Mr. Bijan Talukdar vs (1) Tripura Gramin Bank
2022 Latest Caselaw 1111 Tri

                                Page 1 of 5



                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                      _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
                            WA No.283 of 2021
Mr. Bijan Talukdar, son of late Bipin Chandra Talukdar, resident of village
& P.O. Pecharthal, P.S. Pechartha, District-Unakoti, Pin-799263.
                                                       ......Appellant(s)
                               VERSUS
(1) Tripura Gramin Bank, represented by the Chairman, Head Office, Ujan
Abhoynagar, P.S. East Agartala, District- West Tripura, Pin-799005.
(2) The Chairman, Tripura Gramin Bank, Head Office, Ujan Abhoynagar,
P.S. East Agartala, District- West Tripura, Pin-799005.
(3) The Enquiry Officer (Sri Karunamoy Dhar), Sr. Manager(A&N), C/O-
General Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank(TGB), P.O. Abhoynagar, P.S. East
Agartala, District- West Tripura, Pin-799005.
                                                       ......Respondent(s)

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

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

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY Date of hearing and Judgment : 20th December, 2022.

JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)

Heard Mr. D.C. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant and also heard Mr. A.R. Barman, learned counsel appearing for

the respondent-bank.

[2] The present petition has been filed by the appellant under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order

dated 20.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.1631 of

2017.

[3] Brief facts are as under :

A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner,

an officer of the Tripura Gramin Bank. During the enquiry proceeding the

petitioner prayed for supplying the documents. The enquiry officer rejected

the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that documents as required by the

petitioner was not at all relevant to the charges levelled against the

petitioner without giving any reason. The petitioner prayed to the enquiry

officer to issue notice upon Sri Rupam Das Talukdar to attend enquiry

proceeding as a defence witness on behalf of the petitioner. The

disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority without properly

appreciating the procedure of the departmental proceeding inflicted major

punishment upon the petitioner by reduction to lower grade (scale-I) with

initial basic pay in time of scale of pay of scale-I and shall not have the

effect of postponing the future increment of pay.

[4] Articles of charges were framed against the appellant alleging

that loans were sanctioned and disbursed in an irregular way without

observing bank's lending procedure in different dates to 11 numbers of

borrowers of which one or more loans were disbursed through the Savings

bank account of the business correspondence. It was also alleged that the

appellant had sanctioned good number of loan proposals during the tenure

at Jalebasa Branch out of which 58 numbers of borrowers were recklessly

favoured with numerous loans in the same scheme. In the charge it was

revealed from the branch transaction records that since September 2011 to

December, 2014 the appellant had credited an amount of Rs.9870571/-

which clearly indicated act of connivance with the business correspondence

for misappropriation of borrowers money as well as the bank property

which constituted major misconduct on the part of the appellant as he

miserably failed to serve the bank honestly and faithfully.

[5] The petitioner submitted reply dated 31.12.2015 against the

charge-sheet and denied all the charges framed against the petitioner. The

enquiry officer enquired into the charge levelled against the petitioner and

subsequently disciplinary authority issued corrigendum and informed the

enquiry officer that charge-sheet should be treated as

TGB/VIGII/F.300/467/2015. The presiding officer exhibited as many as 92

numbers of document evidence and the management witness was duly

examined by the enquiry officer. On 26.02.2016, the petitioner prayed to

the enquiry officer for supplying the documents. On 14.03.2016 P.O.

refused to supply all the documents sought for by the petitioner without any

sufficient reasons. On 26.04.2016 the P.O on behalf of the management

filed written argument. The D.A. on behalf of the appellant filed written

argument and stated that management witness cannot confirm the entire

document. On 30.05.2016 the enquiry officer without considering the

written argument filed by the appellant observed that the charge framed

against the petitioner were proved. The E.O. gave benefit of doubt to the

appellant in regard to charge No.9.

[6] The appellant filed writ petition before the learned Single

Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.1631 of 2017 dated 20.07.2021

challenging the order of reduction to lower grade (Scale-I) with initial basic

pay in time of scale of pay of Scale-I. The Single Judge of this Court had

dismissed the writ petition observing that enough opportunity was given to

the appellant to examine said Rupam Das Talukdar as one of his witnesses

but he failed to adduce the evidence of the said person. The learned Judge

further observed that the responsibility of the appellant to bring his own

witness to substantiate his case and not of his opponent. The operative

portion of the order reads as follows :

"I have taken note about the fact that the bank-authorities had apprised the petitioner that he was not a regular employee and the bank had no authority to call him, but, liberty was given to the petitioner to call him as his witness on his own accord. As such, enough opportunity was given to the petitioner to examine said Rupam Das Talukdar as one of his witnesses, but, he failed to adduce the evidence of said Rupam das Talukdar. That apart, in my opinion, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to bring his own witness to substantiate his case, and not of his opponent. In the given situation there is no violation of principles of natural justice. As such, the instant petition has no merit. This court is not inclined to interfere with the order of penalty, as imposed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed."

[7] Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the

appellant preferred this instant appeal challenging the order passed by the

learned Single Judge.

[8] Mr. D.C. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant

submits that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority has

failed to appreciate the facts and evidence of the departmental proceedings

and prays for setting aside the article of charge levelled against the

appellant and also prays for setting aside the judgment passed by the

learned Single Judge dated 20.07.2021 in WP(C) No.1631 of 2017.

[9] On the other hand, Mr. A.R Barman, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent vehemently opposed the appeal and prays for

dismissal of the same.

[10] After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, this

Court finds no merits in the appeal and directs dismissal of the same. The

order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20.07.2021 in WP(C)

No.1631 of 2017 is affirmed.

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

(S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY, J)                       CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)




Dipesh