Calcutta High Court
Sri Sanjoy Kumar Saha vs Uco Bank & Ors on 14 January, 2016
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
ORDER SHEET
WP No. 1038 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
SRI SANJOY KUMAR SAHA
Versus
UCO BANK & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
Date : 14th January, 2016.
Appearance:
Mr. Soumya Mazumder, Adv.
Mr. Dibeyendu Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Siddhartha Roy, Adv.
Ms. Madhuparna Kanrar, Adv.
For the petitioner.
Mr.Rajsekhar Mantha, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Paromita Purkait, Adv.
For UCO Bank.
The Court :- The writ petitioner suffered award of punishment of compulsory retirement. He has challenged the charge-sheet, enquiry report, the final order and the order of the Appellate Authority. Though the UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Apeal) Regulations, 1976 provide for a review, the petitioner did not avail the same but has approached this Court for judicial review with regard to the disciplinary proceedings as aforesaid.
Mr. Mazumder, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, drew attention to three charges which were levelled against his client working as Senior Manager in the Strand Road Branch of UCO Bank. The three charges are reproduced below:-
"1. Shri Saha had failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, 2 devotion and diligence. This is violative of Regulation 3(1) of UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulation, 1976, as amended.
2. Shri Saha had acted in a manner unbecoming of an officer employee which is violative of Regulation 3(1) of UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulation, 1976, as amended.
3. Shri Saha had acted otherwise than in his best judgment which is violative of Regulation 3(3) of UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulation, 1976, as amended."
He submitted the charges were brought against his client as arising out of recommendation made by him for enhancement sanction of LC Limits of M/s. Mata Motors and M/s. Mata Sales Agency. Further allegations had been made in support of the charges regarding issuance of letters of credit on behalf of the said two constituents of the Branch upon waiver of stipulation therein about evidence of despatch of goods, without obtaining permission from higher authorities/controlling office. Still further allegations were that when one of the constituents applied for enhancement of cash credit limit and LC limit the petitioner did not cross-check the sales figures submitted by the party which were inflated and unrealistic. He had vide his letter dated 25th April, 2002 recommended for enhancement those limits relying on which the Regional Office enhanced the limits on 19th August, 2002. The petitioner had failed to question the non-encumbrance search certificate dated 24th June, 2002 submitted by Advocate regarding the properties offered as collateral security for such enhancement. It was subsequently revealed those properties were acquired long before the date of them having been offered as collateral security.
Mr. Mazumder submitted the charge nos. 1 and 2 could not be separately made. They having been made on the aforesaid allegations and no other, were a charge of violation of Regulation 3(1) of the said Regulations. According to him,the two charges were repetitive and by them the bank had sought 3 to impose upon the petitioner double jeopardy. So far as charge no.3 is concerned, Mr. Mazumder submitted the same could not be proved without there being admission on record as to what was the petitioner's best judgment contrary to which he acted. There was no evidence regarding what was the petitioner's best judgment let alone any admission to that effect made by the petitioner.
He drew attention to the written defence submitted by his client in which the petitioner had alleged that the presenting officer did not supply documents being stock statement of M/s. Mata Motors and bills discounting register on the comment made by the said officer that -
"either not submitted by the party or not available in that Branch records";and -
"non-existant or not available in the Branch records".
Drawing attention to the final order Mr. Mazumder submitted the findings were perverse since they were not findings that a prudent person would reasonably make on the materials available. He relied on the following portion of the final order as is reproduced below:-
"In reply, Shri Saha has submitted that in standard format it is not mentioned that RR/LR etc. are required while opening LCs. He has also submitted that there are no guidelines of the Bank to obtain evidence of dispatch of goods while opening LCs. He has claimed that he has observed all precautions as per the extant guidelines of the Bank. He further submitted that Management in the enquiry despite his request could not produce LC discounting register which contained the details of sanction.
I, as Disciplinary Authority find that as per extant guidelines of the Bank adequate precautions are required to be observed while opening LCs to safe guard the interest of the Bank, which he failed to exercise. Shri Saha has claimed that he was not provided with certain documents, which he demanded during the enquiry. In case the subject register was not available, he was free to produce letter/correspondence evidencing sanction by the competent authority in support of 4 his case which he did not do. I do not find that he has been prejudiced by not providing the document desired by him. Therefore, I consider the allegation and corresponding charge as proved."
He submitted further the Regional Office would not have acted upon the recommendation made by his client unless the same was in order. Discrepant recommendations were liable to invite questions in clarification from the Regional Office which was not the case here. His client had acted bona fide and just because the account subsequently became NPA, the management had sought to make him a scapegoat. He drew attention to, inter alia, question nos. 3 to 5 put in cross-examination to the Senior Manager, management witness. The said questions and answers are reproduced below:-
"Q3. In the light of your deposition can it be accepted that Ex.S-2 (I) and S-2(ii) were forwarded to RO after proper assessment at the branch level.
Ans. While recommending any proposal to the sanctioning authority it is imperative on the part of the branch also to give the justification for that recommendation. Q4. Ex.S-2(ii) is dated 9.2.2002 and sanction against that recommendation was accorded on 14.2.2002 as per Ex.D-3. I would request you to examine it and state whether any adverse comments/pre-condition before disbursement and the likes was stipulated. Ans.In Ex. D-3 it is mentioned that considering the recommendation of the branch it has been decided that the existing BG or LC limit of Rs.30 lakhs was sanctioned vide our sanction letter no. WBR- 1/CAD/Prop/303/2001-02 dated 2.10.2001 may be enhanced to Rs.37.50 lakhs on account of the caption borrower i.e. Mata Sales Agencies. It indicates that the RO has relied fully on the recommendation of the branch. Q5. Is there any adverse comments from RO. Ans. I have already stated that the RO relied on the recommendation of the branch".5
He also relied on question no.4 and its answer given by the another management witness being the Manager, Canning Street Branch of the said Bank which reads as follows:-
"Q4. Please examine Ex.S-2 and say whether Sr. Manager has recommended Non Fund Based limits as per the norms. Ans. Yes, recommendation is only as per the norms."
He thus submitted the sanction was made by the Regional Office upon scrutiny of the recommendation made by his client. No irregularity or discrepancy was noticed it being presumed that the Regional Office discharged its duties in sanctioning the enhancement sought, as per norms. According to him, there was no case proved of his client having been guilty of the charge levelled under Regulation 3(1) or Regulation 3(3) of the said Regulations. The management had miserably failed to prove the case on the charges made out. The charge not being a charge of negligence, negligence and mens rea cannot co-exist and therefore, the findings in the final order returning the verdict of the charges having been proved, was perverse.
The writ petition is adjourned for further hearing on 25th January, 2016.
(ARINDAM SINHA, J.) snn.