there were several grievances
sought to be raised by the writ petitioner which were not addressed by
the Grievance Redressal Mechanism which prompted the writ petitioner
in approaching the writ Court. We are, therefore, of the view that in the
facts and circumstances of the instant case, the impugned judgment
and order can be set aside while granting liberty to the respondent
no.1/writ petitioner to re-approach the Grievance Redressal Mechanism
(being the Executive Director of UCO bank) who shall have a fresh look
at the matter-objectively-without being influenced in any manner by the
previous decision of the Grievance Redressal Mechanism which went
against her and take a decision in the matter supported with cogent
and justifiable reasons, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to
the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner.
The entire exercise, in terms of this order, shall be completed by the
Executive Director of the appellant no. 1, being the UCO Bank, as
expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks but
not later than six weeks from date of communication of a photostat
certified copy of the order.
We wish to make it clear that the decision to be rendered by the
Executive Director of UCO Bank in terms of this order shall not be
affected by the vacancy position. Non-availability of vacancy to
accommodate the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner shall not stand in the
way of a decision in the matter.
Needless to mention that we have not gone into the merits of the
controversy in issue and the Executive Director of UCO bank - while
deciding the matter in terms of this order - shall not be influenced in
any manner by any observation made either by the First Court or by us,
except to the extent indicated above."
Pursuant to the said order of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated
16th July, 2019, the Executive Director of the Bank passed order which has
been quoted in the letter dated 27th August, 2019 issued by the Assistant
General Manager, HRM Department addressed to the petitioner. From the
said letter dated 27th August, 2019 of the Assistant General Manager, it
appears that the Executive Director in terms of the order of the Hon'ble
Division Bench considered the entire issue and passed an order whereby the
claim of the petitioner for awarding higher marks against APAR of 2017 was
rejected. The said communication letter dated 27th August, 2019 of the
Assistant General Manager whereby the decision of the Executive Director
was communicated is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ
petition.
Mr. Bhattachaya appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner retired on 31st October, 2019 on
superannuation and if Court finds that the benefit of promotion can be
accorded to her, such benefit can be granted notionally. On pointing out
relevant part of the order of the Executive Director as contained in the
communication letter dated 27th August, 2019, it has been contended on
behalf of the petitioner that the authority of the Bank was required to assess
the marks awarded by the Accepting Authority on the basis of objective
consideration, which has not been done in the present case. It has further
been submitted that on business dimensions, different marks have been
awarded to the petitioner who was the branch head at the material point of
time and the subordinate staff, which is impermissible since on business
dimensions, marks are required to be allotted in terms of the promotional
policy. General perception is uniform marks are required to be allotted. It
has further been submitted that the authority of the Bank was required to
decide the issue strictly in accordance with the directions given by the
Hon'ble Division Bench by keeping all points open and on clean slate the
issue ought to have been decided, but the Bank authority in its turn merely
dotted the line on the slate. Upon drawing attention to page 43 of the writ
petition, Mr. Bhattacharya has invited the attention of this Court on the
marks which were required to be awarded in favour of the petitioner under
business dimensions and according to the petitioner, such requirement has
not been followed in the present case and, therefore, the order of the
concerned authority of the Bank as communicated vide letter dated 27th
August, 2019 is not sustainable.
Mr. Das, learned counsel appears on behalf of the Bank and
has submitted that the promotional policy of the Bank has not been
challenged in this writ petition. It has also been submitted that pursuant to
the said policy relating to promotion, petitioner offered her candidature and
when it was found that she was not selected for promotion, she filed writ
petition challenging the marks awarded by the Accepting Authority on
reducing the same as awarded by the Reviewing Authority and Reporting
Authority. Such stand, according to the Bank, is impermissible. Mr. Das
has defended the decision of the Executive Director as contained in the
letter dated 27th August, 2019 and has submitted that there is no anomaly
in such decision making process and such decision may not be interfered
with.
This Court has considered the rival submissions of parties and
perused the relevant materials and pleadings available on record. The
matter relates to promotion from MMGS-III to SMGS-IV in terms of the
promotional policy of the Bank. Vide notification dated 1st June, 2017, a list
of 247 selected officers were found eligible to be promoted wherein name of
the petitioner did not feature, since on appraisal of APAR for the year 2017,
it was found that petitioner was entitled to receive 69.5 marks as awarded
by the Accepting Authority. Said 69.5 marks were awarded by the Accepting
Authority upon reducing the marks of the petitioner which was awarded by
the Reviewing Authority and the Reporting Authority, i.e. 75.5. It is the case
of the petitioner that had the marks of the Reviewing Authority and
Reporting Authority for the year 2017 on APAR been maintained, which was
75.5, then the petitioner would have come within the zone for consideration
for the said promotion.
The Hon'ble Division Bench while considering the entire gamut
of the issue, directed the petitioner herein to re-approach the Grievance
Redressal Mechanism being the Executive Director of the UCO Bank who
shall have a fresh look at the matter objectively without being influenced in
any manner by the previous decision of the Grievance Redressal
Mechanism. Pursuant to such direction, the appropriate authority of the
Bank took up the issue and passed order, which is quoted in the letter
dated 27th August, 2019 and relevant part of the said decision of the
Executive Director is quoted below:
"1. Ms.Sukla Bagchi was the Branch Head of Habra Branch and her
performance need to be assessed on the parameters/ performance
indicators applicable to Branch Heads. It cannot be compared with other
subordinate officers working in the Branch. So, her contention that
because subordinate officers have got around 80% marks so she should
also get almost equivalent to that, is not tenable.
2. The main role of the Branch head is developmental role particularly
development of the credit/advances business of the branch. She has
miserably failed in that during 2016-2017 in Habra Branch as the
advances growth of the branch was negative during that particular year.
3. In-spite of negative growth of advances, the Reporting and Reviewing
Authority of Ms. Bagchi have awarded her 7/10 for deployment of funds,
which was not justified.
4. The Accepting Authority has only corrected the higher marks given by the
Reporting/Reviewing Authority for deployment of funds by reducing it by
6(six). He has given justification also in the APAR format for reducing her
APAR marks from 75.5 to 69.5.
5. Considering all the above points, the decision of the Accepting Authority
appears to be justified and based on performance of Ms. Bagchi in
delivering her duties as Branch Head."
On perusal of such decision of the Executive Director, it
appears to this Court that the said authority of the bank applied its mind
while reassessing the marks awarded by the Accepting Authority in
consideration of the grievance of the petitioner as ventilated through writ
petition that under business dimensions when sub-ordinate staff were
awarded higher marks, how being the Manager of the same bank lower
marks can be awarded to her. While answering this salient point as taken
by the petitioner, it has been explained by the Executive Director that since
the petitioner was the branch head, her performance needs to be assessed
on the parameter/performance indicator applicable to branch head and
may not be compared with other sub-ordinate officers working in the
branch. It appears to this Court that such finding of the Executive Director
has logic, since the petitioner was manning the post of branch head, the
parameter required to be applied on her APAR may not be akin to that of
the subordinate officer. While assessing performance of the petitioner
based on APAR, it was also observed by the bank that in spite of negative
growth of advance, the Reporting and Reviewing Authorities of the
petitioner have awarded 7 out of 10 marks on deployment of funds, same
cannot be countenanced.
On behalf of the petitioner, attention has been drawn to page
43 of the writ petition wherein a formula has been indicated for awarding
marks under business dimensions. It has been argued that this Court is
required to consider whether such formula as contained under business
dimensions relating to awarding of marks has been followed or not by the
respondent bank while appraising the APAR of the petitioner for the year
2017. This court is not in agreement with such submission made on behalf
of the petitioner, considering the issue involved in this writ petition. The
Writ Court being a Court of judicial review should restrict itself to the point
whether the petitioner was assessed under business dimensions or not and
whether fair opportunity was granted to offer her candidature for being
appraised by the bank authority for the purpose of promotion. Therefore,
the contention of the petitioner in this regard is negatived.
Another aspect does not escape notice of this Court that the
petitioner has not challenged the promotional policy, which was applied for
considering the candidature of the petitioner and participated in the
process of promotion subsequently when it was found that she has not
been selected, she filed writ petition challenging the marks awarded by the
Accepting Authority. Such stand of the petitioner can also not be
countenanced.
In view of the above discussions, this Court does not find any
merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be made available
to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
akg
