Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

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