IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty &

The Hon’ble Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra FMA 1277 of 2021 +

IA No. CAN 1 of 2021 Anupam Das Versus Allahabad Bank & Ors.

For the Appellant : Mr. Samim Ahammed, Mr. Arka Maiti, Ms. Ambiya Khatun.

For the Respondent : Mr. Shiv Mongol Singh.

Nos. 1 to 3 / Bank.

Hearing is concluded on : 23^rd April, 2025.

Judgment On : 7^th May, 2025.

Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.

1. A procrastinated legal battle pertaining to a disciplinary proceeding (hereinafter referred to as DP) initiated under the provisions of the Allahabad Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 1976 Regulations) which culminated in an order of ‘removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment’ dated 14.12.2017 was assailed in a statutory appeal which was dismissed by an order dated 10.05.2018. Challenging the entire DP initiated by the chargesheet dated 15.09.2016 including the orders passed by the disciplinary authority (hereinafter referred to as DA) and the appellate authority (hereinafter referred to as AA) and two transfer orders dated 11.03.2016 and 01.07.2016, the writ petitioner/appellant herein preferred a writ petition being W.P.13189 (W) of 2018 which was dismissed by a judgment dated 26.02.2021. The said judgment is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

2. It is the appellant’s case that while he was working in the SME Finance Branch of Allahabad Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), he was transferred to ARM Branch at Kolkata by an order dated 11.03.2016 and thereafter by an order dated 01.07.2016, he was transferred to the Zonal Office of the Bank at Siliguri. The said orders were punitive and illegal and the same were issued as he acted as a whistle-blower protesting against the acts of corruption indulged in by a section of the Bank’s officials. However, due to lack of specific allegations, the transfer order dated 01.07.2016 was not interfered with when the writ petition was heard on 23.08.2016. Thereafter, on 15.02.2017 by way of an amendment the appellant was allowed to bring on record the particulars of mala fide but subsequently on 29.06.2018, the said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. In the midst thereof, a chargesheet dated 15.09.2016 was issued and before he could reply to the same, an enquiry was conducted ex- parte. Without communicating the report of the Inquiring Authority (hereinafter referred to as IA), an order of removal dated 14.12.2017 was passed observing that his acts were prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and in violation of Regulation 3(1) and 3(3) of the Allahabad Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Conduct Regulations) amounting to misconduct in terms of Regulation 24 of the Conduct Regulations. The statutory appeal preferred against the same was also dismissed by an order dated 10.05.2018.

3. Mr. Samim Ahammed, learned advocate appearing for the appellant argues that from the chargesheet itself it would be explicit that the respondents have proceeded with a preconceived notion and had arrived at a finding as regards the guilt of the appellant. Such conclusion reflects the biased mind of the DA and that as such the chargesheet itself is liable to be set aside.

4. He contends that the learned Single Judge erroneously discounted the plea that mere unauthorised absence does not amount to a misconduct under the Regulation 3(1) and 3(3) of the Conduct Regulations on the rudiments of an erroneous finding that it was not obligatory on the part of the DA to establish that such purported absence was wilful, failing to appreciate that the reasons given by the appellant in the writ petition were not controverted in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Bank.

5. According to him, the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the chargesheet, the