'Mere Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof' – Calcutta High Court Rejects NABARD’s Appeal, Orders Full Benefits to Former Employee
Safiya Malik
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the judgment of a Single Bench, which had set aside disciplinary orders against an employee of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD). The Division Bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee upheld the Single Bench’s decision to quash the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, observing that the findings against the employee lacked sufficient evidentiary support. The Court directed NABARD to grant all consequential benefits to the employee within an extended deadline of March 2025.
The appeal arose from a disciplinary action initiated against the respondent, who had been serving as Clerk Grade-I in NABARD’s Project and Operations Department. The respondent was suspended under Rule 47(5) of the NABARD (Staff) Rules, 1982, on allegations of misconduct. A charge sheet was issued, accusing him of writing indecent and disparaging remarks on the wall of the bank’s premises against a female colleague and a Development Officer. A joint departmental inquiry was conducted, during which the Management presented nine witnesses, while the respondent relied on four witnesses in his defense.
The Enquiry Officer found that the charges were not substantiated. However, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed and imposed a penalty of reduction in pay by three stages for one year, which would also postpone future increments. The respondent challenged this decision in a writ petition, which resulted in an order directing NABARD to reconsider his reply to the second show cause notice before finalizing any punishment. Following this, the Disciplinary Authority reaffirmed its decision, which was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Authority.
The respondent then filed another writ petition before the Single Bench, challenging both the Disciplinary Authority’s and the Appellate Authority’s decisions. The Single Bench set aside the orders, stating that the Disciplinary Authority had acted beyond its jurisdiction and had failed to demonstrate how the evidence established the respondent’s guilt. The present appeal was filed against this judgment.
During arguments, the appellants contended that scandalous words involving a female employee were found written on the bank’s wall and that the respondent’s handwriting was identified. They argued that the Enquiry Officer’s findings were wrongly disregarded and that the Single Bench had overstepped its jurisdiction by interfering with the disciplinary authority’s decision. It was also stated that three other employees accused in the incident had been transferred to different branches.
The respondent’s counsel countered that the findings of the Disciplinary Authority were not supported by concrete evidence. He argued that judicial review permits scrutiny of a decision when it is found to be perverse, unsupported by evidence, or arbitrary. He submitted that the primary evidence against the respondent was based on suspicion and lacked corroboration.
The High Court examined whether the disciplinary action adhered to legal principles, stating that in a departmental inquiry, evidence must be “convincing and cogent” before a penalty is imposed. It recorded that “a charge against the delinquent must be proven based on convincing and cogent evidence before any punishment can be imposed. Mere suspicion cannot replace proof.”
The Court noted inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. It observed that while the Disciplinary Authority relied on the testimony of a witness who claimed to have seen the respondent writing the remarks, the evidence was not independently corroborated. The Court stated that “a fact in issue can be proved based on the testimony of a sole witness if such evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable, and wholly trustworthy.” However, it found that the testimony of the key witness contained inconsistencies, particularly regarding her presence at the location when the incident allegedly occurred.
Further examining the evidence, the Court observed that the Management had presented a letter purportedly written by a security guard who claimed to have witnessed the incident. However, the security guard himself was not called to testify. The Court stated that “the mere proof of a document does not automatically establish the truth of its contents. The person who witnessed the incident must come forward and testify.” It noted that neither the witness nor the security guard raised an immediate alarm or disclosed the incident at the time, which created doubt regarding their claims.
The Court also found that the disciplinary authorities had failed to address critical procedural lapses, including the lack of authenticated handwriting samples for comparison. It stated that “relying solely on a visual comparison between writing on a wall and a handwriting sample allegedly seen by the victim years ago is not a reliable basis for determining guilt.”
Regarding the Disciplinary Authority’s reconsideration of the case after the initial writ petition, the Court observed that the decision was reaffirmed without a fresh evaluation of evidence. It recorded that “the order attempts to dismiss the issue raised by the respondent and justify the previous decision under the pretext of complying with judicial directions.” The Court held that the authority had acted as an appellate forum over its own prior order, rather than conducting a meaningful reconsideration.
In conclusion, the Court upheld the judgment of the Single Bench, finding no justification to interfere. It observed that the disciplinary proceedings did not meet the standards required for imposing a penalty and that the evidence presented did not sufficiently establish misconduct. The Court directed that all consequential benefits be granted to the respondent by the end of March 2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Soumya Majumder, Senior Advocate, Avishek Gupta, Shounak Mukherjee, Debika Misra, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, Senior Advocate, Soujanya Bandyopadhyay, Raju Bhattacharyya, Advocates.
Case Title: National Bank for Agriculture & Rural Development & Ors. v. Sri Kunal Chatterjee
Case Number: FMA 2144 of 2018 with CAN 3 of 2024
Bench: Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty, Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee
[Read/Download order]
