Tripura High Court
Sri Satyendra Bhattacharya vs The Tripura Gramin Bank on 5 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.A. No.35 of 2020
Sri Satyendra Bhattacharya,
S/o Lt. Ramesh Chandra Bhattacharya,
resident of Nutanpally, Krishnanagar,
P.O. Agartala, District-West Tripura.
PIN-799001
......... Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Tripura Gramin Bank,
represented by its Chairman, Head
Office Abhoynagar, P.O. Abhoynagar,
PS East Agartala, District-West Tripura,
PIN 799005,
2. The Chairman,
Head Office-Abhoynagar, P.O.
Abhoynagar, PS East Agartala, District-
West Tripura, PIN 799005
3. The General Manager,
Tripura Gramin Bank, Head Office,
Abhoynagar, P.O. Abhoynagar, PIN
799005, PS East Agartala, District West
Tripura
4. The Enquiry Officer
(Sri Prabodh Kumar Bhowmik), Sr.
Branch Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank,
presently posted at TGB-Bardowali
Branch, PO & PS: AD Nagar, District-
West Tripura, Agartala, PIN 799003
............Respondents
For the Appellant (s) : Mr. A. Bhowmik, Adv.
Mr. S. Dey, Adv.
Mr. S. Datta, Adv.
For the Respondent (s) : Mr. A. Roy Barman, Adv.
Mr. S.D. Gupta, Adv.
Date of hearing : 09.01.2024
Date of delivery of : 05.02.2024
Judgment & order
YES NO
Whether fit for reporting : √
HON‟BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER
[S. Datta Purkayastha, J]
The judgment dated 31.01.2020 passed in W.P.(C)
No.1183 of 2016 by the learned Single Judge is under challenge in
this appeal.
[2] The chronicles of facts in a short compass are canvassed
hereunder :
The appellant worked as an employee in Tripura Gramin
Bank [in short, the TGB], Bishalgar Branch and with the imputation of
irregularities, misconduct and misappropriation of Bank money, a
departmental proceeding was initiated by framing at least 14 Nos. of
charges against him, vide memorandum dated 07.02.2012 issued by
the Disciplinary Authority [Chairman of the Bank]. The allegation was
mainly of preparation of irregular vouchers against different accounts,
in the name of different persons, causing financial indiscipline to the
bank with fraudulent intention. For reference, first 3[three] charges
are quoted hereinbelow and the other charges are similar in nature :
"1. You acted as in charge of the Bishalgarh Branch on
27.01.2010 and passed two irregular entries as debit
HBL block A/C for Rs.200000/- and credit SB A/C
No.18602 of Sri Jagabandhu Debbarma which was
opened on the same day (vouchers not found with the
day‟s vouchers bundle). Thus you did not serve the bank
honestly and sincerely and indulged yourself for
misappropriation of bank money. Thus, you have
involved yourself in financial indiscipline and caused
financial loss to the bank.
2. On 24.04.2010 you prepared two irregular vouchers as
debit SB A/C No.18602 of Sri Jagabandhu Debbarma
and credit SB A/C No.18530 of Sri Chitta Ranjan
Debbarma without any valid reason which was most
irregular. Thus, you indulged yourself for
misappropriation of Bank‟s money and you have
involved yourself in financial indiscipline.
3. Due to irregular vouchers as prepared by you on
24.04.2020 for crediting the SB A/C No.18530 of Sri
Chitta Ranjan Debbarma, Sri Debbarma withdrawn the
money in two occasions to the tune of Rs.200000/- on
05.05.2020 & 11.05.2020 causing serious financial loss
to the Bank."
[3] The appellant contested the proceeding by engaging
defence assistant and submitted a written statement against those
charges, and an inquiry was conducted by the Inquiring Officer,
culminating to the following findings, operative portion of which may
be quoted as under:
" . . . . . ...
Therefore, in my opinion on the basis of management
exhibits, witnesses, arguments, counter arguments,
reply argument & considering defense exhibits charge
no.1 to 12 and 14 are fully proved and charge no-13
proved partially."
[4] Relatively, it is noted that the charges were concerned
with the functioning of the appellant in TGB, Bishalgar Branch.
However, the Disciplinary Authority again included additional charges
vide No.TGB/HO/P&A/Vigil/F-248/Sect.17-20/2013 dated 12.02.2013
for alleged misappropriation of bank money by the appellant while
working at NIT, Agartala Branch. Against the said inclusion of
additional charges, the appellant filed a writ petition bearing W.P(C)
No.236 of 2013 in the High Court and the High Court directed the
inquiring authority to first complete the proceeding in respect of the
charges framed earlier. During pendency of the said proceeding, on
16.10.2012, the defense assistant submitted a petition before the
inquiry officer requesting to supply total 26[twenty six] Nos. of
documents, including the copy of the user ID register [SL. No.25] and
the sealed envelope containing the password of the appellant [Sl.
No.26] which are claimed to be under the custody of Branch Manager,
TGB, Bishalgar Branch. Out of said 26[twenty] documents, 2 [two]
documents were supplied to the appellant and regarding other
documents, Bank's stand was that those were not available with
them. Against said partial rejection of the prayer of supply of
documents, the appellant preferred W.P(C) No.13 of 2014 and the
Division Bench of this Court disposed of the matter in the following
terms:
"6. This Court, at this stage, when the proceedings are at it
the final stage is not going into the merits of the case. The
only question is whether the bank should be directed to
supply the copies of these documents to the petitioner or
not. Since the bank has stated on affidavit and today also at
the time of arguments it is repeated before us that no such
documents are in existence, we cannot direct the bank to
supply such documents.
7. However, we make it clear that since according to the
bank no such documents are in its custody, the effect of this
will be seen only by the Disciplinary Authority. It shall be for
the Disciplinary Authority to decide whether such documents
were created and whether such documents were handed
over to the bank or not and if it comes to the conclusion that
they were handed over to the bank then whether any
adverse inference is to be drawn against the bank is an issue
for the Inquiry Office to decide and this Court cannot in any
manner influence the order of the Inquiry Officer in this
regard."
[5] From the said judgment, it appears that the bank
authority took the plea that no separate user ID register in hard copy
form was maintained in the bank; rather, it was maintained in soft
copy form on the computer only. After completion of enquiry, the copy
of the findings of the enquiring authority was communicated to the
appellant vide letter dated 26.08.2014 asking him to tender his
written submission, if any, against the findings of said enquiry officer.
The appellant, accordingly, submitted his written statement vide letter
dated 08.09.2014 and finally, vide communication dated 22.11.2014,
the Disciplinary Authority communicated its decision to the appellant
in the following terms :
"I have carefully gone through and considered the records of
the enquiry evidences, documents, findings of the Enquiry
Officer and your submission dated 08.09.2014, I concur with
the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
So considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
gravity of the misconduct, the undersigned proposes to
impose the following punishment as per sub-regulation 1(b)
of regulation 39 of Tripura Gramin Bank (Officers and
Employees) Service Regulation, 2010.
„dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for
future employment.‟
With immediate effect.
The period of your suspension will not be treated as on duty
and you will not be paid any pay and allowances except what
has been already paid during the period of suspension as
subsistence allowance."
The appellate authority also conceded to it.
[6] Thereafter, against the said order of dismissal, the
appellant preferred writ petition being W.P(C) No.299 of 2015 and the
Division of this Court allowed the said writ petition vide judgment
dated 09.02.2016 and observed as under :
15. In view of the above discussion, we allow the writ
petition, set aside the final order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. The charges
against the petitioner are serious and, therefore, the
Disciplinary Authority shall pass a reasoned order dealing
with the submissions raised by the delinquent official in his
representation directed against the inquiry report. The
petitioner shall be reinstated in service but shall be deemed
to be under suspension from the date of his dismissal but
shall be entitled to suspension allowance in accordance with
law. The Disciplinary Authority is directed to dispose of the
matter as early as possible and in any event not later than
two months from today. If the order of the Disciplinary
Authority is against the petitioner, he may file an appeal to
the Appellate Authority and in such an eventuality, the
Appellate Authority must also pass a reasoned and speaking
order.
[7] Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority again
communicated its detailed decision supporting such penalty to the
appellant vide letter dated 09.03.2016. Against the said decision, the
appellant preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority on
19.04.2016 and the Appellate Authority also dismissed the said
appeal by an elaborate order which was communicated to the
appellant vide letter dated 30.07.2016.
[8] Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed W.P(C)
No.1183 of 2016 and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ
petition by the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2020 and some
relevant portions thereof are extracted below :
"35. Having observed thus, I re-iterate that the Court cannot
take over the function of the disciplinary authority. Further,
the Court has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness of the
findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the
appellate authority. In the instant case, I am persuaded to
hold that this Court will not in any way verify the correctness
of the repeated stand taken by the bank that the documents
which could not be supplied to the petitioner were not
available with the bank since those were never handed over
to the bank by the petitioner, and in furtherance thereof, this
plea of the petitioner has adequately been dealt with by both
the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. I find
no infirmity in the findings of the punishing authority, legal
and factual.
36. Situated thus, the challenge to the impugned order of
punishment dismissing the petitioner from service deserves
no merit. The writ petition is bound to fail, and accordingly
stands dismissed.
[9] While challenging the said judgment, the argument of the
learned counsel, Mr. A Bhowmik appearing for the appellant, was
mainly twofold. Firstly, the non-supply of documents, as was asked
for by petition dated 16.10.2012, has caused serious prejudice to the
appellant in taking his proper defence and secondly, the withholding
of user ID register and password in respect of the user ID allotted to
the appellant has created a serious doubt as to the charges framed
against the appellant in the disciplinary proceeding.
[10] Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel, strenuously argued that
it was the duty of the presenting officer to prove that any user ID was
created in TGB, Bishalgar Branch, in the name of the appellant to tag
the alleged transactions with the purported user ID, if any, used by
the appellant. He further contended that the bank authority before the
High Court categorically stated that no separate user ID register in
hard copy form was maintained in the bank, but as per the bank
circular dated 11.12.2008, such user ID register was compulsorily
required to be maintained. To nourish his submissions, Mr. Bhowmik,
learned counsel further referred to the statement of MW.7 who
admitted that such user ID register would contain the name, SPF
number, signature of the concerned employee, signature of the
passing officer etc. and therefore, it was evident that such user ID
would be maintained in the bank but without proper explanation, the
same was withheld. Mr. Bhowmik, therefore, contended that
intentionally, such user ID register was withheld by the bank branch
just to implicate the appellant in the alleged departmental proceeding
to whitewash their own misdeeds. Though the appellant in his short
note mentioned several decisions of the Apex Court but during oral
submission, he referred only one decision in the case of M.V. Bijlani
Vs. Union of India and others, (2006) 5 SCC 88 and the relevant
paragraph is extracted below :
"25. It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial
review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being
quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to
prove the charge. Although the charges in a departmental
proceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal trial,
i.e., beyond all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the
fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial
function, who upon analysing the documents must arrive at a
conclusion that there had been a preponderance of
probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on
record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any
irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant
facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject
the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of
surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the
allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been
charged with."
[11] Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents, relying on the decision of the appellate authority,
submitted that all the required procedures were duly followed by the
enquiring officer, giving full opportunity to the appellant to defend his
case and based on the statements of the management witnesses and
the management exhibits, charges were sufficiently proved against
him. Therefore, no interference is called for by the Writ Court
regarding such departmental proceeding.
[12] It is no longer res integra that the Writ Court while
exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot
re-appreciate the evidence like the Appellate Authority. The
jurisdiction of the Court is very limited in this regard. Where it is
found that the enquiry is vitiated because of non-observance of
the principle of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity,
finding based on without evidence, or that the findings recorded
were such as could not have been reached by an ordinary
prudent man, or there is disproportionate imposition of
punishment, the Writ Court can interfere. [Re. Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. & Anr. vs. Asok Kumar Arora, (1997) 3
SCC 72; Kuldeep Singh vs. the Commissioner of Police &
Ors., (1999) 2 SCC 10 and Yoginath D. Badge vs. State of
Maharashtra & Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 739]. In B.C. Chaturvedi
vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, the Apex Court at
Para-13 also observed that the Disciplinary Authority is the sole
judge of facts, and where an appeal is presented, the Appellate
Authority has co-extensive power to re-appreciate the evidence
or the nature of punishment. It was also held that in the
departmental proceeding, the strict proof of legal evidence and
findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence
or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed
before the Court or Tribunal. If the conclusion, upon
consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary
authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of
the record, or is based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari
can be issued.
[13] In view of the above said law as enunciated by the
Apex Court from time to time, the scope of judicial scrutiny in
writ jurisdiction is much narrower, and therefore, in this appeal
also thorough scrutiny of its evidence vis-a-vis findings of the
disciplinary authority or the appellate authority is not
permissible.
[14] Regarding the points as raised by Mr. Bhowmik, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant, the decision of the inquiring
authority, the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority
thereon are given a reference below for useful purpose.
Regarding alleged withholding of user ID register and alleged
envelope containing the password etc., the enquiring officer
observed thus:
"From analyzing the management exhibits ME-1 i.e. the copy
of the attendance register of Bihalghar branch for the month
of January, 2010 it shows that the CSO Sri Bhattacharya was
present in the branch on 27.01.2010, ME-48 i.e. key register
of Bishalgarh Branch transpire that the keys of the branch
was remained with the CSO, ME-3 i.e. the copy of the cash on
counter of the branch shows that on 27.01.2010 the CSO
signed in the cash on counter as Branch Manager & this is
corroborated by ME-4 i.e. the copy of the safe guide register
of the Bishalgarh Brach, ME-2 i.e. the copy of A/C opening
form of S/B a/c No.18602 transpires that the a/c was
opened on 27.01.2010 in the name of one Sri Jagabandhu
Debbarma, ME-47 i.e. the copy of the system generated
account Opening register shows that the a/c was verified by
the user ID „SKB‟, ME-20 i.e. the copy of the system
generated employee register shows that „SKB‟ is the user ID
of Sri Satyendra Bhattacharya used at Bishalgarh Branch.
ME-18 i.e. the copy of the system generated A/C statement
of SB A/C No.18602 shows that a credit entry of
Rs.200000/= towards this A/C on 27.01.2010 was verified
by the user ID „SKB‟ which is the user ID of the CSO as it is
apparent from ME-20. This fact is also corroborated by the
ME-49, i.e. the copy of the system generated transaction
entry details dated 27.01.2010 which clearly ventilates that
by the user ID-„SKB‟, the CSO has authenticate the entry.
Thus, it is crystal clear that the CSO was in-charge of the
Bishalgarh Branch on 27.01.2010 and he has opened the SB
A/C No.18602 and authenticated irregular entry of
Rs.200000/- which was credited words the said account.
The claim of the CSO in his counter argument is not tenable
as the CSO cold not rebut the management exhibits either by
producing defence exhibits or by witness. The CSO‟s claim
that no user ID was created in his name at Bishalgarh Branch
is not acceptable and fact also, as because in the computer
arena it is the established fact and truth that every individual
for his/her access in the computer system must be with an
user ID along with confidential pass word. The CSO has also
not clarified in his counter argument how he has run the
Branch on 27.10.2010 & successive days as in charge of
Branch of his tenure at the said branch without any user ID &
password. Rather regarding user ID „SKB‟ the management
witness MW-2, Sri Sankar Das corroborated that „SKB‟ is the
user ID of Sri Satyendra Bhattacharya, the CSO (recorded in
page No.62 of the proceedings dated 19.02.2013), MW-3, Sri
Niranjan Debbarma corroborated that „SKB‟ is the user ID of
Sri Satyendra Bhattacharya the CSO (recorded in page No.67
of the proceeding dated 25.02.2013), MW-4, Smt. Chabi
Majumdar corroborated that „SKB‟ is the user ID of Sri
Satyenda Bhattacharya the CSO (recorded in page No.-71 of
the proceedings dated 25.02.2013). Thus it is established
that no user ID was created at Bishalgarh Branch is a false &
fabricated statement of the CSO."
[15] The inquiring authority regarding verification of
management exhibits observed in its finding at Para-6 as follows:
"To substantiate the charges framed against the Charge
Sheeted Officer Sri Satyendra Bhattacharya, the Presenting
Officer Sri Narayan Poddar has produced good number of
exhibits marked as ME-1 to ME-66 on different dates
(recorded in page no-9 to 13) of the proceedings dated
11.09.12, page no-20 of the proceedings dated 26.11.12. The
EO asked the CSO & his defense on 11.09.12 (recorded in
page-13), 16.10.12 (recorded in page-14) & finally on
26.11.2012 recorded in pate-20) whether they are in need of
going through/verification of original documents which are
submitted as management exhibits & needs for any further
verification. In reply the CSO & his defense stated that they
are accepting all the management exhibits & need not
require any further verification excepting ME-20 & 21 i.e. the
employee register for which they require some clarification.
(Recorded in page no-21 of the proceedings). Subsequently,
on 09.01.2013 by producing required document relating to
ME-20 & 21, the PO has clarified the matter & against queries
of EO the CSO & DA confirmed their satisfaction (recorded in
page no.-23 of the proceeding). So there is no ambiguity
regarding the Management Exhibits. The genuinity of the
management exhibits were corroborated by the MW-7 Sri
Jiban Krishna Banik and was recorded in page no-88 of the
enquiry proceedings."
[16] Therefore, it appears, that the presenting officer proved
several exhibits under ME-1 to ME-66 on different dates, and the
enquiring officer asked the charge sheeted officer and the defense
assistant on 3[three] occasions as to whether they were in need of
verifying those documents or not, whereto the CSO and the defense
assistant and the appellant ultimately expressed their satisfaction in
this regard. Therefore, as it appears, there was no challenge or
objection from the side of the appellant regarding the management
exhibits as relied upon by the presenting officer.
[17] The records also unveil that it was the defense of the
appellant that no user ID and password were created in TGB,
Bishalgar Branch, in his name and therefore, necessarily, a question
arises as to how he had discharged his duties in his tenure in said
bank branch without having any user ID or password and the same
was unanswered from the side of appellant which itself goes against
him.
[18] The Disciplinary Authority while accepting such report of
the Enquiring Authority observed thus :
"Against point (d) of your submissions I am of the view that
non-supply of documents asked for by you did not make you
unable to make an effective defence. The Bank had only
relied on the Management Exhibits as were enclosed with the
Charge Sheet and also those handed over to you
subsequently at the time of the Departmental Enquiry. Those
were duly corroborated by the Management Witnesses, who
were your former colleagues in the Branch. Nowhere in the
argument had the Bank referred to any document which was
not provided to you. Thus, no prejudice has been caused to
you for any alleged denial of Natural Justice and there is no
procedural failure on the part of the E.O. in finding you guilty
as the Bank had not relied on any documents which could not
be supplied to you as per your prayer dated 16.10.2012.
Besides, the Charge Sheet itself indicated that either
vouchers were not found with the day‟s voucher bundle, or
fictitious entries were made without any vouchers, against
several charges framed against you. The Presenting Officer
and the E.O. have taken the support of other related
documents and evidences, which were otherwise sufficient to
prove the charges in the absence of the vouchers claimed by
you.
In respect of point (e) your submissions I find that though
the User ID Register and the sealed cover containing
confidential password could not be produced it could not
make you scot-free as you were found guilty of almost all the
charges on the basis of plenty of Management Exhibits and
corroborating evidence of several Management Witnesses.
Your claim that no User ID was created in the Branch in your
name is unacceptable as you have not clarified how you were
working in the Branch without creating user ID. Your secret
password must have been known to you personally and not
supposed to be known to anyone else. Particularly on
27.01.2011 you were in-charge of the Branch and on that day
user ID „SKB‟ was used and obviously you were the user of
the said ID."
[19] The observations of the appellate authority on these
issues have been the followings :
"II. Regarding submission of the appellant that Disciplinary
Authority has failed to appreciate that he prayed for 26
documents including the user ID register, Password kept in
sealed cover under the custody of Branch Manager
Bishalgarh Brach for giving effective representation and to
defend his case where only two documents were given thus
the appellant did not get natural justice to defend his case,
the Board refers the observations of Hon‟ble High Court of
Tripura in W.P.(C) 13/2014.
„However, we make it clear that since according to the
bank no such documents are in its custody, the effect
of this will be seen only by the Disciplinary Authority.
It shall be for the Disciplinary Authority. It shall be for
the Disciplinary Authority to decide whether such
documents were created and whether such documents
were handed over to the bank or not and if it comes to
conclusion that they were handed over to the bank
then whether any adverse inference is to be drawn
against the bank is an issue for the Inquiry Officer to
decide and this Court cannot in any manner influence
the order of the Inquiry Officer in this regard.‟
Since the documents were not available with the bank, these
could not be provided to the appellant. As the E.O. has relied
only on the Exhibits as were produced before the enquiry and
corroborated by the witnesses, the charge sheet as well as
the findings of the E.O. were based on those particular
documents only which proved the appellant guilty. The Board
is of the opinion that principle of natural justice was not
violated in any way.
III. It is observed by the Board that the appellant never
challenged ME-20 (System generated Employee Register
SKB) & ME-21 (System generated Employee Register BHTT)
and those were proved against the appellant in absence of
the manual registers on the basis of depositions of
Management Witnesses at the time of departmental enquiry.
The appellant also could not establish his separate User ID, if
any, used by him during his tenure in the Branch except
those shown under ME-20 & ME-21. Thus the Board
appreciates that the appellant was the user of ME-20 & ME-
21.
IV. The Board feels that failure to provide manual ID register
and confidential password in sealed cover to the appellant
due to non availability and/or non creation can not dilute the
charges proved against him and make him innocent.
Confidential password must have been known to the user
only and in this instant case also the appellant must know his
password and responsibility of maintaining secrecy of the
password lies only on him.
[20] We have given due consideration to the above-noted
decisions of the authorities of different hierarchies on factual aspects,
but no genuine ground for judicial interference is found available. The
allegations of the bank authority that the alleged transactions,
irregularities and illegalities were done mainly using the appellant's
allotted user ID 'SKB' apart from his another user ID 'BHHT' could not
be reverted by the appellant. Merely on non-production of any such
user ID register or any envelope containing the password cannot
dilute the evidential value of other exhibits, as were proved by the
bank. It was the specific plea of the appellant before the disciplinary
authority that no user ID or password was created in his name by the
bank, but no explanation is coming from the appellant as to how he
performed his duties in the bank branch during the alleged period.
[21] Considering thus, no perversity or any patent error on the
face of the record could be shown by the appellant to interfere with
the decision of the disciplinary authority as affirmed by the appellate
authority. Learned Single Judge, therefore, committed no error in
arriving at the decision to reject the writ petition.
[22] The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly
dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
SATABDI DUTTA DUTTA
Date: 2024.02.06 11:59:52 +05'30'
Sujay
