Illegal Disciplinary Proceedings And Termination Of Services Of Co-op Bank Employee : Calcutta HC Sets Aside Order
Calcutta High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee held that the disciplinary proceedings against a senior bank employee were conducted by officials who did not have the authority to do so. Consequently, the court also set aside his termination order. The court ruled that both the charge sheet and the termination order violated Rule 106 of the West...
Calcutta High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee held that the disciplinary proceedings against a senior bank employee were conducted by officials who did not have the authority to do so. Consequently, the court also set aside his termination order. The court ruled that both the charge sheet and the termination order violated Rule 106 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 2011.
Background
Sagar Sengupta was an officer with Bhatpara-Naihati Co-operative Bank. In 2020, a complaint was filed against him by the Bank's CEO. The complaint alleged that Sengupta was engaged in misconduct that led to financial losses to the bank. A criminal FIR too was registered against him. Following this, he was transferred to another branch.
In 2021, a memorandum of charges was issued that outlined four counts of misconduct. These included late entry, concealment of Peon book, mishandling of Peon book, etc. However, this charge sheet was issued without any list of documents or witnesses. Further, an enquiry was conducted by a Special enquiry officer, while the CEO directly participated in the proceedings, also questioning Sengupta at times.
Post the enquiry in 2022, the bank terminated the employment of Sengupta, without even providing a copy of the enquiry report. Aggrieved, he filed a writ and challenged his termination before the High Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, he also reached retirement age but no benefits were released to him.
Arguments
Sengupta argued that under Rule 106(15)(1) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, only the Board of Directors of the bank could act as the disciplinary authority. As the board of directors were not functioning at the time, Sengupta argued that the charge sheet issued by the CEO and the termination order issued by the special officer lacked jurisdiction. He also argued that the charge sheet did not have a list of documents or witnesses, and the enquiry report was never provided to him despite being used for his dismissal
On the other hand, the bank argued that a large financial fraud was committed at the bank, and that Sengupta was complicit. They argued that he admitted his guilt in his response to the show cause notice. They further submitted that the special officer acting in place of the board was competent to issue the termination order.
Court's Reasoning
Firstly, the court referred to Rule 106(15)(1) of the 2011 Rules. The court held that as per the provision, only the Board could function as the disciplinary authority and the general body acted as the appellate authority. Since the board was already dissolved, and there were no other provisions that conferred jurisdiction on the special officer, the court held that the Special Officer could not have assumed this role. Thus, the court ruled that the officer's actions were without jurisdiction.
Secondly, the court noted that the chargesheet did not have a list of documents or witnesses. This, the court held, would deprive the accused of a fair opportunity to present his case. Citing Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, (1999) 2 SCC 10, the court ruled that documents not listed in the charge sheet cannot be used against an employee.
Thirdly, the court held that the enquiry procedure violated principles of natural justice. The court noted that no witnesses were examined, no documents were introduced, and the entire process took place in less than a day. This, the court held, was contrary to the principles of natural justice.
Fourthly, the court noted that there were no rules that justified the withholding of retirement benefits during the pendency of a criminal case. Thus, the court directed the back to provide all retirement benefits to Sengupta.
Thus, the court allowed the writ petition and set aside the termination order. Since the special officer had no jurisdiction to conduct the enquiry in the first place, the court held that no fresh enquiry could be conducted either.
Consequently, the court directed the bank to release all benefits.
Decided on: 20.05.2025
Case No.: WPA 4221 of 2023
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Indranath Mitra
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay, Mr. Suman Sankar Chatterjee, Ms. Rajashree Tah, Ms. Trisha Rakshit, Ms. Aishwarya Datta, Ms. Bidisha Chakraborty
Counsel for the State: Mr. Pradip Kumar Roy, Senior Advocate with Mr. Joydeep Roy