Calcutta High Court
Sri Sanjoy Kumar Saha vs Uco Bank & Ors on 8 March, 2016
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
ORDER SHEET
WP 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 : 8th March, 2016.
Appearance:
Mr. Soumya Majumdar, Adv.
Mr. Dibyendu Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Siddhartha Roy, Adv.
Ms. Madhuparna Kanrar, Adv.
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajasekhar Mantha, Sr. Adv.
Mrs. Gopa Chakraborty, Adv.
Ms. Paromita Purkait, Adv.
...for UCO Bank.
The Court : The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed for quashing of
the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by issuance of charge-sheet dated 28th
February, 2006, enquiry report dated 19th February, 2008, final order dated 1st
September, 2009 and appellate order dated 7th May, 2009.
The matter has been heard at length.
Mr. Majumdar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted, allegation no.1 of 4 allegations in the statement of allegations was found
concurrently to be partly proved by the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary
authority. Such finding related to the petitioner having recommended to the regional
2
office on 9th February, 2002, enhancement of LC limits of the concerned parties without
justifying the requirement for the same. The said recommendation was marked Ext.S-2.
He drew attention to question no.4 put in cross-examination by the defendant's
representative to bank's witness SW-1. The said question and answer is reproduced
below :
"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."
Mr. Majumdar submitted this was an admission which was not explained
away and could not be by the appellate authority in its order impugned. He relied upon
paragraph 10 of the order of the appellate authority to substantiate his submission.
Paragraph 10 of the said order is reproduced below:
"10.He has stated that Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority both have
failed to take into account the admission of SW-1 on 16-01-2008 during the cross-
examination that he had not violated the norms while recommending 50 percent of Fund
Base Limit as Non-Fund Base Limited as per UCO Trader Circular.
We observe that the allegation against him is not of exceeding the norms but
of failing to appraise the proposal judiciously and not cross checking the sales figure
submitted by the party, which were inflated and unrealistic."
Mr. Majumdar submitted the observation made by the appellate authority in purporting
to explain the admission made on the part of the bank was, in fact, imputation of further
allegations against the petitioner in the appellate order.
He then, submitted allegation no.3 at best was an allegation of
misjudgment or an error of judgment on the part of his client. That would not amount
to misconduct. Thus, according to him, the findings in the enquiry report and those of
3
the disciplinary authority as upheld by the appellate authority were perverse. The
charges could not have been held to have been proved.
Mr. Mantha, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the bank,
submitted the scope of judicial review was very limited. He relied on two decisions of the
Supreme Court of India in this regard. They are the cases of Union of India and Others
versus P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 and Union of India and Another
versus G. Ganayutham reported in (1997) 7 SCC 463. He emphasised there should be
no reappreciation of the evidence in judicial review. The writ Court could not be turned
into the second Court of first appeal. Furthermore, strict rules of evidence could not be
applied in the event some part of the evidence in disciplinary proceeding was looked into
in judicial review. He submitted further, the charge-sheet should be read as a whole
and that it would appear from the enquiry report, order of the disciplinary and appellate
authorities that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity of presenting his defence
and the disciplinary proceedings were conducted as per procedure. The said report and
orders bear on the face of them reliance, at least, on some evidence which was
sufficient to bring home the charges against the petitioner with the consequence of the
award of punishment made.
Initiation of disciplinary proceedings was informed to the petitioner by
letter dated 28th February, 2006. The said letter said the allegations on which the
enquiry was proposed to be held were set out in the enclosed statement of allegations
and the charges were framed on the basis of the said allegations. There were four
allegations imputed against the petitioner on the basis of which three charges were
levelled.
Since Mr. Mazumdar referred to only allegation nos.1 and 3, it would be
sufficient to set out allegation nos.1 and 3 and the charges:
4
The allegation nos. 1 and 3 were:-
"1. M/s. Mata Motors and M/s. Mata Sales Agencies submitted proposals vide letters both
dated 8.2.2002 for enhancement of L/C limits as under :
SL No. Name of the Party Existing Limit Proposed Limit
1 M/s. Mata Motors Rs. 10.00 lacs Rs. 12.50 lacs
2 M/s. Mata Sales Agencies Rs. 30.00 lacs Rs. 37.50 lacs
Shri Saha had recommended to Regional Office on 9.2.2002 for enhancement of the L/C
limits of the above parties, as above, without justifying the requirement of the same and
without studying the nature of transactions in the Cash Credit accounts which involved
huge cash transactions from M/s. Mata Motors to M/s. Mata Sales Agencies and vice
versa.
M/s Mata Motors requested for further ad-hoc L/Cs limit of Rs. 30.00 lacs on 19.3.2002.
Again, without properly assessing and analyzing the requirement of the party, Shri Saha
recommended to Regional Office on 20-3-2002 for sanction of enhanced ad-hoc limit from
Rs. 12.50 lacs to Rs. 42.50 lacs."
"3. When M/s. Mata Motors applied on 11.4.2002 for enhancement of Cash Credit limit
from Rs. 25.00 lacs to Rs. 190.00 lacs and L/C limit from Rs. 12.50 lacs to Rs. 95.00 lacs,
Shri Saha did not appraise the proposal properly and judiciously and he did not cross-
check the sales figure submitted by the party which were inflated and unrealistic. Shri
Saha, vide his letter dated 25.4.2002, recommended for enhancement of the ab ove limits
stating that the sales of the unit had been increased from Rs. 327.00 lacs to Rs. 606.00
lacs and that the unit had become a Partnership firm. Again, as per his letter dated
20.7.2002he had informed Regional Office that M/s. Mata Motors had achieved the sales of Rs. 126.00 lacs during the period from January 2002 to June 2002 without properly verifying the same. On the basis of his above recommendation/information, Regional Office enhanced the limits of the party on 19.8.2002.
The party offered two landed properties valued Rs. 70.00 lacs as collateral security in the form of mortgage to secure the credit limits sanctioned/to be sanctioned in its favour. Shri Saha accepted the said security without making any sport verification to ascertain the ownership and valuation of the said properties. The valuer M/s S. Sanyal & Associates, in its report dated 22.6.2002, stated that caution is to be exercised while dealing in these properties but he had neither exercised caution in the matter nor reported the same to Regional Office.
In the non-encumbrance search certificate dated 24-6-2002 Mr. H.R.Khan, the Advocate, stated that the properties were not under requisition or acquisition by any Government or any other authority without submitting any documents for the same. But Shri Saha accepted the same without questioning and subsequently it was revealed that such properties were acquired by Irrigation and Waterways Department, Government of West Bengal long before the date of their being offered as collateral security. While sending enhancement proposal vide letter dated 25-4-2002, Shri Saha also did not report to Regional Office about non-compliance of the stipulations of the initial sanction of 5 credit limits in favour of the parties. He had thus concealed vital information from his higher authorities to ensure that the enhanced limits are sanctioned in favour of the party."
The charges framed were:-
"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, 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."
Allegation no.1 was concurrently found partly proved by the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority. The proof related to the recommendation having been made without justifying the requirement of enhancement of LC limits. The appellate authority in dealing with the admission on the part of the bank in answer to question no.4 put in cross-examination as reproduced above, did not refer to any part of the evidence on record, but made the observation as also reproduced above. The observation does not appear to relate to allegation no.1. It relates to allegation no.3. While this Court does not go so far as to accept the submission made by Mr. Majumdar that such was imputation of fresh charges against the petitioner, but the inference is inescapable that the admission was not explained in the evidence. The situation, thus, is that a recommendation made without justification was admitted on the part of the bank to be a recommendation made as per norms. This relates to that part of the allegation which was found as partly proved, the other part found not proved. Hence, the finding on the part of the allegation as proved cannot be said to be based on reasoning of a prudent person. The finding is not based on evidence or reason and, therefore, is perverse.
6
So far as the submissions relating to allegation no.3 is concerned, the contention is that the same related to at best an act not done properly or not judiciously and thereby not amounting to misconduct. The same has to be viewed in the context of the charge brought. The articles of charge nos. 1, 2 and 3 brought were based on the United Commercial Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. Regulation 3(1) provides as follows:
"3(1). Every officer employee shall, at all times, take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer."
Allegation no.3 alleging appraisal by the petitioner of the proposal as not done properly or judiciously has not been demonstrated in the enquiry report or in the orders of the authorities passed pursuant thereto as an act done which would lead to an inference of doubtful integrity or honesty. An error of judgment as rightly contended by Mr. Majumdar should not automatically amount to misconduct. The said allegation imputed can only be interpreted as directed against an act which did not exhibit good judgment on the part of the petitioner. It might have called into question the devotion or diligence of the petitioner but such was not demonstrated from the materials on record.
The disciplinary authority by its order found all the three charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. As aforesaid, the charges were based on the allegations imputed against the petitioner. This Court has already found finding on proof of allegation no.1 to be perverse. So far as allegation no.3 is concerned, the allegation by itself did not impute misconduct by the petitioner. The disciplinary authority by taking allegation no.1 as partly proved and the rest of the allegations as proved, considered that all the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved to 7 award the penalty. In the circumstances, this Court is unable to segregate the portion of the order of the disciplinary authority regarding the findings against allegation nos. 2, 4 and the charges in relation thereto.
It appears the point of admission was not taken before the disciplinary authority but urged before the Appellate Authority as that the authorities below had failed to take the same into account. The point regarding allegation no.3 relating to error of judgment was taken by Mr. Majumdar in arguing the writ petition on behalf of his client. Therefore, this Court thinks fit to set aside the appellate authority's order for the said authority to revisit the matter and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
Mr. Mantha prays for stay of operation of this order. The prayer is considered and refused.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(ARINDAM SINHA, J.) sp2.