Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010257562024 2026:GAU-AS:12235 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./19/2025 ASSAM CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LIMITED and ORS. REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN, ASSAM CO-OP. APEX BANK LTD. PANBAZAR, P.O.- GUWAHATI- 781001 2: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM CO-OP. APEX BANK LTD. PANBAZAR P.O.- GUWAHATI- 781001. 3: THE GENERAL MANAGER ASSAM CO-OP. APEX BANK LTD. PANBAZAR P.O.- GUWAHATI- 781001. 4: JUGADHAR HAZARIKA PRESENTLY WORKING AS THE ZONAL MANAGER ASSAM CO-OP. APEX BANK LTD. P.O.- JORHAT - 785001 ASSAM. NOTICE TO BE SERVED THROUGH THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM CO-OP. APEX BANK LTD. PANBAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001. 5: SUBIR CHAKRABORTY PRESENTLY WORKING AS THE ACCOUNTANT PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. ASSAM CO-OP. APEX BANK LTD. SILPUKHURI GHY- 3 VERSUS SAIBAL SHOBHAN S/O- LT. SHEKHAR SOBHAN DEB, PANCHAYAT ROAD, DAS COLONY, Page No.# 2/5 SILCHAR, P.O.- SILCHAR- 788005, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D SAIKIA, MR. K K DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. N DHAR, MS. U BARUAH,MR. T U LASKAR BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 25.08.2026 Heard Mr. K.K. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.U. Laskar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This review application has been filed for modifying the order dated 14.06.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 5158 of 2012. 3. By the said order, the departmental proceeding drawn-up against the respondent was held to be vitiated in law, and consequently the dismissal order dated 24.12.2009 issued against the respondent was quashed, with consequential effect on the resolution of the Board of Directors on 16.12.2011, as communicated by letter dated 10.02.2012 issued by the Managing Director of the Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the writ petition was taken up for hearing, appropriate information was not presented before the Court. It was further submitted that on the date of hearing, the learned counsel for the review petitioner was indisposed and therefore, the case of the review petitioner could not be properly presented. Page No.# 3/5 5. It was further submitted that as there was an inadvertent error on the part of the learned counsel for the review petitioner, the review petitioner should not suffer. Further, it was submitted that the respondent had allegedly siphoned off the money of the bank and had failed to maintain trust and honesty while dealing with public money, which warranted his dismissal from service. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent has made submissions to support the impugned order dated 14.06.2024. 7. In the impugned order dated 14.06.2024, this Court had arrived at the finding to the effect that in the inquiry report, it is mentioned that the management witness was examined, but there is no discussion of the evidence- in-chief and cross-examination of the management witness. This Court, on perusal of the minutes of the proceedings, had arrived at the conclusion that only one-liner statement has been made by the management witness in respect of charge Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 and additional charge Nos. 4 and 5, but there was no reference to the evidence of the management witness with regard to charge No. 3 and additional charge Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6. 8. It is clear from the minutes of proceedings that in the proceedings dated 20.09.2008, except for Ext.VIII, no exhibit has been submitted by both sides. However, in the said minutes, reference is made to Ext. I to Ext. DXII. It may be mentioned that there is some error in the exhibit numbering because DXII in Roman number would be 512. However, such an error is of no consequence for this order. Page No.# 4/5 9. In the order under review, this Court has further recorded that the petitioners herein have not been able to show that any documentary evidence or exhibits which were proved against the respondent were proved through the management witness, and that the management had not examined any other witness whose documents, writings, and signatures were required to be proved. 10. Moreover, the departmental proceeding was found to be vitiated for non-examination of any witness apart from the management witness, and that the management case was also not entirely proved by the said witness, and that the respondent herein was not given reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the management witness. 11. Therefore, notwithstanding that the learned counsel for the review petitioner was not present when the writ petition was taken up for hearing, nonetheless, the proceedings was found to be vitiated for the reasons already assigned in the impugned order dated 14.06.2024. There are no materials in this review petition which would show that had the learned counsel for the review petitioner been present, a different picture could have been portrayed. 12. Thus, the Court is of the considered opinion that the review petitioners have not been able to make out a case for review of the order dated 14.06.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 5158 of 2012. 13. Before parting with the record, it would be appropriate to clarify that notwithstanding the fact that the learned counsel for the review petitioners was absent when W.P.(C) 5158/2012 was heard, but the cause-list reflects name of the counsel as “SC, Apex Bank.” In that regard, as the said fact has been Page No.# 5/5 disclosed in this review application, no adverse inference is drawn. 14. Under the circumstances, this review petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant