Authority: Court (Presiding Judge Reetobroto Kumar Mitra)

Order Date: 28 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Kush Chattaraj; Respondents – Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (BGVB) & others, and Paschim Banga Gramin Bank (represented by Advocate Ms. Sreemoyee Mitra).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Petition under WPA 17433 of 2026 challenging alleged discriminatory disciplinary action.
  • Background: While serving as Branch Manager of BGVB, the petitioner carried out unauthorized and irregular transactions between May 2023 and December 2023, resulting in a defalcation of over Rs 72 lakhs. He later refunded the entire amount together with interest.
  • Disciplinary Action: The disciplinary authority removed the petitioner from service on 12 February 2025 (the removal does not bar future employment). The appellate authority upheld this order on 17 May 2025.
  • Allegation of Discrimination: The petitioner contends that a similarly situated employee of Paschim Banga Gramin Bank, who faced comparable charges, was allowed to re‑join service after the suspension order against her was revoked, thereby alleging unequal treatment.
  • Respondent’s Argument: Ms. Sreemoyee Mitra submitted that the two banks were distinct entities at the time of the incidents, governed by their own rules. No disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the cited employee, and the circumstances of her suspension revocation were not clarified.
  • Court’s Observations:
  • The petitioner’s guilt for defalcation is admitted and proven.
  • The punishment imposed is in line with the prevailing guidelines.
  • The two employees are not similarly situated because they were employed by different banks that operated independently before their merger in 2025.
  • No evidence was provided that the regulations of the two banks were identical or that the suspension revocation process for the cited employee met the same procedural standards.

Final Outcome

  • The court concludes that the petitioner and the cited employee are not similarly situated; therefore, the discrimination claim fails.
  • WPA 17433 of 2026 is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.
  • Parties may obtain an urgent certified copy of the order upon providing the usual undertaking.

Topics: Disciplinary Proceedings, Banking Regulation