Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)Punjab National Bank Of India vs Gour Gopal Mondal & Ors on 25 January, 2021Author:Arindam SinhaBench:Arindam Sinha25.01.2021\n      10\n ns Ct.04\n                                   F.M.A. 1689 of 2018\n\n\n                              Punjab National Bank of India.\n                                      Vs.\n                              Gour Gopal Mondal & Ors.\n\n\n\n              Mr. Rabindranath Majumder           .... for appellant.\n\n              Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy,\n              Mr. Pingal Bhattacharya             .... for respondents.This appeal is against judgment dated 2nd\n\n             August, 2017. The appeal is ready for hearing and taken\n\n             up.Mr. Majumder, learned advocate appears on\n\n             behalf of appellant and draws attention to impugned\n\n             judgment dated 2nd August, 2017. First, he places the\n\n             following paragraph extracted therefrom:"....This is also a case where there is\n                           no evidence to establish the charges\n                           framed against the petitioner. Thus, it\n                           is a case of perverse finding. The\n                           enquiry officer could not appreciate the\n                           well drawn distinction between mere\n                           identification of documents and proof of\n                           their contents. Description of what a\n                           document contains is no proof of its\n                           content which may establish a charge\n                           against the petitioner."He then wants to place the entire judgment.2On query from Court Mr. Saha Roy, learned\n\nadvocate appearing on behalf of respondent/writ petitioner\n\nsubmits, impugned judgment should be confirmed for\n\ncorrect finding of perversity, to set aside the disciplinary\n\nproceeding. It would appear from pages 61 to 66 that\n\ndocuments marked Management Exhibits (ME) were only\n\nidentified by Management Witness (MW) but not proved.\n\nThen Enquiry Officer (EO) tendered MW to Presenting\n\nOfficer (PO) for cross examination! It will also appear from\n\nthose pages that PO had put two questions to his client\n\nbeing Chargesheeted Officer (CSO), he not being a witness.On query from Court, Mr. Saha Roy submits,\n\npoint regarding discovery and inspection of documents,\n\nwas not taken in the writ petition.   As such, he submits\n\nbased on regulation 9, on the first day of the enquiry the\n\ndocuments were produced, the proceeding conducted and\n\nconcluded. His clients were entitled to an adjournment on\n\nnot having pleaded guilty. Mr. Majumder submits, this\n\npoint as was not taken in the writ petition, waiver should\n\nbe construed. Mr. Majumder also relies on the following in\n\nthe record of enquiry proceeding, to submit, respondent did\n\nnot pray for or seek adjournment."E.O. asked the CSO whether he would\n              like to make any statement at this\n              stage. CSO replied that he would not\n              like to do so.As none of the sides had any document\n              to place or any witness to initiate the3enquiry proceedings ended with the\n              following orders:-"Regulation 9 is reproduced below:-"If the officer employee does not plead\n              guilty, the inquiring authority shall\n              adjourn the case to a later date not\n              exceeding 30 days or within such\n              extended time as may be granted by\n              the inquiring authority."The       procedure      applicable    mandates\n\nadjournment, on the charged officer pleading not guilty.\n\nPage 61 in the paper book is record of enquiry proceedings\n\nheld on 25th July, 2014.     Following from said record is\n\nreproduced below:-"At the outset, the Enquiry Officer (EO)\n              read out the charge sheet, a copy of\n              which was handed over to the CSO.On being asked by the EO whether the\n              CSO understood the contents of the\n              charge sheet and accepted the charges\n              leveled in the said charge sheet, the\n              CSO replied that he understands the\n              contents but denies the charges.\n              The EO asked the CSO whether he\n              needed any Defence Representative\n              (DR) to defend his case at the enquiry;the CSO informed that Sri Susanta\n              Kumar Chakraborty, Manager, (Audit &\n              Inspection     Department),    Paschim\n              Medinipur Region will act his as his DR4for   which    necessary     authorisation\n                letter was submitted.Then the EO asked the Presenting\n                Officer (PO) to present the case before\n                the enquiry. The PO submitted a list of\n                Management Documents (Exhibits)/ &\n                Management Witness and following\n                documents:"It will appear from extract of the proceeding\n\nthat at instance of EO, PO presented the case.          Thereupon\n\nDefence Representative (DR) presented the case in defence\n\nand the enquiry proceeding ended, to be followed by\n\nreport.   The     regulation    mandates       adjournment     on\n\nproceeding with the enquiry, at instance of CSO not\n\npleading guilty. The adjournment is necessarily to be seen\n\nas required for the benefit of CSO, to prepare his case in\n\ndefence upon not having accepted guilt. We have perused\n\nthe record of enquiry proceeding but have not been able to\n\nfind that the enquiry was proceeded with and concluded on\n\na statement of CSO recorded, as having declined to have\n\nthe proceeding adjourned. It is of no consequence that EO\n\nhad asked CSO, at the stage of conclusion of the\n\nproceeding,     whether   CSO       would   like   to   make   any\n\nstatement.    That was not an offer of adjournment, to be\n\nseen as compliance of mandate of regulation 9. This adds\n\nweight to the finding in impugned judgment that the\n\ndocuments were merely identified and not proved. When\n\nthe bank had embarked on an enquiry proceeding, to the5end of awarding major penalty, care should have been\n\ntaken to conduct the proceedings as per letter of the\n\nregulations.For above additional reasons, impugned order\n\nis confirmed. The appeal is dismissed.(Arindam Sinha, J.)\n\n\n\n\n                                           (Suvra Ghosh, J.)