SANJAY KUMAR SAHA Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As a prelude to the instant lis it needs to be stated that challenging a statement of allegations and charges contained in a memo dated 28th February, 2006 issued by the respondent no.2, an enquiry report dated 19th February, 2008, orders passed by the disciplinary authority (in short, DA) and the appellate authority (in short, AA) dated 1st September, 2009 and 7th May, 2009 respectively, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being WP 1038 of 2009. The same was disposed of by an order dated 8th March, 2016 observing inter alia that the finding on proof of allegation no.1 was perverse and that the allegation no.3 relates to an error of judgment and does not impute misconduct. On the basis of such observations, the order of the AA dated 7th May, 2009 was set aside directing the AA to revisit its order. Pursuant to such direction, the AA passed an order on 12th May, 2017. The operative part of the said order runs as follows:

(2.) Mr. Majumdar, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that suspicion, howsoever high, cannot be a substitute of actual proof. The finding of the AA pertaining to the allegation no.4 is not based on any direct evidence and as such the fundament of the decision is erroneous and illegal. The said allegation has been framed on the basis of the first three allegations out of which the allegation no.1 is perverse and the allegation no.3 does not impute any misconduct, as would be explicit from the order dated 8th March, 2016 passed in WP 1038 of 2009. There is no element of proof that the petitioner had acted in collusion with the borrowers to siphon off the bank's fund. In view thereof, the petitioner could not have been penalised on the basis of the 4th allegation.

(3.) Reiterating the arguments advanced in course of hearing of the earlier writ petition and drawing the attention of this Court to the impugned revisited order 12th May, 2017, he submits that it has been admitted by the AA that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner suggesting that he had helped the borrowers in siphoning off the bank's fund. In the allegation no.4 there is no reference to "adequate precautions". The said allegation had been sought to be established stating that the petitioner could not satisfy "the genuineness of the need of the transaction". The said clause pertains to allegation no.1 which had been found to be perverse in the earlier writ petition.