[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Uco Bank vs Suvasish Dasgupta And Ors on 19 March, 2026
OD 1
wt2
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
APOT/295/2025
IN WPO/211/2021
IA NO. GA/1/2025, GA/2/2025
UCO BANK
VS
SUVASISH DASGUPTA AND ORS.
WITH
OCOT/12/2025
IA NO. GA/1/2025
UCO BANK
VS
SUVASISH DASGUPTA AND ORS.
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE THE MADHURESH PRASAD
-A N D-
HON'BLE JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS
DATE : 19th March, 2026.
Appearance:
Mr. Soumen Das, Adv.
Mr. Sourjya Roy, Adv.
...for the appellant
Mr. Soumya Majumder, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Ledia Dasgupta, Adv.
Mr. Victor Chatterjee, Adv.
Ms. Shreya Bhattacharjee, Adv.
...for the respondent (in APOT/295/2025)/
petitioner (in OCOT/12/2025)
The Court : Heard the Learned Advocates representing the parties.
2
The writ petitioner was proceeded against by a Charge memo dated 9 th
November, 2018. The substance of the allegations made against the writ
petitioner was in respect of certain transactions in between 1 st June, 2008 to
31st July, 2011. The allegations were in relation multiple transactions alleging
that the Bank's funds had either been disbursed in cash or funneled into the
personal account of the charge sheeted officer, his wife and relatives. The writ
petitioner submitted his response to the Charge memo. Since the response is
harped upon by the Learned Advocate for the Bank, we propose to reproduce
the same, which reads thus:
"...................
...................
In reply of the above referred Show Cause, I explicitly admitted in
earlier time, along with other submissions, that all such transactions
referred, are true and happened under my extent directions. I further
submit that all such transactions are genuine and not deterrent to Bank's
interest.
In reply of your present Charge Sheet now, I again admit that all the
transactions referred and contained, were made under my extant direction
BUT, I deny and Dispute The Article of Charge annexed."
The Enquiry Officer thereafter proceeded with the enquiry and submitted
an enquiry report on 21st September, 2019. After an opportunity of making
representation against the enquiry report, which representation the petitioner
has chosen not to place on record, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order
dated 26th December, 2019. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the enquiry
report holding the charges proved and proceeded to award a punishment of
dismissal from service. The writ petitioner has availed the remedy of appeal
under the Rules. The appeal filed by the writ petitioner was also dismissed.
The writ petitioner thus assailed the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the
Disciplinary Authority, as well as the appellate order, in the writ proceeding.
The Hon'ble Single Judge found a procedural irregularity in the enquiry
conducted. He held the enquiry report to be without any evidence being led by
the presenting officer in the course of enquiry. Relying solely on the printout
containing the alleged transactions and asserting that the same were computer
generated, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to hold the charges proved. Since the
computer generated printout cannot be considered sacro sanct, the Hon'ble
Single Judge found the Enquiry Officer's conclusion to be unsustainable.
However, referring to the stand of the petitioner taken in his reply to the
Charge memo, extracted above, the Hon'ble Single Judge was of the view that
petitioners admission of the transactions alleged in the Charge memo was
sufficient to conclude that the petitioner's conduct was unbecoming of an
Officer of the Bank. The Learned Single Judge has proceeded to observe that
the petitioner failed to sustain, or in any manner explain the modus operandi
in respect of the admitted transactions, to be in the bonafide interest of the
Bank, or necessary to a banking transaction by any standards.
Being faced with such findings, the Hon'ble Single Judge was of the view
that the extreme punishment of dismissal from service was unsustainable in
view of the severe procedural lapses. He found that neither any evidence nor
any document was produced by the presenting officer nor the conclusions of
the Enquiry Officer inspired any confidence that they are founded on any
reasons or consideration.
The Hon'ble Single Judge found that the conclusion in respect of the
several transactions are verbatim repetition of the same findings recorded
mechanically in respect all the charges.
The Learned Advocate for the bank submits that the findings are
unsustainable; the findings are not supported by adequate reason in support of
the findings of the trial Court. He further submits that the departmental
proceeding, by now, is settled, is considered on a preponderance of probability.
Having regard to the nature of charges, the computer generated printouts and
no denial, rather specific admission of the petitioner in his reply to the Charge
Memo, the findings of the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary authority did not
require any interference. Findings of the Hon'ble Single Judge are therefore
unsustainable.
The Learned Advocate representing the writ petitioner, on the other
hand, submits that the findings of the writ Court are unsustainable inasmuch
as once the writ Court found a procedural infraction striking at the root of
fairness; and the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer in non compliance
of the principles of natural justice, there was no occasion for the Hon'ble Single
Judge to remand the matter for reconsideration on the quantum of
punishment. According to the Learned Advocate for the writ petitioner,
violation of the procedural prescription itself vitiated the findings of the
Enquiry Officer, and the writ Court should have interfered with the enquiry
report, the punishment order and the Appellate authority's order.
The parties, however, seek an opportunity to rely on certain decisions in
support of their submissions. In view of, the paucity of time today, we are
allowing them an opportunity to rely on citations/precedents, when the matter
is taken up on 25th March, 2026, for further hearing.
(MADHURESH PRASAD, J)
(PRASENJIT BISWAS, J.)
SN/DB.
AR(CR)
