SRI PRITAM MAJUMDER vs TRIPURA GRAMIN BANK AND 3 OTHERS
- Court
- Tripura High Court
TRHC010007142025 2026:THC:1278
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.261 of 2025
Sri Pritam Majumder,
S/o: Sri Pranab Ranjan Majumder,
R/o: Vill: Charakbai, P.O.: Baikhora,
P.S.: Santirbazar, Dist.: South Tripura,
PIN: 799144.
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The Tripura Gramin Bank,
Represented by its Chairman, Head Office- Abhoynagar, P.O.:
Abhoynagar, P.S.: East Agartala, Dist.: West Tripura, PIN: 799005.
2. Chairman,
Head Office-Abhoynagar, P.O.: Abhoynagar, P.S.: East Agartala, Dist:
West Tripura, PIN: 799005.
3. The General Manager,
Tripura Gramin Bank, Head Office- Abhoynagar, P.O.: Abhoynagar,
P.S.: East Agartala, Dist.: West Tripura, PIN: 799005.
4. The Enquiry Officer (Sri Samujit Bhattacharjee),
Snr. Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank presently posted at Tripura Gramin
Bank, Melaghar Branch, P.O. + P.S.: Melaghar, Sepahijala Tripura, PIN:
799115.
----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ratan Datta, Adv.
Mr. Ankan Tilak Paul, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prabir Saha, Adv.
Date of hearing : 08.09.2026
Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order : 14.09.2026
Whether fit for
reporting : YES
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the
following reliefs:
“i) Issue Notice upon the Respondents;
ii) Call for Records;
iii) Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to
show cause as to why the Order dated
19.10.2024 passed by the Disciplinary Authority
Page 2 of 25
whereby the Petitioner had been removed from
service illegally shall not be set aside and
quashed,
AND/OR
iv) Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to
show cause as to why the Petitioner shall not be
reinstated as Assistant Manager of Tripura
Gramin Bank, Manubazar Branch, South Tripura.
v) And after hearing the parties be pleased to make
the rule absolute.
AND
In the interim, be pleased to stay the Order
dated 19.10.2024 passed by the Disciplinary
Authority whereby the Petitioner was removed
from service till disposal of the connected writ
petition.
AND/OR
Pass any other order/orders as deemed fit and
proper.
AND/OR
For this act of kindness your humble Petitioner
as in duty bound shall ever pray.”
2. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Ratan Datta and Learned
Counsel, Mr. Ankan Tilak Paul appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also
heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Prabir Saha appearing on behalf of the
respondents- Gramin Bank.
3. The brief fact of the case is that by a memorandum dated
20.04.2018, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Manager at
Tripura Gramin Bank, Muhuripur Branch where he started discharging
his duties smoothly, with the satisfaction of the authority. Thereafter, in
the year 2021, he was transferred and posted at Tripura Gramin Bank,
Manubazar Branch. It is the case of the petitioner that in course of
discharging his duties, the petitioner found some irregularities in Special
Mention Accounts (SMA). So, by an email dated 04.05.2023 ( Annexure-
4 ), the petitioner informed the matter to the HOD, Recovery and
Monitoring, Tripura Gramin Bank highlighting the entire fact of illegal
creation of loans by Sri Chiranjit Goswami, the then Branch Manager.
In his email, the petitioner stated that the then Branch Manager, Sri
Chiranjit Goswami using his Finacle User ID and Password, without any
intimation to him, granted loan to different persons without any proper
Page 3 of 25
documents. However, the respondent authority without taking any
action, issued show-cause notice upon him on 12.06.2023 ( Annexure-
1 ). Thereafter, by communication dated 21.07.2023 ( Annexure-2 ), the
petitioner submitted his reply to the Chief Manager, Inspection and
Audit Division, Tripura Gramin Bank (HO), Abhoynagar, Agartala. But,
the respondent authority without considering his reply, by
communication dated 22.02.2024 ( Annexure-3 ), framed ten Articles of
Charges and drawn up departmental proceeding against him. After that,
enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer submitted report against the
charges and based on the report of enquiry officer, the Chairman being
the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 19.12.2024 ( Annexure-10 )
imposed major punishment of “removal from service which not be a
disqualification for future employment”.
Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred an
appeal to the departmental authority. Thereafter, the General Manager,
by another communication dated 27.03.2025 ( Annexure-11 ) rejected
his appeal. Being dissatisfied with the said order of termination from
service, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner.
4. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel, Mr. Ankan Tilak
Paul for the petitioner submitted that the respondent-Department at the
same time initiated vigilance enquiry but in the vigilance enquiry no
procedure was followed and finally the major punishment was imposed
upon the petitioner. It was further submitted that in a similarly situated
matter, 33 charges were framed against another employee, Sri Diptanu
Sarkar but the respondent authority only imposed minor punishment
upon him. It was further submitted that when the alleged incident took
place the petitioner was not available in the Branch, so his ID and
password was hacked.
Page 4 of 25
Learned Counsel further submitted that in the enquiry
report the conducting enquiry officer mentioned the statements of one
Sri Rupam Chakraborty, Assistant Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank,
Manubazar Branch wherein he specifically admitted that Sri Chiranjit
Goswami has orally admitted in the Branch that he has done all the
loans as mentioned in Articles of Charges but he chose to remain silent
regarding the usage of user ID of Sri Pritam Majumder, CSO. Also, Sri
Rupam Chakraborty admitted that Sri Goswami had signed a written
declaration written by Sri Pritam Majumder in which it was written that
Sri Goswami himself has given all the loans. Learned Counsel further
drawn the attention of this Court to the conclusions made by the
enquiry officer. In the last part of the observation, it was specifically
stated that loans were created using the user ID of Sri Pritam
Majumder, CSO without his knowledge. It was further stated that to
protect the secrecies of one’s password is the responsibility of the staff
himself but, Sri Pritam Majumder has failed to maintain the secrecy of
password in this case. The credential has either been stolen or the CSO
has given the login credentials voluntarily to Sri Chiranjit Goswami for
some unknown reasons. So, the petitioner was negligent in his duties
and this has led to creation of all the illegitimate loan accounts. It was
further stated that now, all the loan accounts are in NPA state and the
irregularities committed caused huge financial loss to the Bank involving
an amount of Rs.56,27,107/- plus interest on the outstanding amount
from the date of NPA. Further, in respect of ten numbers of Articles of
Charges framed against the petitioner, as per the enquiry officer,
charges 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 were partially proved and other charges were
found to be fully proved. So, based on the report of the enquiry officer,
the disciplinary authority being the Chairman imposed major
Page 5 of 25
punishment which is not in commensurate with the act committed by
the petitioner. So, in summing up, Learned Counsel for the petitioner
urged this Court to allow this writ petition and to set aside the order of
termination and to re-instate him in service.
In support of his contention, Learned Counsel for the
petitioner also referred few citations.
In M.V. Bijlani v Union of India & Ors. reported in
(2006) 5 SCC 88 , Hon’ble the Apex Court in para Nos.23, 24, 25 and
26 observed as under:
“23. Evidently, the evidences recorded by the
enquiry officer and inferences drawn by him
were not commensurate with the charges. If it
was a case of misutilisation or misappropriation,
the appellant should have been told thereabout
specifically. Such a serious charge could not
have been enquired without framing appropriate
charges. The charges are otherwise vague. We
have noticed hereinbefore that the High Court
also proceeded on the basis that the non-
maintenance of diary amounted to misutilisation
of copper wire.
24. Mr Verma, when questioned, submitted that
the appellant might have utilised the same on
unsanctioned works. If that be so, a specific
charge to that effect should have been framed.
25. It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in
judicial review is limited. Disciplinary
proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in
nature, there should be some evidence to prove
the charge. Although the charges in a
departmental proceeding are not required to be
proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all
reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the
fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-
judicial function, who upon analysing the
documents must arrive at a conclusion that
there had been a preponderance of probability
to prove the charges on the basis of materials on
record. While doing so, he cannot take into
consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot
refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot
shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the
relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the
basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot
enquire into the allegations with which the
delinquent officer had not been charged with.
26. The report of the enquiry officer suffers from
the aforementioned vices. The orders of the
disciplinary authority as also the Appellate
Authority which are based on the said enquiry
report, thus, cannot be sustained. We have also
noticed the way in which the Tribunal has dealt
with the matter. Upon its findings, the High
Court also commented that it had not delved
Page 6 of 25
deep into the contentions raised by the
appellant. The Tribunal also, thus, failed to
discharge its functions properly.”
In another case in Dakamuri Nethaji Arjun Kumar v.
Central Bank of India (in writ petition No.18682 of 2014 decided on
15.06.2022), the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in para Nos.8 and 9
observed as under:
“8. On a perusal of the material available on
record, this Court observed that the petitioner’s
password was hacked. The petitioner has given
explanation to the Enquiry officer as well as to
the Disciplinary Authority stating that even on
the days when he was away from the bank on
official duties, his password was used which
would show that the password was hacked and
it was misused by other staff members. This
aspect was not considered by any authority. It
clearly shows that the petitioner is not involved
with the allegations and actually others are
involved. It is not the case of the petitioner that
the petitioner has misappropriated the funds
from the inoperative accounts and got them
transferred into his account and there is no
allegation either before the Disciplinary
Authority or in the criminal case that the
amounts have been withdrawn by the staff in
general or petitioner in particular. The angle of
the petitioner is that his password was being
hacked which is clear from the fact that even on
the date dates when he was out of station on
official work or on leave, such a fraudulent
transaction took place and this was not
considered either by the Enquiry officer or
Disciplinary Authority.
9. It is pertinent to mention here that while
conducting enquiry the Enquiry Officer ought to
have taken into account the above issues and in
a unilateral manner gave a perverse finding
without there being any legal evidence.
Therefore, the findings of the Enquiry Officer
with respect to the 4th charge need to be set
aside as perverse and no punishment could have
been inflicted on the petitioner based on such
finding. The Disciplinary Authority despite
receiving detailed explanation of the petitioner
on this aspect has not applied his mind and
toeing the line of Enquiry Officer, simply
imposed the punishment of compulsory
retirement. Therefore, the impugned
proceedings are liable to be set aside.”
In Central Bank of India & Ors. v. Dakamuri Netaji
Arjun Kumar (SLP (C) No.9205/2023 decided on 10.09.2024), Hon’ble
the Supreme Court of India in para No.25 observed as under:
“25. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
The setting aside of the punishment of
Page 7 of 25
compulsory retirement is upheld. However, the
respondent shall suffer the punishment of
reduction of basic pay by two stages for two
years with cumulative effect. To the above
extent, the impugned order shall stand
modified.”
5. The respondents-Gramin Bank has filed counter affidavit. In
para Nos.4, 6 to 14 of the counter affidavit it has been asserted as
under:
“4. That, in response to the averments made in
Para- 1 of the Writ Petition under reply, is the
matter of Law. However, the answering
Respondents Bank most respectfully stated that
the Writ Petition is not maintainable as because
the Writ Petitioner has failed to serve the Bank
honestly and faithfully. The Petitioner was
negligent while discharging his duty at
Manubazar Branch under Tripura Gramin Bank
and due to his negligent and malafide action,
respective fraudulent loans were created on his
part which were turned into NPA (Non
Performing Assets) and for that reason, the
Bank has sustained loss of public money to the
tune of Rs. 56,27,107/- (Fifty Six Lakhs Twenty
Seven Thousand One Hundred and Seven) along
with up-to-date interest from the date of NPA. It
is not acceptable from an Officer of the Bank like
the Petitioner. In view of escaping from his
liability, the Writ Petitioner is trying to impose
his liability to others neck, even, the Petitioner
suppressed so many relevant facts before the
Hon'ble High Court and trying to mislead the
same and for that reason, he is not entitled to
get any relief as sought for.
6. That, in response to the averments made in
Para- 5 of the Writ Petition under reply, it is
most respectfully stated that, the Petitioner had
joined the Bank on 23/04/2018 against the
Offer of Appointment dated-20/04/2018 as an
Asst. Manager is admitted by the answering
Respondents Bank. Except the first line as made
in this paragraph, the rest contents of the same
is disputed and denied by the answering
Respondents Bank, because of the fact that,
while the Petitioner was working as a Asst.
Manager at Manubazar Branch of the
Respondents Bank w.e.f. 08/11/2022 to
09/05/2023, he had committed gross
irregularities along with fraud with huge
financial involvement of the Bank and as such,
he was removed from the service of the
Respondents Bank vide Order dated-
19/10/2024 issued by the Disciplinary Authority
of the Respondents Bank, wherein, it is observed
into the effect that "I have carefully gone
through the entire documents presented before
me such as Articles of charges served to CSO
Shri Pritam Majumder, Enquiry report submitted
by Enquiry Officer, CSO arguments & his final
submission on Enquiry report and observed that
CSO has committed irregularities by violating
Page 8 of 25
Bank's norms and guidelines. And as such, I
fully concur with the views of Enquiry Officer
that charge no 1,2,3,4,7 as partially proved and
Charge No. 5,6,8,9,10 as fully proved. As, the
CSO has failed to serve the Bank honestly and
faithfully by violating provision 20 of Tripura
Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service
Regulation, 2010. As such, I find Shri Pritam
Majumder guilty of the charges..".
7. That, in response to the averments made in
Para- 6 of the Writ Petition under reply, the
answering Respondents Bank most respectfully
stated that, the Writ Petitioner had joined in
TGB, Muhuripur Branch as per Offer of
Appointment dated- 20/04/2018 and
subsequently the Petitioner was transferred to
TGB, Manubazar Branch as per Order dated-
30/06/2021.
8. That, in response to the averments made in
Para-7 of the Writ Petition under reply, it is
disputed and denied that, the Disciplinary
Proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner
and others in connection with the Charge Sheet
vide No. TGB/HO/DAC/F-359/165-167/2024
dated- 22/02/2024, in fact, Charge Sheet
number is TGB/HO/DAC/F-359/165/2024
dated- 22/02/2024 (Annexure-3, Page-45-54 to
the Writ Petition), the Disciplinary Enquiry
Proceedings initiated individually against the
respective officials and separate charge sheet
for each and individual was framed and Enquiry
Proceedings was also initiated against each an
every individual for their respective quantum of
offence separately and punishment also was
given separately.
The Respondents Bank most respectfully
submitted that, the word viz. 'false' and
'irrelevant allegations' as used in the averment
as made in Para-7 of the Writ Petition is strongly
disputed and denied by the answering
Respondents Bank.
It is further stated that, the Respondents
Bank had conducted preliminary investigation at
Muhuripur Branch and Manubazar Branch under
the answering Respondents Bank and during
such investigation, it was detected that, the
Petitioner along with the Branch Manager of
TGB, Manubazar Branch has committed gross
irregularities, violating the norms of the Bank
while creating and sanctioning of several loan
on their part. Based on such
Enquiry/Investigation Report dated 25/05/2023
(Annexure-13 to the Writ Petition, Page No.
115-143) consisting of the reports relating to
gross irregularities at Muhuripur Branch and
Manubazar Branch under the answering
Respondents' Bank, the Respondents Bank has
issued Show Cause Notice dated 12/06/2023
(Annexure-1, Page No. 30-39 to the Writ
Petition) to the Petitioner and sought for
reasonable reply from the Petitioner within
07(seven) days from the date of receipt of the
said Notice. On receipt of the said Notice dated-
Page 9 of 25
12/06/2023, the Petitioner had submitted reply
dated- 21/07/2023 (Annexure-2, Page No. 40-
44 to the Writ Petition) by simply denying all the
allegations without making any reasonable
justification, though he had created fraudulent
loan in the Finacle system and shared his Finacle
User ID & Password. Due to non-satisfactory
and non-convincing reply dated- 21/07/2023,
the Respondents Bank has decided to place the
matter before the Internal Advisory Committee
(in short IAC) of the Respondent Bank for taking
necessary action. Based on relevant documents
against the Petitioner, the IAC has identified and
recommended by observing into the effect that,
"..Actionable lapses were identified against the
erring officer for creation of fraudulent loan in
the system, Transfer of fund without the
knowledge of customers, & sharing Finacle User
id & password. The Committee deliberated the
case and found vigilance overtone against the
Sri Pritam Majumder, Asst. Manager (Under
suspension).."
(Copy of the minute's dated- 21/08/2023
of the IAC is enclosed herewith and marked
as Annexure-R/1).
It is further submitted by the Respondents
Bank, on receipt of the said Minutes dated-
21/08/2023 of IAC, the matter was forwarded
to the Additional Chief Vigilance Officer, Punjab
National Bank (Sponsor Bank of Tripura Gramin
Bank), Kolkata by attaching relevant documents
and sought for advice regarding further course
of action. On receipt of the said minutes along
with necessary documents, the Office of the
Additional Chief Vigilance Officer, Punjab
National Bank, Kolkata informed the Respondent
Bank vide letter No. RRB/TGB/03/2023 dated
17/11/2023 into the effect that ".. Keeping in
view of the lapses, the Additional Chief Vigilance
Officer has concurred with the proposition of the
IAC and Perceived Vigilance Overtone and has
recommended initiation of Major Penalty
Proceedings against 2. Shri Pritam Majumder,
Emp ID-11469, Officer Scale-1.."
(Copy of the said Letter No.
RRB/TGB/03/2023 dated 17/11/2023, is
enclosed herewith and marked the same as
Annexure-R/2).
It is further submitted by the answering
Respondents Bank, on receipt of the said Letter
No. RRB/TGB/03/2023 dated 17/11/2023,
issued by the Office of the Additional Chief
Vigilance Officer, Punjab National Bank, Kolkata,
the Respondent Bank had issued Charge Sheet
vide No. TGB/HO/DAC/F-359/165/2024 dated-
22/02/2024 by framing 10 Nos. of Article of
Charges (Annexure-3, Page No. 45-54 to the
Writ Petition) against the Petitioner and invited
him to submit reply against such charges as
framed. The Petitioner had submitted reply, by
simply denying the charges as framed against
him, though he had created fraudulent loan. The
said reply dated Nil is neither convincing nor
Page 10 of 25
satisfactorily and as such, the Respondents Bank
started disciplinary enquiry proceedings against
the Petitioner [for violation of Regulation 17, 18
& 20 of Tripura Gramin Bank (Officers and
Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 for not
complying with the Rules, Regulations of the
Respondents Bank and not taking care of
interest of the Respondents Bank which
amounts to misconducts, attracting invocation of
Regulation 39 of Tripura Gramin Bank (Officers
and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010] by
appointing Enquiry Officer (EO) as well as
Presenting Officer 4 (PO) with a direction to
hold the Departmental enquiry for the charges
leveled against the Petitioner, under suspension
in connection with the Charge sheet vide Charge
sheet vide No.TGB/HO/DAC/F-359/165/2024
dated- 22/02/2024 and to submit the enquiry
findings before the Disciplinary Authority.
(Copy of the Reply dated- Nil, against the
Charge Sheet vide No.TGB/HO/DAC/F-
359/165/2024 dated- 22/02/2024 is
enclosed herewith and marked as
Annexure-R/3).
9. That, in response to the averments made in
Para- 8 of the Writ Petition under reply, it is
admitted by the answering Respondents Bank,
and hence required no reply.
10. That, in response to the averments made in
Para- 9 of the Writ Petition under reply, it is
disputed and denied by the answering
Respondents Bank and it is most respectfully
stated that, the Petitioner had created 10 Nos.
of fraudulent loan in the Bank's finacle system
between 15/11/2022 to 25/04/2023 by using
User ID of the Petitioner without keeping the
protection of the Public money; even, the
Petitioner failed to discharge his duty by not
executing in the loan documents (i.e. processing
sheet or appraisal sheet). The answering
Respondents Bank further most respectfully
stated that Password policy of the Bank
categorically stated how to maintain the
password and what are the role and
responsibility of the staffs of the Bank in this
regard. It is categorically stated that "(1)
Keeping a good knowledge of the password (2)
Memorizing user passwords. Not writing the
password anywhere (3) Not sharing the
password (4) Avoiding usage of easily guessable
passwords..". The Privacy Policy of the Bank
further has stated in to the effect on the
maintaining and protecting of Pass word that
"..you should choose your passwords carefully
such that no unauthorized access is made by a
third party. You must choose a password which
shall be at least 6 characters long and shall
consist of a mix of alphabets numbers and
special characters like! @ # $ etc. which must
not relate to any readily accessible personal
data such as your name, address, telephone
number, vehicle number, driver license etc. or
easily guessable combination of letters and/or
numbers commit the user-id and password to
Page 11 of 25
memory and not record them in a written or
electronic form not let any un authorized person
have access to his computer or leave the
computer unattended while using Internet
Banking Services. If you think your User ID
and/or password has been disclosed or
compromised to a third party, is lost or stolen
and unauthorized transactions may have been
conducted, you are responsible to inform us
immediately.."
(Copy of the Password Policy of the Bank is
enclosed herewith and marked as
Annexure-R/4).
It is further submitted that, the Petitioner
should have informed the Respondents Bank
immediately, if thinks that his password of the
Finacle system was stolen or misused. But, the
Writ petitioner failed to do so. Enquiry Report
(Page No. 79 to the Writ Petition) dated-
30/07/2024 bears the statement of one witness
namely Rohan Saha (witness of the petitioner),
the then Office Assistant of TGB, Manubazar
Branch, wherein Shri Rohan Saha in reply to the
question No. C. from the side of Defence
Assistant of the Writ Petitioner (viz. is there any
instance where Shri Rohan Saha has notice that
Shri Pritam Majumder has shared his User Id
password with any officials of the bank branch?)
admitted that "No, there is no such instance as
per his knowledge".
It is further most respectfully stated that, the
Enquiry Report (Page No. 80 to the Writ
Petition) dated 30/07/2024 bears another
statement made by one witness namely Rupam
Chakraborty (witness of the petitioner), Asst.
Manager, TGB, Manubazar Branch, wherein Shri
Rupam Chakraborty in reply to the question No.
C. from the side of Defence Assistant of the Writ
Petitioner (viz. whether Shri Chiranjit Goswami,
BM has admitted at any point of time in the
branch either through written declaration or
orally that the Petitioner has created the loans
as mentioned in article of charges of Shri Pritam
Majumder, CSO without the consent of Shri
Pritam Majumder, CSO using User ID of the
CSO?) that "..but Shri Goswami choose to
remain silent regarding usage of User Id of Shri
Pritam Majumder..". As to how his password of
the Finacle system was misused or stolen for a
long time w.e.f. 15/11/2022 to 25/04/2023 is
unbelievable. As to how, the Petitioner served in
the Branch without using Finacle system (i.e.
accounting system), without using User Id &
password. While, using Finacle system User Id &
Password is mandatory for login in the Banking
industry. Only to escape from the liability of the
charge, the Petitioner has stated such type of
irrelevant statement in the instant Paragraph
which is liable to be dismissed on its threshold.
11. That, in response to the averments made in
Para- 10 of the Writ Petition under reply, it is
disputed and denied by the answering
Respondents Bank and most respectfully stated
Page 12 of 25
that, the 10 (ten) Nos. of fraudulent loan were
created by the Petitioner himself for a long time
between 15/11/2022 to 25/04/2023, which will
speaks the Article of Charge itself.
It is most respectfully stated, that Enquiry
Report dated-30/07/2024 (Page No. 79 to the
Writ Petition) bears a statement made by one
witness namely Rohan Saha, the then Office
Assistant of TGB, Manubazar Branch, wherein
Shri Rohan Saha made a reply to the question
No. a made from the side of Defence Assistant of
the Petitioner (viz. is Shri Rohan Saha aware of
the loans as mentioned is article of charges of
Shri Pritam Majumder, CSO?) that "..Rohan Saha
stated that he is aware as he was the first to
detect the loans mentioned in article of charges
while scrutiny of the SMA list as the loanee
parties are not customers of TGB Manubazar
branch and immediately he brought the matter
to notice of Shri Rupam Chakraborty, Officer and
Shri Pritam Majumder, Officer. He also added the
date was 27/04/2023 and Shri Rohan Saha
remember the date as it was, his day of release
from TGB, Manubazar branch..". The Petitioner
had a good knowledge about the commission of
offence as he had committed and subsequently
upon scrutiny of the SMA list of the loanee, Shri
Rohan Saha had firstly brought the matter to the
Petitioner and one officer namely Shri Rupam
Chakraborty on 27/04/2023, after elapsing of 7
(seven) days from the date of knowing the
matter, the Petitioner had ventilated the same to
his Authority by transmitting an e-mail dated
04/05/2023 (Annexure-4, Page No. 55 to the
Writ Petition). Since, the matter was serious in
nature, he was supposed to inform his Higher
Authority on the same date, but he took seven
day, no explanation was made in anywhere from
his side as to why he has taken seven days to
ventilate the matter to his Authority. From the
malafide conduct of the Petitioner, it is evident
and presumed that, during that the period of
seven days the Petitioner made a story how to
escape from the liability of his offence.
It is further most respectfully stated that, the
Enquiry Report (Page No. 80 to the Writ
Petition) dated- 30/07/2024 bears a statement
made by one witness namely Rupam
Chakraborty, Asst. Manager, TGB, Manubazar
Branch, wherein Shri Rupam Chakraborty made
a reply to the question No. C made from the side
of Defence Assistant of the Petitioner (viz.
whether Shri Chiranjit Goswami, Branch
Manager has admitted at any point of time in the
branch either through written declaration or
orally that he has created the loans as
mentioned in article of charges of Shri Pritam
Majumder, CSO without the consent of Shri
Pritam Majumder, CSO by using User ID of the
CSO?) that "..Also Shri Rupam Chakraborty
admitted that Shri Goswami has signed a written
declaration written by Shri Pritam Majumder in
which it was written that Shri Goswami has
himself has done all the loans.."
Page 13 of 25
(Copy of the Enquiry Report dated-
30/07/2024 is enclosed herewith and
marked as Annexure-R/5).
It is further stated that, as per statement of
Shri Rohan Saha, the then, Office Assistant of
TGB, Manubazar Branch, it is revealed that he is
the first person to detect the irregularities on
27/04/2023 and after detection, the same was
informed and discussed with said Rupam
Chakraborty, Asst. Manager as well as discussed
with the Petitioner Asst. Manager. Finding no
other alternative, from escape of liability of the
charges, the Writ Petitioner had ventilated the
matter on 04/05/2023 in email to the Head
Office (Annexure-4, Page No. 55 to the Writ
Petition).
It is most respectfully stated that, said Shri
Chiranjit Goswami, Branch Manager of TGB,
Manubazar Branch and TGB, Munuripur Branch
was also removed from the service of the Bank
by initiating separate Disciplinary Enquiry
Proceedings for embezzling the fund by
sanctioning and disbursing the loans in TGB,
Manubazar Branch & Muhuripur Branch without
the knowledge of the Customers, violating
Bank's lending norms, transferring of fund from
Customers Account without the knowledge of
the customers. Therefore, statement as made in
this paragraph is without any basis which is
liable to be dismissed on its threshold.
12. That, in response to the averments made in
Para-11 of the Writ Petition under reply, it is
disputed and denied by the answering
Respondents Bank and most respectfully stated
that, the Petitioner has suppressed the fact that,
the contents of alleged declaration has written
by the Writ Petitioner (Annexure-6, Page No. 57
to the Writ Petition) i.e. the minutes dated-
14/05/2024 of the Departmental Proceedings
bears a statement made by one witness namely
Shri Rohan Saha, the then Office Assistant of
TGB, Manubazar Branch made a reply to the
question No. b made from the side of Defence
Assistant of the Writ Petitioner (viz. whether
Shri Chiranjit Goswami, BM has admitted at any
point of time in the branch either through
written declaration or orally that he has created
the loans as mentioned in article of charges of
Shri Pritam Majumder, CSO without the consent
of Shri Pritam Majumder, CSO using User ID of
the CSO?) that "..There is no such instant, and
he is not aware of any such declaration either
oral or written by Shri Chiranjit Goswami, BM.."
(Annexure-6, Page No. 57 of the Writ Petition)
i.e. the minutes dated- 14/05/2024 of the
Departmental Proceedings bears a statement
made by one witness namely Shri Rupam
Chakraborty, Asst. Manager, TGB-Manubazar
Branch, wherein, Shri Rupam Chakraborty made
a reply to the question No. C made from the side
of Defence Assistant of the Writ Petitioner (viz.
whether Shri Chiranjit Goswami, BM has
admitted at any point of time in the branch
either through written declaration or orally that
Page 14 of 25
he has created the loans as mentioned in article
of charges of Shri Pritam Majumder, CSO
without the consent of Shri Pritam Majumder,
CSO using User ID of the CSO?) that "..a written
declaration written by Shri Pritam Majumder in
which it was written that Shri Goswami has
himself has done all the loans..". Therefore, it is
evident that the alleged contents (Annexure- 5,
Page No. 56 to the Writ Petition) was written by
the Writ Petitioner himself as per his own choice
in view of escaping from his liability or to save
from the commission of offence as he had
committed and somehow he managed to put
alleged signature of Shri Chiranjit Goswami,
former Branch Manager of TGB, Manubazar
Branch or the Petitioner himself had execute
thereon. Therefore, he had a knowledge
regarding commission of offence as he had
committed. He had a pre planned as to how to
escape from his liability, that is why, the
Petitioner prepared the alleged declaration by
his own handwriting only to save himself from
the liability of charge.
13. That, for the convenient in responding the
averments made in Para-12 & 13 of the Writ
Petition under reply are being taken together, it
is disputed and denied by the answering
Respondents Bank and most respectfully stated
that, based on records as exhibited ME-1 to ME-
54 (Annexure-7, Page No. 68-69 to the Writ
Petition) and DE/1 & DE/2 (Annexure-7, Page
No. 69 to the Writ Petition) along with witnesses
of Shri Rupam Chakrborty & Shri Rohan
Saha(brought by the petitioner), the Enquiry
Officer has submitted the Enquiry Report dated
30/07/2024 before the Disciplinary Authority by
observing into the effect that "Now all the loan
account are in NPA state, and the irregularities
committed led to a huge financial loss to the
bank involving an amount of Rs.56,27,107/-
plus interest on the outstanding amount from
the date of NPA So I submit my finding as per
point number H below :- Charge No.1- Partially
proved, Charge No.2 - Partially proved, Charge
No.3 -Partially proved, Charge No.4 - Partially
proved, Charge No.5- Proved, Charge No.6 -
Proved, Charge No.7 - Partially proved, Charge
No.8 Proved, Charge No.9 - Proved, Charge No.
10-Proved. The article of Charges as per charge
sheet No.TGB/HO/DAC/F-359/165 167/2024
dated 22-02-2024, from 1 to 10 based on
arguments from PO, CSO and documentary
evidence, I hold charge no. 1,2,3,4,7, as partially
proved and Charge No. 5,6,8,9,10 as Proved..".
The Respondents Bank further most respectfully
stated that, the Petitioner had created 10 Nos.
of fraudulent loan in the Computer system w.e.f.
15/11/2022 to 25/04/2023 by using User ID of
the Petitioner without keeping the protection of
the Public money, even, the Petitioner, being the
Officer of the Respondents Bank failed to
discharge his duty honestly by not executing in
the loan documents (i.e. processing sheet or
appraisal sheet), without signing in the loan
documents, the Petitioner had created the
respective loan in the computer Finacle system
Page 15 of 25
by using his user ID & password. This is not
acceptable from the Officer like him in the Bank.
The Respondents Bank further most respectfully
stated that the Petitioner in connivance with the
former Manager, Shri Chiranjit Goswami of TGB,
Manubazar had jointly misappropriated of public
money dishonestly and fraudulently by creating,
sanctioning and disbursing of fraudulent 10
(Ten) Nos. of loan in favour of various persons
without taking care and protection of the
protection of the public money and without any
proper documentation, without issuing of
sanction letters thereof and as such, FIR was
lodged against the Petitioner and Shri Chiranjit
Goswami, former Branch Manager before the
Manubazar Police Station vide Manubazar P.S
case No.15/2023 U/s 409/420/421/468/471/
120(B)/34 IPC (Annexure-12, Page No. 110-114
to the Writ Petition) and presently the same is
pending before the Superintendent of Police,
Tripura Police Crime Branch (Economics
Offences wing), D.M. Office Complex, Agartala.
14. That, in response to the averments made in
Para- 14 of the Writ Petition under reply, it is
disputed and denied by the answering
Respondents Bank and most respectfully stated
that, the Disciplinary Authority had appointed
Enquiry Officer who is Senior to the Petitioner by
making empower and delegating the power of
Disciplinary Authority (Annexure-9, Page No. 85
to the Writ Petition) to regulate the procedure of
enquiry, taking decision during the course of
enquiry on the representation and objection by
all the sides and to come into the conclusion
about the findings by holding the enquiry and to
submit the enquiry findings before the
Disciplinary Authority. Being empowered and
delegated with the power by the Disciplinary
Authority, the Enquiry Officer (i.e. the EO) has
conducted the Disciplinary Enquiry proceedings
against the Petitioner in connection with the
article of Charge as framed. During enquiry, it
was proved that the Petitioner failed to protect
the secrecy of his password. The Petitioner was
negligent in his duties and due to his negligent
act, respective fraudulent loans were created on
his part which were turned into NPA and for that
reason, the Bank has sustained loss of public
money to the tune of Rs. 56,27,107/- (Fifty Six
Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand One Hundred and
Seven) along with up-to-date interest from the
date of NPA. After completion of the said
Disciplinary Enquiry process based on relevant
documents (ME-1 to ME-54 i.e. Sl. 1 to 54 & Sl. 1
to Sl. No.04 i.e. DE-1 to DE-2), hearing,
arguments, witness deposition, the EO has
submitted Enquiry Report and overall finding on
30/07/2024, before the Disciplinary Authority
for further course of action. Upon received the
Enquiry Report and other relevant documents,
the Disciplinary Authority has gone through
meticulously and observed into the effect that
"..I have carefully gone through the entire
documents presented before me such as Articles
of charges served to CSO Shri Pritam Majumder,
Enquiry report submitted by Enquiry officer, CSO
Page 16 of 25
arguments & his final submission on Enquiry
report and observed that CSO has committed
irregularities by violating Bank's norms and
guidelines. And as such, I fully concur with the
views of Enquiry Officer that charge no 1,2,3,4,7
as partially proved and Charge No. 5,6,8,9,10 as
fully proved. As, the CSO has failed to serve the
Bank honestly and faithfully by violating
provision 20 of Tripura Gramin Bank (Officers &
Employees) Service Regulation, 2010. As such, I
find Shri Pritam Maumder guilty of the charges.
Considering all facts and circumstances of the
case, the gravity of misconduct by CSO, I decide
to impose the penalty as specified in sub-clause-
iv of clause (b) under sub-regulation 1 of
Regulation 39 of Tripura Gramin Bank (Officers
& Employees Service Regulation 2010, inflicted
upon Shri Pritam Majumder with immediate
effect Removal from service which not be a
disqualification for future employment.".
The answering Respondents Bank further
most respectfully stated that, ample of
opportunity were given to the Petitioner to
prove his innocence before initiation of
Departmental Enquiry Proceedings, even, after
initiation of Departmental Enquiry Proceedings,
but, each and every time, the Petitioner failed to
prove his innocence against the offense as he
had committed. Reply dated 10/09/2024
(Annexure-8, Page No. 82-84 to the Writ
Petition) as made by the Petitioner against the
Enquiry Report was unjustified. The said reply,
is neither satisfactorily nor convincing.”
At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel, Mr. Prabir Saha
appearing on behalf of the respondents-Gramin Bank submitted that
there was gross negligence or misconduct on the part of the petitioner
in discharging his duties for which the respondents-Bank had to sustain
huge amount of financial losses.
Relying upon Annexure-R/1 i.e. minutes of the IAC meeting
and Annexure-R/2 and the vigilance manual, Learned Counsel
submitted that it was the part of their internal investigation and there
was no scope on the part of the petitioner to take part in the same.
Furthermore, an FIR was also registered against the petitioner and this
Court rejected the pre-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner.
Learned Counsel further submitted that the charges framed
against Sri Diptanu Sarkar are not similar to that of the present
petitioner and as such, there was no illegality in the departmental
Page 17 of 25
proceeding drawn up against the petitioner. It was further submitted
that the enquiry officer after conducting proper enquiry submitted his
report and based on the said report, the disciplinary authority imposed
major punishment under Regulation 39 of Tripura Gramin Bank (Officers
& Employees) Service Regulations, 2010. Finally, Learned Counsel for
the respondents-Gramin Bank urged for dismissal of this writ petition. It
was further submitted that some other staff of the Bank informed about
the alleged activity and not the present petitioner.
6. I have heard both the sides at length and perused the writ
petition and the documents annexed with the writ petition as well as the
counter affidavit filed by the respondents-Gramin Bank.
7. It is settled position of law that under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India there is very limited scope to interfere with the
findings of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the appellate authority.
Here, in the case at hand, the contention of the petitioner
was that he joined in the Department in the year 2018 and thereafter in
the year 2021, he was transferred to Tripura Gramin Bank, Manubazar
Branch as Assistant Manager. In course of discharging his duties certain
irregularities were found and accordingly, by email dated 04.05.2023
( Annexure-4 ) he informed the HOD that Sri Chiranjit Goswami, the
Branch Manager used his Finacle user ID and password to create and
disburse loan to different persons without proper documentation. The
same has also been admitted by said Branch Manager, Sri Chiranjit
Goswami which was received by the Functional Manager of Tripura
Gramin Bank, Inspection Branch on 09.06.2023. But, the respondents-
Bank without enquiring into the matter issued show-cause notice upon
the petitioner alleging some charges and challenging the show-cause
notice, reply was submitted by the petitioner ( Annexure-2 ) but that was
Page 18 of 25
not considered. Thereafter, the respondent-Department by
communication dated 22.02.2024 ( Annexure-3 ) drawn up departmental
proceeding against him and accordingly, the enquiry officer was
appointed. In the meanwhile, vigilance organization of the said
department also conducted their investigation and submitted report.
8. I have also perused the enquiry report submitted by the
enquiry officer.
9. It is admitted position that when the petitioner was
discharging his job at Manubazar Branch that time one Rupam
Chakraborty was also performing in the said Branch as Assistant
Manager. The enquiry officer in his enquiry report recorded the
statements of said Rupam Chakraborty, Assistant Manager which are as
follows:
“Statement of Shri Rupam Chakraboty, Astt
Manager, TGB Manubazar Branch:
a. DA to Shri Rupam Chakraborty: Is Shri Rupam
Chakraborty aware of the loans as mentioned in
article of charges of Shri Pritam Majumder, CSO?
Reply by Shri Rupam Chakraborty: Yes, he is
aware, and he came to know about the loans
from Shri Rohan Saha, the then Office Assistant.
He also acknowledged the date as 27-04-2023.
b. DA to Shri Rupam Chakraborty: Did he search
for loan documents after he came to know about
the loans from Shri Rohan Saha?
Reply by Shri Rupam Chakraborty: Shri
Chakraborty stated that both he and Shri Pritam
Majumder, CSO has searched the branch for the
loan documents as mentioned in the article of
charges but they did not find any of the
documents.
c. DA to Shri Rupam Chakraborty; Whether Shri
Chiranjit Goswami, BM has admitted at any point
of time in the branch either through written
declaration or orally that he has created the
loans as mentioned in article of charges of Shri
Pritam Majumder, CSO without the consent of
Shri Pritam Majumder, CSO using user ID of the
CSO?
Reply by Shri Rupam Chakraborty: Shri Rupam
Chakraborty said that Shri Goswami has
admitted orally in the branch that he has done
all the loans as mentioned in article of charges,
but Shri Goswami choose to remain silent
regarding usage of User ID of Shri Pritam
Majumder, CSO. Also, Shri Rupam Chakraborty
Page 19 of 25
admitted that Shri Goswami has signed a written
declaration written by Shri Pritam Majumder in
which it was written that Shri Goswami himself
has done all the loans.
d. PO to Shri Rupam Chakraborty: PO showed
the photocopy dated 28-04-2023, signed by
Chiranjit Goswami, which Shri Pritam Majumder,
CSO has submitted before the proceedings on
30-04-2024 and asked whether this was the
written declaration as told by Shri Rupam
Chakraborty in point "c" above.
Reply by Shri Rupam Chakraborty: He stated
that he is not sure whether this was the
declaration as discussed in point "c" above.”
Thereafter, on completion of enquiry the enquiry officer
gave his observation about the Articles of Charges framed against the
petitioner. For the sake of convenience, the conclusion of the enquiry
officer’s report is mentioned hereinbelow:
“CONCLUSION BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER
As per the charge sheet of Shri Pritam
Majumder, Shri Majumder has created all loans
as mentioned in the charge sheet. Shri Pritam
Majumder, CSO has denied the charges and
stated that he has not created the loans as
mentioned in the charge sheet rather his User ID
has been stolen and is used to create all the
loans. There are instances where it reflects that
the User ID of Shri Pritam Majumder, CSO was
stolen or was voluntarily given by the CSO. The
instances are as follows:
a. No signature of Shri Pritam Majumder, CSO
was found in any of the loan documents in
loan appraisal, processing, pre lending
inspection, post lending inspection etc only
his user ID has been used for creation of the
loans.
b. In practice, a loan is to be created by the
recommending authority/processing officer
and to be verified by the sanctioning
authority which in general should involve two
PCs with two different IP addresses. But in
this case, for all the loans except
8060250000790 (SL 3. Manika
Bhattacharjee) the IP addresses both for
creation and verification are the same.
c. The creation and verification time in the 24-
hour format of the loans as mentioned in the
charge sheet are as follows:
SL Loan Account
Number
Creation
time
Verification
time
Difference
1. 8060250000666
(Pranab Deb)
14:20:38 14:21:38 00:01:00
2. 8060250000860
(Pranab Deb)
14:33:17 14:35:48 00:02:31
3. 8060250000790
(Manika
11:33:47 11:36:43 00:02:56
Page 20 of 25
Bhattacharjee)
4 8060250000930
(Manika
Bhattacharjee)
13:54:25 13:56:56 00:02:31
5 8060250000842
(Pradip Das)
14:32:40 14:35:11 00:02:31
6 8060250000879
(Pradip Das)
16:03:06 16:05:39 00:02:33
7 8060250001007
(Nilima Goswami)
18:21:35 18:23:39 00:02:04
8 8060250000994
(Jayanti Rupini)
16:26:01 16:28:13 00:02:12
9 8060250000851
(Pranjit Debnath)
15:01:08 15:05:02 00:03:54
10 8060300003087
(Rakesh Biswas)
15:36:29 15:39:40 00:03:11
The time difference between creation and
verification is much less. Within this short
period, it is not possible to create, check, and
then verify the loan from the same system by
two different officials.
d. The User ID of Shri Pritam Majumder was
logged on in multiple occasions when he was
on leave or was not present in the branch as
discussed in the regular hearings.
e. Loans sanctioned in most cases are close
relatives and friends of the Branch Manager
Shri Chiranjit Goswami. The details are as
follows:
i) Shri Pranab Deb (Charge Sheet SL 1
&2): Childhood friend of Shri Chiranjit
Goswami
ii) Shri Manika Bhattacharjee (Charge
Sheet SL. 3 & 4): Mother-in-Law of Shri
Chiranjit Goswami
iii) Smt Nilima Goswami (Charge Sheet SL
7): Aunt of Shri Chiranjit Goswami
iv) Shri Pranjit Debnath (Charge Sheet SL
9): Previously known to Shri Chiranjit
Goswami while he was posted at TGB
Muhuripur Branch. Shri Pranjit Debnath
was also the complainant in the case.
f. Witness Shri Rupam Chakraborty, Assistant
Manager TGB Manubazar Branch also states
that Shri Chiranjit Goswami himself admitted
orally that he has done all the loans himself
as mentioned in the charge sheet of Shri
Pritam Majumder, CSO.
g. Shri Chiranjit Goswami, Sanctioning
Authority of the loans mentioned in the
article of charges also submitted a written
declaration (DE/1/P1) to Shri Pritam
Majumder, CSO about the fact that Shri
Goswami himself has created and verified all
the loans using User ID of Shri Pritam
Majumder, CSO without informing the CSO.
h. Shri Pritam Majunder, CSO also informed
Recovery & Monitoring department through
email dated 04-05-2023 (DE/2/P1) about
illegal creation of all the loan accounts as
mgs mentioned in charge Sheet (SL 1 to 9)
Page 21 of 25
except the loan account of Shri Rakesh
Biswas (SL. 10). As per discussion held in the
daily proceedings, when the CSO was asked
how he came to know about the loans, he
said that he has seen the loan account name
and numbers in the SMA (Special Mention
Account) list provided by TGB Recovery
Department. As the loan of Shri Rakesh
Biswas was not in SMA list, he could not
inform the same to the Recovery Department.
So, from the above facts it is clear that the loans
were created using the User ID of Shri Pritam
Majumder, CSO without his knowledge. To
protect the secrecy of one's password is the
responsibility of the staff himself but Shri Pritam
Majumder, CSO has failed to protect the secrecy
of his password in this case. The credentials
have either been stolen or the CSO has given the
login credentials voluntarily to Shri Chiranjit
Goswami for some unknown reason. This implies
that the CSO was negligent in his duties and this
has led to the creation of all the illegitimate loan
accounts. Now all the loan accounts are in NPA
state, and the irregularities committed led to a
huge financial loss to the bank involving an
amount of Rs. 56,27,107/- plus interest on the
outstanding amount from the date of NPA. So, I
submit my findings as per point number H
below.
H. Findings
Charge No.1 = Partially Proved.
Charge No.2 = Partially Proved.
Charge No.3 = Partially Proved.
Charge No.4 = Partially Proved.
Charge No.5 = Proved.
Charge No.6 = Proved.
Charge No.7 = Partially Proved.
Charge No.8 = Proved.
Charge No.9 = Proved.
Charge No.10 = Proved.
Overall Findings;
The article of Charges as per charge sheet No
TGB/HO/DAC/F-359/165-167/2024 dated 22-
02-2024, from 1 to 10 based on arguments from
PO, CSO and documentary evidence, I hold
charge no 1,2,3,4,7 as Partially Proved and
Charge No 5,6,8,9,10 as Proved.”
10. From the observation made by the enquiry Officer it appears
that there was no signature of the petitioner, CSO in any of the loan
Page 22 of 25
documents in loan appraisal, processing, pre lending inspection, post
lending inspection etc but only his user ID has been used for creation of
the loans. In his report, he further observed that Rupam Chakraborty
stated that Sri Chiranjit Goswami, the then Branch Manager himself
orally admitted that he has done all the loans himself as mentioned in
the charge-sheet of Sri Pritam Majumder, CSO and finally, came to the
conclusion that loans were created using the user ID of Pritam
Majumder without his knowledge.
If that was the observation of the enquiry officer then it is
surprising how the department imposed major punishment upon the
petitioner, although, being an employee of the Bank it was his duty to
maintain secrecy to keep the Finacle user ID and password secret which
he failed to discharge. However, it is also on record that when the
irregularities came to his knowledge he immediately informed the
matter to the respondent authority. But, the respondents could not give
any specific observation as to how the Finacle user ID and password
was used beyond the knowledge of the petitioner. To that extent, the
petitioner cannot escape from his responsibility of proper maintenance
of the secrecy of the same.
11. I have also perused the Tripura Gramin Bank (Officers &
Employees) Service Regulations, 2010. Chapter IV of the said
regulations deals with conduct, discipline and appeals. In Regulation 39
the following provision has been made:
“39. Penalties.-Without prejudice to the
foregoing regulations of this Chapter, an officer
or employee who commits a breach of these
regulations or who displays negligence,
inefficiency or indolence or who commits acts
detrimental to the interests of the Bank or in
conflict with its instructions, or who commits a
breach of discipline or is guilty of any other acts
of misconduct, shall be liable for any one or
more penalties as follows, namely,—
1. Officers:
(a) Minor Penalties:
Page 23 of 25
(i) censure;
(ii) withholding or stoppage of increments
of pay without cumulative effect;
(iii) withholding of promotion;
(iv) recovery from emoluments or such
other amounts as may be due to him, of
the whole or part or any pecuniary loss
caused to the Bank by negligence or
breach of orders;
(v) reduction to a lower stage in time
scale of pay for a period not exceeding
two years without cumulative effect;
(b) Major Penalties:
(b) Major Penalties:
(i) save as provided in item (v) of clause
(a) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 39,
reduction to a lower stage in time scale of
pay for a specified period with further
directions as to whether or not the officer
shall earn increments of pay during the
period of such reduction and whether on
expiry of such period the reduction shall
or shall not have the effect of postponing
the future increments of his pay;
(ii) reduction to a lower grade or post;
(iii) compulsory retirement;
(iv) removal from service which shall not
be a disqualification for future
employment;
(v) dismissal which shall ordinarily be a
disqualification for future employment;
Explanation: For the purposes of this regulation,
the following shall not amount to be a penalty,
namely,-
(i) withholding of one or more increments of an
officer on account of his failure to pass a
departmental test or examination in accordance
with the terms of appointment to the post which
he holds;
(ii) stoppage of increment(s) of an officer at the
efficiency bar in a time scale on the grounds of
his unfitness to cross the bar;
(iii) not giving an officiating assignment or non-
promotion of an officer to a higher grade of post
for which he may be eligible for consideration
but for which he is found unsuitable after
consideration of his case;
(iv) reserving or postponing the promotion of an
officer for reasons like completion of certain
requirement for promotion or pendency of
disciplinary proceedings;
(v) reversion to a lower grade or post of an
officer officiating in a higher grade or post, on
the ground that he is considered, after trial, to
be unsuitable for such higher grade or post or on
administrative grounds unconnected with his
conduct;
(vi) reversion to the previous grade or post of an
officer appointed on probation to another grade
or post during or at the end of the period of
probation, in accordance with the terms of his
appointment or rules, or orders governing such
probation;
Page 24 of 25
(vii) reversion of an officer on deputation to his
parent organization;
(viii) termination of service of an officer;-
(a) appointed in a temporary capacity
otherwise than under a contract or
agreement on the expiration of the period
for which he was appointed, or earlier in
accordance with the terms of his
appointment;
(b) appointed under a contract or
agreement, in accordance with the terms
of such contract or agreement; and
(c) as part of retrenchment:
Provided that no minor penalties as specified in
items (i) to (v) of clause (a) of sub-regulation
(1) of regulation 39, shall be imposed by the
Competent Authority unless the officer is given a
notice in writing;-
(i) informing him of the grounds on which it is
proposed to impose the said penalties;
(ii) giving him a reasonable opportunity for
making a statement of defence in writing within
a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of
notice and statement of defence, if any,
submitted by the Officer shall be taken into
consideration and of being heard:
Provided further that no order in imposing any
of the major penalties specified above, shall be
made except by an order in writing signed by
the Competent Authority and no such order shall
be passed without the charge or charges being
framed in writing and given to the officer and
enquiry held so that he shall have reasonable
opportunity to answer the charge or charges and
defend himself:
Provided further that no enquiry shall be made,
if,-
(i) the misconduct in such cases even if proved,
the Bank does not intend to impose the
punishment of removal or dismissal;
(ii) the Bank has issued a show cause notice to
the officer advising him of the misconduct and
the punishment for which he may be liable for
such misconduct; and
(iii) the officer makes a voluntary admission of
his guilt in his reply to the aforesaid show cause
notice.”
12. The petitioner in this case has been imposed with major
punishment of removal from service which shall not be a disqualification
for future employment under Regulation 39(1)(b)(iv) which in the
considered opinion of this Court was not in commensurate with the
Article of charges framed against him as because the enquiry officer in
his report specifically stated that the user ID and password of the
petitioner was misused and the same was done beyond the knowledge
of the petitioner. So, in such a situation, there was no scope on the part
Page 25 of 25
of the disciplinary authority to impose major punishment. Rather, it
appears to be violation of the principles of natural justice and too harsh.
Furthermore, I have also gone through the aforesaid
citations referred by Learned Counsel for the petitioner. It appears to
this Court that the fact of the present writ petition is covered by the
principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments and same are taken into
consideration in deciding the present writ petition.
Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
matter shall be remanded/remitted back to the disciplinary authority to
reconsider the penalties imposed upon the petitioner.
13. In the result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is
hereby allowed. The order of the disciplinary authority dated
19.10.2024 and subsequent order of the appellate authority dated
27.03.2025 are accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded back to
the disciplinary authority, the Chairman of Tripura Gramin Bank to
reconsider the punishment of the petitioner in the light of the
observation made by the enquiry officer in his report dated 30.07.2024
after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner be heard and
thereafter to pass a fresh order of punishment in view of the provision
made under Regulation 39 of the Regulations of Tripura Gramin Bank
within a period of 4(four) months from the date of passing of this
judgment and order.
With this observation, the writ petition filed by the petitioner
stands disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of .
JUDGE
Snigdha
SNIGDH
A DAS
Digitally signed
by SNIGDHA DAS
Date: 2026.09.15
16:16:14 +05'30'