Tripura High Court
Tripura Gramin Bank & Others vs Sri Jiban Krishna Banik on 9 July, 2024
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.40 of 2023
Tripura Gramin Bank & others
....... Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Sri Jiban Krishna Banik
...... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Saha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate,
Ms. Adwitiya Chakraborty, Advocate,
Ms. Rashni Debnath, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. PURKAYASTHA
_O_R_D_E_R_
09/07/2024
Heard Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.
Somik Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Adwitiya Chakraborty,
learned counsel for the respondent.
[2] The present litigation has a long chequered history, which is briefly
chronicled hereinafter in order to appreciate the issue before us in appeal. The
writ petitioner was proceeded for charges of misappropriation being a Branch
Manager in Bishalgarh Branch of the appellant-Tripura Gramin Bank. In WP(C)
No.205/2015 preferred by him against the penalty order, the learned writ Court
did not interfere vide judgment dated 31.03.2016 (Annexure-A/4). However, the
learned division bench interfered in the matter in WA No.24/2016 vide judgment
dated 03.12.2019 (Annexure-2). The impugned judgment was set aside. The
disciplinary authority was directed to consider the representation of the writ
petitioner after furnishing the inquiry report and pass a fresh order. Be it
indicated that the penalty was of reduction to a lower grade. Upon remand, by
order dated 18.06.2020, the same punishment was imposed upon the writ
petitioner. He again approached the writ Court in WP(C) No.491/2020. The
penalty order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the inquiry officer to
allow the presenting officer to adduce witness in support of documents and
exhibit them. It was also indicated that the inquiry proceedings reveals that writ
petitioner had been able to recover about Rs.22 lakhs allegedly misappropriated.
The impugned penalty order dated 24.01.2020 and appellate order dated
10.06.2020 were set aside. Be it also indicated that the writ petitioner had in the
meantime superannuated. The learned writ Court directed that the disciplinary
proceedings be completed within a period of 3(three) months failing which the
entire Article of Charges would stand quashed. To further complete the
chronology of facts, it is also necessary to indicate that by an order dated
16.11.2022 (Annexure-7) the learned writ Court extended the time for
completion of departmental proceeding within a further period of three months.
Thereafter, upon reconsideration, the same penalty was imposed by order dated
24.11.2022 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) which was the subject matter of
WP(C) No.183/2023. The learned writ Court on this occasion, found that the writ
petitioner had been deprived of reasonable opportunities to submit his reply in
response to the show-cause notice accompanying the enquiry report furnished by
the inquiry authority. Not even a day was given to the petitioner to submit his
reply to the show-cause notice. That was amounted to denial of reasonable
opportunities to the delinquent charged officer to cross-examine the witnesses.
The learned writ Court by the impugned order further extended the date for
completion of the proceedings. The operative part of the order reads as under:
"Accordingly, I direct the respondents to furnish the enquiry
report along with the copies of the depositions to the petitioner
within a period of 7(seven) days from today. On receipt of the
copies of the depositions, further 2(two) weeks time is allowed
to the petitioner to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses.
After completion of cross-examination, the disciplinary
authority shall provide fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner
allowing him a reasonable time to reply to such show-cause
notice. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not pray for any
adjournment and to assist the inquiry authority in terms of the
above directions.
With the aforesaid directions, the instant writ petition
stands disposed."
[3] Upon the survey of the entire chronology of facts as narrated
hereinabove, one thing is clear that on this occasion the learned writ Court failed
to interfere in the impugned order of penalty dated 24.11.2022 but instead
extended the date for completion of the proceedings. Technically or legally
speaking, there was no departmental proceeding in existence upon passing of the
order of penalty on 24.11.2022. If the learned writ Court was persuaded on the
contentions of the petitioner that there has been non-compliance of the prescribed
procedure in the enquiry, and allowed opportunity to the charged officer to cross-
examine the witnesses, the same could have been done only after interfering with
the penalty order.
[4] Learned counsel for the appellant-Bank has submitted that since the
writ petition was disposed of on the first date, necessary relevant facts could not
be properly placed before the writ Court.
[5] When learned counsel for the parties have been confronted with this
issue, they fairly submitted that the matter be remanded to learned writ Court for
fresh consideration.
[6] In the aforesaid circumstances we are inclined to set aside the
impugned judgment and remit the matter to the learned writ Court to consider it
afresh in accordance with law.
[7] Accordingly, the instant appeal is disposed of. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(S. D. PURKAYASTHA), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Munna S MUNNA SAHA Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA
Date: 2024.07.11 17:36:57 +05'30'
