Gauhati High Court
Manish Purkayastha Alias Monish ... vs The Union Bank Of India And 5 Ors on 23 May, 2023
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010192632013
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2861/2013
MANISH PURKAYASTHA ALIAS MONISH PURKAYASTHA
S/O LT. MAHINDRA KR. PURKAYASTHA R/O VIVEKANDA ROAD, WARD
NO. 4, P.O./P.S. LALA DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE UNION BANK OF INDIA and 5 ORS
REP. HEREIN BY ITS CHAIRMAN and MANAGING DIRECTOR, UNION BANK
BHAWAN, 239 BIDHAN BHAWAN, MARG, MUMBAI- 400021.
2:THE CHAIRMAN and MANAGING DIRECTOR
UNION BANK OF INDIA
UNION BANK BHAWAN
239 BIDHAN BHAWAN MARG
MUMBAI- 400021.
3:THE GENERAL MANAGER
P and HR
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION
CENTRAL OFFICE
UNION BANK BHAWAN
239 BIDHAN BHAWAN MARG
MUMBAI- 400021.
4:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
P
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION
CENTRAL OFFICE
UNION BANK BHAWAN
239 BIDHAN BHAWAN MARG
MUMBAI- 400021.
Page No.# 2/6
5:ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
CUM DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
UNION BANK OF INDIA
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
FIELD GENERAL MANAGERS OFFICE KOLKATA
225- C
A.J.C. BOSE ROAD
1ST FLOOR
ALEPE COURT
KOLKATA- 700020.
6:DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
UNION BANK OF INDIA
NODAL REGIONAL OFFICE
G.N.B. ROAD
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-781024
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S BORTHAKUR
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.S CHAKRABORTY
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
JUDGMENT
Date : 23-05-2023
Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.
Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondent Bank.
2. The order of penalty of compulsory retirement from service, dated 21-04-2011,
imposed upon the petitioner has been challenged in the present writ petition, inter-alia,
on the ground that the penalty is shockingly disproportionate to gravity of the alleged
misconduct.
Page No.# 3/6
3. The petitioner's case, in a nutshell, is that he was an employee of the Union Bank
of India. While serving as the Branch Manager of Tezpur Branch, a departmental
proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the following charges:-
1. Failure to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the
Bank.
2. Failure to discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence.
3. Failure to discharge his duties with utmost honesty and integrity.
4. Acting otherwise than in his best judgment in the performance of his official
duties.
4. Although the writ petitioner had denied the charges brought against him by
contending that the alleged manipulation of accounts and payment of gratification made
by him was for the purpose of business development, the disciplinary authority did not
accept his explanation and went ahead with the departmental enquiry. Eventually, the
Enquiry Officer had submitted his report dated 25-11-2010 holding that all the allegations
brought against the petitioner had been proved. Based on the enquiry report dated 25-
11-2010, the impugned order of penalty has been issued.
5. Mr. Borthakur submits that during the pendency of this writ petition, his client had
crossed the age of retirement and therefore, the only relief, that the writ petitioner is
seeking at this point of time is for interference with the order of penalty. Since the basic
ground on which the petitioner is assailing the order of penalty is that the same is
shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged misconduct, it would be
necessary for this Court to reproduced the findings and observations of the Enquiry
Officer as reflected in the Enquiry Report with regard to the allegations brought against
the petitioner.
Page No.# 4/6
6. With regard to the allegation No. 1, the conclusion of Enquiry Officer is as follows:-
"It is true that the accommodations granted to four customers, namely, M/S
Jaiswal Trading, M/S N.K. Enterprise, M/S Ved Prakash Sharma & M/S A-One
Traders were recovered with interest from those beneficiaries. Nevertheless the
manner in which Shri Manish Purkayastha (CSO) allowed such accommodation is
unethical. The entries are fake and therefore, cannot be justified by any
consideration."
7. Insofar as the allegation No. 2 is concerned the Enquiry Officer has found as
follows:-
"I, therefore, hold that Allegation No. 2 stands proved. However, as regards
payment of illegal gratification of Rs. 26,000.00 to the Project Director, DRDA,
Tezpur, Shri Sanjay Sharma, Assistant Manager, Tezpur Branch debited Suspense
account - Miscellaneous on 06.10.2007, received payment (Exhibit: MEX - 18) and
paid the money to the Project Director in presence of DW-1 Shri Lakhi Kanta
Sharma.
Shri Manish Purkayastha (CSO) is not associated with this payment."
8. Insofar as the allegation No. 3 is concerned, here also, the Enquiry Officer has held
that the allegation was proved. The observations made in the enquiry report on the above
count are as follows:-
"Allegation No. 3 stands proved. However, the undue accommodation
amounting to Rs. 106.00 lacs extended to four customers of the branch has been
fully recovered with interest. The interest amount was recovered from the parties
on 28.02.2009 in presence of Regional officials. The CSO had also deposited Rs.
3,84,598.00 being the total amount of wrongful/ spurious debits to Expenditure
Heads vide his letter dated 17.03.2009 and requested the Bank to appropriate the
amount towards financial irregularities committed. The whole amount has been
appropriated under various Expenditure Heads."
9. From a careful reading of the enquiry report, it is apparent that the petitioner was
involved in making certain fake entries and extending benefits to some persons. However,
Page No.# 5/6
according to the petitioner's counsel such activities were directly connected with the idea
of business development of the Bank and the same did not result into any loss being
incurred by the bank.
10. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent has also not denied or disputed
the fact that the bank did not directly suffer any loss due to the activities of the petitioner
but he has argued that the respondent Bank, being a nationalized Bank and being the
custodian of the public money, cannot tolerate such indiscipline on the part of its
employees. Therefore, these are cases where stringent disciplinary measures are required
to be enforced by the Bank.
11. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this
Court is of the opinion that there can be no doubt in this case that the writ petitioner had
in fact indulged in certain activities which were not strictly in terms of the Bank's norms
and regulations. To that extent, it cannot be said that the charges of misconduct are
totally unfounded. However, at the same time this Court cannot also lose sight on the fact
that the petitioner has not denied any of the allegations brought against him but has
explained his conduct by trying to justify the same in the manner indicated above. The
petitioner could be wrong in his understanding and judgment but the fact that there was
no intent on his part to embezzle any fund of the Bank or to cause loss and injury to the
Bank is also apparent from the materials available on record. The Enquiry Officer has also
come to a conclusion that the Bank did not suffer any loss due to the activities of the writ
petitioner. Viewed from that angle, although this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner
cannot be given a clean chit, yet, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
Page No.# 6/6
case, this Court finds sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Borthakur that the penalty
of "compulsory retirement from service" imposed upon the petitioner by the impugned
order dated 21-04-2011 is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct
brought against him.
12. In view of the above, the order dated 21-04-2011 is hereby set aside. It will,
however, be open for the respondents to impose any other penalty upon the petitioner
which is less than the penalty of "compulsory retirement".
13. Since the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation, the question
of directing his reinstatement in service does not arise at this stage. The order, as
provided by this Court, be passed within a period of 03 months from date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.
Depending on the revised penalty that may be imposed upon the petitioner in terms
of the order passed by this Court, his pensionary benefits be revised/ recalculated and the
arrear amount, if any, found to be due and payable, be released within a further period of
03 months.
With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
GS
Comparing Assistant
