Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1) You have accessed to Bank's data Server/System Network without the consent of the authority and stolen the electronic data and information of the Bank and used the same dishonestly to cause harm to the reputation of the Bank.

2) You have created a fake e-mail Id in the name and title of Joy Shankar Bhattacharya and also used the name and e-mail Id for sending insinuatory and derogatory allegations against Bank Officials.

4. Mr. Majumdar appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the disciplinary authority has failed to substantiate all the three charges against the petitioner based on the materials placed before the enquiry officer. The purport of charge no.1 is petitioner accessed to Bank's data server/system/network without the consent of the authority and stolen electronic data and information of the bank and the same was unscrupulously used tarnishing reputation of the said bank cannot stand based on the fact that deposition of the Management Witness (MW-2) namely, Saibal Routh who deposed in negation while answering the query of the petitioner during the course of enquiry whether it was possible for the petitioner (CSO) to access the server/system/network/electronic data of the said bank while working in BGVB. The contention of the petitioner was he was not working in the said bank rather working on deputation in head- office of BGVB in Murshidabad at the material point of time therefore, the allegation of unauthorized access to the data server of the said bank was not possible and the same was corroborated by the deposition of Management Witness no. 2.

vi) one unreported judgment dated 6 th March, 2019 passed on W.P. No. 7286(w) of 2018 (Bishnupada Patra vs. United Bank of India & Ors.)

20. This court has considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties to the writ petition and perused the relevant documents available on records.

21. This court is tasked to find out whether taking note of the charge- sheet dated 27th January, 2017 the findings of the enquiry officer in the enquiry report dated 15th November, 2017 can be arrived at based on the materials available before the said enquiry officer and the depositions made by the witnesses during the course of departmental proceeding. As it has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner by placing reliance on relevant part of the proceeding of the departmental enquiry that while cross- examining Management Witness (MW-2) in answer to the question put by the petitioner that whether from BGVB access to server/system/network of UBI is possible or not and it was replied by the said MW-2 as "NO". It appears from the facts that at the material point of time petitioner was working on deputation in BGVB, therefore considering the reply of MW-2 during cross-examination to the aforesaid question put to him it appears that allegation under charge no.1 that the petitioner accessed to bank's data server/system/network without consent of authority and stolen electronic data and information of the bank and used the same dishonestly to cause harm to the reputation of bank is not substantiated. In consideration of such response of MW-2 during cross-examination on behalf of the respondent bank attention has been drawn to the reply of the writ petitioner to the question of the presenting officer that who was the superior authority of the MW-2 and the same was replied by the petitioner that petitioner himself was the superior authority. Though it is contended on behalf of the respondent bank that since the petitioner was the superior authority of MW- 2 the reply of MW-2 during cross-examination to the aforesaid question of the petitioner may not be relied upon. This court has failed to understand that simply because MW-2 was working under the petitioner it cannot be concluded that under compulsion such reply was given by MW-2 to the question put to him by the petitioner. It does not appear that said MW-2 was under any compulsion to answer the question of the petitioner during cross-examination which may improve the case of the petitioner.

22. The above facts as it appears from the relevant part of the enquiry proceeding were not taken into consideration by the enquiry officer while making inference that charge no.1 was found to be proved. The enquiry officer as it appears from the relevant part of the enquiry report concentrated himself on some management evidences, i.e., ME-6 and ME-13 without going into the fact whether access to the data server was at all possible by the petitioner, as alleged, while working in Murshidabad branch of BGVB specially when it was deposed by MW-2 that such access is not possible. Simply, the petitioner lodged complaint against some bank officials does not prove that petitioner had accessed to the data server/system/network of the said bank authority.