For The vs For The
2021 Latest Caselaw 417 Tri

                                   Page 1 of 4


                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                              AGARTALA
                             REVIEW PET 2 OF 2021
Present:

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

    For the respondent (s)      : Mr. D.C. Saha, Advocate.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH

26.03.2021 Order

Heard Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners. Also heard Mr. D.C.Saha, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent.

Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel has submitted that an error has

been committed due to the mistake of both the learned counsels appearing for

the parties while this court had passed judgment on 10.03.2020 in connection

with WP(C) No.1631 of 2017.

In a disciplinary proceeding, the respondent, Shri Bijan Talukdar,

being a bank officer under the Tripura Gramin Bank was penalized by the

disciplinary authority. An appeal was preferred before the appellate authority.

The appellate authority consisted of 8 (eight) members including the

Chairman, Tripura Gramin Bank. The Chairman, Tripura Gramin Bank is also

the Chairman of the Appellate Board. It was argued before this court by the

learned counsels appearing for the parties including the learned counsel

appearing for the Tripura Gramin Bank that the Chairman, Tripura Gramin

Bank did not participate in the proceeding before the Appellate Board while

deciding the merits of the appeal preferred by the respondent. In a resolution

dated 24th March, 2017 under Agenda No.06, Mr. M. Dohare, one of the

Board Members was selected as Chairman of the meeting to consider the

merits of the appeal which fact was not brought to the notice of the court and

this prompted the review petitioners, Tripura Gramin Bank to file this present

review petition.

Refuting the submissions of Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel for

the petitioners, Mr. D.C. Saha, learned counsel for the respondent has

submitted that the review petitioners in their counter affidavit have clearly

stated that the Chairman, Tripura Gramin Bank being one of the Board

Members acted as Chairman.

I have gone through the counter affidavit where the review

petitioners have disclosed the designation of the Members but not the names

of the persons concerned. In their counter affidavit, Tripura Gramin Bank has

stated that the Chairman, Tripura Gramin Bank was present. According to Mr.

Saha, learned counsel, by this statement, the review-petitioners have admitted

that the Chairman being disciplinary authority was present in deciding the

merits of the appeal being the Chairman of the Appellate Board. However,

record clearly speaks that the issue was discussed regarding the presence of

Chairman, Tripura Gramin Bank to decide the merit of the appeal by the

Appellate Board.

At the time of consideration of this issue, a specific agenda was

made wherein a resolution has been taken by the Board Members that--"as

the Chairman of TGB is the disciplinary authority and also the Chairman of

the Board, discussions and decisions held and selected Mr. M. Dohare, one of

the Board Members as Chairman of the meeting to consider the agenda. The

Chairman, TGB remained absent from the meeting while discussion and

decisions held on that particular issue".

In my opinion, when the record speaks of such resolution

regarding absence of the disciplinary authority who was the Chairman of the

Appellate Board in the decision making process, then a mistake is apparent on

the face of the judgment dated 10.03.2020 when this court setting aside the

decision of the Appellate Board on the ground that the Chairman, Tripura

Gramin Bank being the disciplinary authority himself acted as Chairman of

the Appellate Board. It is evident without any ambiguity that the Chairman,

Tripura Gramin Bank had skipped off the meeting when the agenda regarding

decision of the merit of the appeal came up before it and Mr. Dohare acted as

Chairman of the Board to decide the appeal preferred by the respondent of this

review petition i.e. who was the petitioner of the writ petition.

Mr. Saha, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a

decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3601 of 2020 [ Shri Ram

Sahu Vrs. Vinod Kumar Rawat & Ors.] wherein it was held that the High

Court while exercising review petition under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of CPC

should not sit as an appellate court. I have gone through decision. It is a case

where the High court relying upon the evidence on record declared the

possession of the plaintiff in delivering its judgment. Thereafter, a review

petition was filed by the respondent stating that he was in actual possession of

the land and the same Judge of the High Court reviewed his own order and

altered the decision and declared the possession of the respondent over the suit

land. In that circumstance, the Apex Court found error in the judgment of the

High Court as according to the Apex Court, the High Court had exercised its

jurisdiction as an appellate court but not exercising the jurisdiction of

reviewing authority. In the premise, I have not found any relevance of the

judgment of Ram Sahu(supra) in deciding the present review petition.

In view of this, I have no other alternative but to recall the

judgment and order passed by this court on 10.03.2020 in connection with

WP(C) 1631 of 2017. Accordingly, it is recalled, and list the matter after three

weeks for fresh hearing.

Accordingly, the review petition stands allowed and disposed.

JUDGE