Calcutta High Court
Rita Mukherjee vs Uco Bank And Anr on 13 June, 2024
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
OD 9 & 10
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
IA GA 1 of 2023
IA GA 2 of 2024
With
WPO 235 of 2019
APOT 226 of 2021
RITA MUKHERJEE
Versus
UCO BANK AND ANR.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
AND
The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
Date : 13th June, 2024.
Appearance :
Mr. Amiya Kumar Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Arunava Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Swadesh Priya Ghosh, Adv.
...for the appellant
Mr. Soumen Das, Adv.
...for the Respondent Bank (In GA1/2023 and GA2/2024)
.
The Court: IA GA 1 of 2023 is an application for recalling the order of
dismissal of appeal dated April 6, 2022.
In the application for restoration, the appellant advances the medical
condition of her husband and her subsequent shifting of residence as the
grounds for which the appellant was not represented on April 6, 2022.
Although no explanation is provided why her advocate was not
present on April 6, 2022 when the appeal was taken up for consideration, we
propose to take a lenient view. In such circumstances, interest of justice would
be sub-served by allowing the application for restoration.
Consequently, order dated April 6, 2022 dismissing the appeal and
the connected application are recalled. APOT 226 of 2021 is restored in its
original file and number.
In APOT 226 of 2021, appellant filed an application being GA 2 of
2024 for condonation of delay of 480 days in preferring the appeal.
Again, medical condition of the husband of the appellant and the
subsequent shifting of residence are the grounds canvassed for the purpose of
condonation of delay. Again, on the parity of the same reasoning as above, we
deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
GA/2/2024 is allowed.
By consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing.
This appeal is directed against a judgement and order dated May 13,
2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP 235 of 2019.
By the impugned judgement and order, the learned single Judge
disposed of the writ petition filed at the behest of the appellant, challenging the
order of the disciplinary authority affirmed by the Appellate Authority. By the
impugned judgment and order, the learned Judge did not interfere with the
order of the disciplinary authority as affirmed by the appellate authority.
Learned Judge proceeded to take note of the fact that, the terminal benefit of
the appellant was not paid and allowed the appellant to apply for disbursal of
the terminal benefits and proceeded to direct the banking authority to dispose
of such representation and pay the terminal benefit in accordance with law.
Learned advocate for the appellant submits that, the disciplinary
authority, the appellate authority and the learned single Judge mis-appreciated
the facts proved in the disciplinary proceeding. He submits that, the charge
against the appellant that the appellant was negligent in opening the bank
account in respect of the several companies was not proved. He submits that,
the relevant circulars of the Reserve Bank of India at the material point of time
did not prevent multiple accounts to be opened or registered. He refers to the
charge-sheet as against the appellant. He submits that, the charge sheet
contained allegation of money laundering. The disciplinary authority found
money laundering charge not to be established as against the appellant. He
points out that although the bank took the stand in the disciplinary proceeding
that a suit was filed against the bank which was prejudicial to the bank, in
fact, no such proceeding was filed. He submits that such fact was brought on
record at the appellate authority stage.
Learned counsel for the appellant refers to the order of the appellate
authority and submits that in law the appellate authority can concur with the
order of the disciplinary authority and while so concurring is not required to
give elaborate reasons for the same. In the facts and circumstances of the
present case, since additional fact was canvassed and proved at the appeal
stage, it was incumbent upon the appellate authority to decide on such fact.
He submits that the appellate authority erred in not deciding on such fact so
proved at the appeal.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant refers to the order of
punishment imposed. He submits that dismissal from service on the ground of
the charges allegedly proved would shock the conscience of the Court. He
refers to the principle of parity where another delinquent person was proceeded
against by the bank in respect of same transaction and was imposed
punishment of withholding of one increment. Therefore, on the ground of
proportionality and parity, the order of punishment cannot be sustained,
according to him.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that, both the
disciplinary authority, appellate authority as well as the learned Single Judge
failed to take into account the fact that the RTGS took place at the time when
the appellant was not the Bank Manager of the concerned Bank. Such
transactions took place subsequent to the appellant leaving the branch. Such
fact was material for the purpose of considering the liability as also the
quantum of punishment that may be imposed upon the appellant.
Bank is represented.
As noted above, the appellant approached the Writ Court for setting
aside the order of the disciplinary authority, the enquiry report and order of
penalty of dismissal from service passed by the disciplinary authority as well as
the punishment thereof by the appellate authority. The appellant also prayed
for releasing of arrear salaries and all terminal benefits in view of
superannuation.
Learned Single Judge considered the rival contentions of the parties
raised. Learned Single Judge was of the view that, in the disciplinary
proceeding disciplinary authority found some evidence in respect of the charges
and therefore proceeded to impose a penalty of punishment as done. Learned
Single Judge discussed the nature of evidence available against the appellant
and was of the view that such evidence was sufficient for the disciplinary
authority to impose punishment. Learned Single Judge was of the view that,
the decision arrived at by the disciplinary authority cannot be said to be
without any evidence. According to the learned Single Judge, since there exist
evidence with regard to the charges, the necessary inference that may be drawn
from the charges proved is best left to the disciplinary authority. As rightly held
by the learned Single Judge, the Writ Court is not called upon to proceed as an
Appeal Court in respect of a decision of the disciplinary authority and
substitute its decision with that of the disciplinary authority even if the view of
the Writ Court may be a so-called better view.
The evidence led in the disciplinary proceeding proved charges as
against the appellant. The appellant was the Branch Manager at the time when
the subject bank accounts were opened. Opening of the bank accounts were by
legal entities i.e. the limited liability companies. Such legal entities were
obviously functioning through human agency. Bank accounts were opened on
the basis of board resolutions of such companies. Board resolutions were said
to be taken at 5.30 A.M. in the morning by all the companies involved. All the
bank accounts were married to one mobile number of one particular person.
These details of the resolution as well as the mobile phone number of one
person being used for opening a number of bank accounts by a number of
companies should raise suspicion in any prudent person. The appellant being
posted at the relevant bank as the manager of the Branch, was required to take
appropriate steps to protect the interest of the bank while such accounts were
opened by the bank on the basis of such documents. It is of no consequence
that the software or the regulation of the Reserve Bank of India did not prevent
such accounts being opened. No material is placed before us to suggest that
the software of the bank or the RBI regulations permitted a Branch Manager to
jettison prudence when confronted with the nature of documentations proffered
for opening of the concerned bank accounts. Opening of several bank accounts
on the strength of the Board resolutions which are claimed to be taken at 5.30
A.M. and that too coupled with one mobile phone number of one particular
person in respect of all such accounts was obviously suspicious in nature. The
disciplinary authority took such fact into account while arriving at the
decision. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no evidence at all before
the disciplinary authority so far as the dereliction of duty of the appellant is
concerned.
Materials introduced at the appeal stage of the disciplinary
proceedings neither dilute nor wipe out the primary change of dereliction of
duty proved before the enquiry officer.
Both quantum of punishment as also the assessment of the evidence
are in the domain of the disciplinary authority. Nothing is placed on record to
suggest that the view taken by the disciplinary authority is based on no
evidence at all.
It is contended that, another employee was proceeded against in
respect of the same transaction and punishment was imposed against such
person. With respect, such plea cannot be accepted since, the positions of the
appellant before us and the other employee vis-à-vis the bank, were different.
The appellant was the Branch Manager at the relevant point of time while the
other person was not of the same rank. Therefore, principle of parity is not
attracted in the instant case.
In such circumstances, we find no merit in the present appeal.
APOT 226 of 2021 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.)
(MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.)
TR/
