Bijan Talukdar vs Tripura Gramin Bank And Ors

Heard Mr. D.C. Saha, learned counsel appearing for th petitioner as well as Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

The petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 09.08.2016 and 20.04.2017 wherein a major penalty was impose upon him with reduction to lower grade (Scale-I) with initial basic pay in the time scale of pay of Scale-I which shall not have the effect of postponing the future increments of pay.

The brief facts are as under:

The petitioner while discharging his duties as Scale-II Officer was charged with commission of misconduct for lending loans in violation of the bank's norms and rules and for such irregularities, the bank had suffered loss. Articles of charges were framed, inquiry officer was appointed and the petitioner was asked to file representation and to appoint a defence assistant to defend him. The petitioner submitted a written representation and in course of inquiry filed an application asking the bank authorities to ensure the Business Correspondence Officer, namely, Rupam Das Talukdar as the presence of one of its witnesses. The bank replied that it was the business of the petitioner to ensure the presence of said Rupam Das Talukdar as his witness. Mr. Saha, learned counsel has given much emphasis on the fact that the disciplinary authority being the Chairman of the bank had also headed the appellate authority i.e. the Board of Directors. According to Mr. Saha, by such appearance of the disciplinary authority as well as head of the appellate authority i.e. the Board of Directors he was seriously prejudiced since there was ample scope to influence other members of the Board and on that ground, learned counsel has submitted that the entire process was vitiated in law.

I have perused the records enclosed with the writ petition. It is revealed from the impugned order that the final order of punishment was issued by the disciplinary authority wherein the said authority was designated as Chairman of the Bank. It is also in the record that being Chairman he headed the Board of Directors and the Board of Directors acted as the appellate authority. On such admission of facts, in my opinion, the petitioner was deprived of getting fair treatment in the realm of the well-neigh principle of natural justice.

It is settled that justice is not only to be done but it is shown to be done. In my opinion, the disciplinary authority should have abstained from the meeting of the Board of Directors the statutory appellate authority while deciding the representation of the petitioner that was filed before the appellate authority.

For the reasons as stated above, the impugned order dated 09.08.2016 reducing the petitioner from Scale-II to Scale-I and the order of the appellate authority dated 20.04.2017 upholding the order dated 09.08.2016 are set aside.

However, the matter is remitted to the appellate authority to take into consideration the representation of the petitioner filed before the appellate authority afresh in absentia of the disciplinary authority (if he heads the Board of Directors assuming the role of appellate authority) within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner shall be treated and be reinstated as Scale-II Officer till a fresh order is passed by the appellate authority. However, he shall not be entitled to any back salaries as Scale-II Officer for the period he did not work as Scale-II Officer under the respondents. His salary for the said period as Sclae-II Officer shall be computed for the purpose of providing retiral benefits.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.