Calcutta High Court
MAT/1124/2025 of PRATUL KUMAR NAYAK Vs UNITED BANK OF INDIA AND ORS on 14 August 2026
2026 (D/L No.13) Ct. No.4 (SKB) M.A.T. 1124 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025 Sri Pratul Kumar Nayak Versus United Bank of India and others Mr. Chittapriya Ghosh, Mr. Goutam Acharya … for the appellant. Mr. S. M. Obaidullah, Mr. R. N. Majumder, Mr. R. Chowdhury … for the Bank. 1.
14th August, 2026
(D/L No.13)
Ct. No.4
(SKB)
M.A.T. 1124 of 2025
With
CAN 1 of 2025
Sri Pratul Kumar Nayak
Versus
United Bank of India and others
Mr. Chittapriya Ghosh,
Mr. Goutam Acharya
… for the appellant.
Mr. S. M. Obaidullah,
Mr. R. N. Majumder,
Mr. R. Chowdhury
… for the Bank.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard the learned advocate for the appellant/writ petitioner.
2. The appellant/petitioner was visited with a Charge Memo dated 17.11.2018. The learned advocate for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the Charge Memo could not have been issued, since the allegations contained in the Charge B1 in the Charge Memo dated 17.11.2018 are allegations in respect of which earlier he was awarded a punishment of “warning”.
3. The writ court dismissed the writ petition bearing W.P.S.T. No.2728 of on 11.06.2025 and, therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge is the subject matter of the present intra court appeal.
4. We have gone through the Charge Memo dated 17.11.2018 and the punishment of “warning” dated 22.12.2017.
The punishment of “warning” was in respect of admitted acceptance of illegal gratification from one Sri Arabinda Pal. This incident has been referred in the subsequent Charge Memo, dated 17.11.2018, which is substantially containing different allegations altogether.
5. From the record, it appears that in between punishment of “warning” dated 22.12.2017 and the Charge Memo dated 17.11.2018, the appellant/petitioner was also served a show cause, dated 22.03.2018, in respect of other similar allegations.
6. The impugned Charge Memo dated 17.11.2018 merely takes notice of the past conduct and past minor punishment.
The Charge-Memo substantially is for proceeding against the appellant/petitioner for other allegations including misappropriation of Rs.3 lacs from the cash in the Branch, which it is alleged that he confessed; and had deposited the amount back on discovery of the shortage.
7. The Charge Memo dated 17.11.2018 contained reference to the past conduct for an obvious reason, since the same can be relied upon to decide the quantum of punishment only if the charge-sheeted employee is put to notice of such past misconduct.
8. The submission that the Charge Memo dated 17.11.2018 is for proceeding against the appellant/petitioner in respect of a charge, which he was already punished for earlier on 22.12.2017 is, therefore, devoid of any substance.
9. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge 11.06.2025. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The connected application bearing CAN 1 of 2025 is also disposed of.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)
(Partha Pratim Roy, J.)