Shri Nepal Chandra Das vs Tripura Gramin Bank And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 813 Tri

                                    Page 1 of 4




                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                              AGARTALA
                               W.A. No.225/2021

Shri Nepal Chandra Das
                                                            ----Appellant(s)
                                          Versus
Tripura Gramin Bank and others
                                                          -----Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. T.D. Majumder, Sr. Advocate, Mr. T. Halam, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)                 : Mr. A. Roy Barman, Advocate.

         HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY

                                          Order
31/08/2021
(Akil Kureshi, C.J.)

The appellant original petitioner has challenged an order dated

18.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.1203 of 2016.

Brief facts are as under:

The petitioner is an employee of Tripura Gramin Bank. At the

relevant time he was posted as a Branch Manager at Tulamura Branch. He

was first placed under suspension and thereafter visited with the charge-sheet

dated 31.12.2014 alleging as many as 16 different charges which included the

charge of 61 borrowers of the bank being favoured with multiple loans under

the same scheme or other schemes despite having outstanding balance in the

earlier loan account by violating the norms of the Bank, disbursing loans in

favour of 191 borrowers without loan sanction letter being signed by him etc.

At the end of the departmental inquiry the Inquiry Officer submitted his

report dated 14.09.2015 holding all the charges were proved. The petitioner

was served a copy of this inquiry report and allowed to make a representation.

In his representation dated 05.10.2015 the petitioner did not resist any other

findings of the Inquiry Officer to the effect that the charges were proved or

that such conclusions were based on no evidence. In short, the thrust of the

petitioner's representation was that he had not committed any misconduct and

that at best there were some irregularities in performance of his duties.

The disciplinary authority considered the report of the Inquiry

Officer, the materials on record and the petitioner's representation and

imposed a punishment of reduction to the initial basic pay in the time scale of

pay without having the effect of postponing the future increments. The

petitioner challenged the order of disciplinary authority before the appellate

authority which was dismissed upon which he filed the writ petition which

was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order.

The learned Single Judge has passed a brief order holding that no

breach of natural justice is pointed out and the contention that the petitioner

had received certain documents after retirement cannot be the ground for

setting aside the penalty.

Before us learned counsel for the appellant-original petitioner

did not raise any ground of breach of principles of natural justice in conduct

of the inquiry. He also did not press the contention that the petitioner having

chanced upon certain documents in his defence after retirement he should be

given an opportunity to produce the same before the authority. Instead his

grounds were that (i) there were no charges of defalcation of bank funds; (ii)

many of the allegations were not proved; and (iii) those which the petitioner

had admitted were of minor irregularities which did not warrant imposition of

any serious penalty. Counsel for the petitioner thus tried to make out a case of

imposition of penalty which was disproportionate.

We are not impressed by his arguments. The charges against the

petitioner were not all of technical breaches. Such charges travelled beyond

mere irregularities. All the charges were held to have been proved. Petitioner

is not able to dislodge any of the findings arrived at by the inquiry officer in

his report which was accepted by the disciplinary authority. Mere contention

that these findings were not based on evidence on record is not sufficient. As

noted, in his representation to the report of the inquiry officer the petitioner

did not raise any such contention. The only issue that remains to be

considered is the quantum of punishment. It is well settled through series of

judgments of the Supreme Court that the Court would interfere with the

choice of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority pursuant to a

validly conducted departmental inquiry only if the punishment is so

disproportionate to the proved charge as to shock the conscience of the Court.

Reference in this respect can be made to the decision of Supreme Court in

case of B.C. Chaturvedi vrs. Union of India and others reported in AIR

1996 SC 484.

In the present case, as noted, the proved charges against the

petitioner included sanctioning of multiple loans in favour of several persons

under the same scheme or under a new scheme where there were outstanding

dues of the loanee pertaining to earlier scheme. Imposition of punishment of

reduction in rank, therefore, cannot be stated to be disproportionate.

Appeal is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

   (S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J                        (AKIL KURESHI), CJ




Pulak