LAWS(CAL)-2018-12-102

ABHIJIT BISWAS Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK & ORS

Decided On December 12, 2018
Abhijit Biswas Appellant
V/S
Allahabad Bank And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A disciplinary proceeding, the enquiry report in the disciplinary proceeding, the order of compulsory retirement passed by the disciplinary authority and the concurrence thereto by the disciplinary authority are under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) Learned Senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, four charges were framed against the petitioner. None of the charges relate to any loan being taken by the petitioner from any existing customer of the bank. The four charges were enquired into. The Enquiry Officer returned a perverse finding with regard to the charge contained in the Articles I, II and IV. Charge III was found by the Enquiry Officer not to be substantiated. He draws the attention of the Court to the fact that, the first charge relating to a credit entry of Rs.80,500/- from a Savings Bank Account of a customer on February 1, 2006 was an incorrect book entry which was subsequently rectified. The rectification was done by the petitioner himself. Neither the customer of such bank account received any benefit nor did the bank suffer any loss due to such wrong entry. The first charge also contains a transaction of withdrawal of Rs.80,000/- by another customer. According to learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, such customer withdrew the amount on February 6, 2006 and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same.

(3.) With regard to the second article of charge, learned Senior advocate of the petitioner submits that, the charge that, there were irregular payments on different dates amounting to Rs.2,25,000/- is without any basis as such withdrawals were made by the respective customers. The petitioner did not derive any benefit from it. Again, the bank did not suffer any loss due to such transaction. The second portion of the second charge was not proved before the Enquiry Officer. The disciplinary authority, however, erroneously considered the second portion of the second charge to be proved and proceeded to take such charge into consideration for the purpose of awarding the punishment. The Appellate Authority fell into the same error. So far as the fourth article of charge is concerned, the bank did not suffer any loss due to the grant of sanction of loan of Rs.45,000/- to a customer. The loan was repaid. There is nothing on record to suggest that, the bank suffered loss.