Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

High Court Upholds Disciplinary Action Against Bank Officer for Deviations in Banking Practices

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court at Calcutta, in a significant judgment, upheld the disciplinary action taken against Nachiketa Sengupta, a former Scale-II officer at Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank. Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, presiding over the case, dismissed the writ petition filed by Sengupta, challenging the charge-sheet and subsequent disciplinary actions, including his dismissal from service.

In his detailed judgment, Justice Chatterjee observed, “The petitioner had admitted that he could not complete some of the ‘housekeeping works which might cause deviation of some Banking practices’ and apologized for the same.” This acknowledgment by the officer was pivotal in affirming the disciplinary measures taken by the bank.

The case (WPA 24355 of 2015), which was heard on August 28th, 2023, and decided on November 20th, centered around the legality and propriety of a charge-sheet issued against Sengupta in 2013, following allegations of misconduct in his capacity as Branch Manager. The court meticulously examined the procedures followed by the bank and the responses of the petitioner, who was accused of sanctioning and disbursing loans in violation of established norms and policies.

Justice Chatterjee noted, “It is well-known proposition of law that in case of a disciplinary proceeding, the scope of judicial review shall be restricted to the decision-making process.” The court’s decision hinged on the adherence to procedural norms and the lack of prejudice caused to the petitioner due to any alleged procedural lapses.

Significantly, the judgment also addressed the issue of the ‘Competent Authority’ in initiating disciplinary proceedings. The court clarified that the General Manager of the bank, who issued the charge-sheet, had become the ‘Competent Authority’ for Scale-II officers like the petitioner after an amendment to the service regulations. This legal clarity resolved a crucial aspect of the petitioner’s argument.

The dismissal of the writ petition reaffirms the principles of accountability and integrity in the banking sector. It serves as a precedent in matters of disciplinary proceedings and the adherence to internal regulations and policies within financial institutions.

Date of Decision: 20th November 2023

Nachiketa Sengupta -Vs.- Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank & Ors.

Latest Legal News