X plaintiff -versus- The Board of the Trust Bank Limited and others

BEFORE THE ASSISTANT JUDGE, 2ND COURT, DHAKA

TITLE SUIT NO. _____OF _____

X

PLAINTIFF

-versus-

The Board of the Trust Bank Limited and others

DEFENDANTS

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NOS. 2 & 3

01. That the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form and manner and hence the plaint is liable to be dismissed in limine.

02. That there is no cause of action to file the suit against the defendants and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs as against the said defendants.

03. That the suit has been filed with malafide intention to make illegal gain from the defendants. Since the suit has been filed with malafide motive, it is liable to be dismissed.

04. That the suit is barred by the principles of waiver, acquiescence and estoppel.

05. That the suit is framed on misconception of both law and facts.

06. That the suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of parties.

07. That the statements made in the plaint which are not specifically admitted hereinafter shall be deemed to have been denied by the defendants.

08. That the statements made in paragraph Nos.1, & 2 of the plaint are matters of record and hence these defendants offer no comments.

09. That the statements made in paragraph Nos. 3 & 4 of the plaint are partly matters of record and partly false and misconceived. In particular the statements relating to bringing false allegations by these defendants are denied by these defendants. Contrary to what have been alleged, these defendants submit that the plaintiff was appointed as Senior Principal officer by these defendants vide appointment letter dated 10.12.2001 and after joining he was posted in the Bank’s International Division. The plaintiff was responsible for dealing in foreign exchange business (buying and selling of foreign currencies) and he was designated as ‘Chief Dealer’ and used to sign different documents in that capacity. During the period from January 2002 to June 2003, these defendants sustained a loss of Tk. 23,07,28,246.32 in foreign exchange business due to suppressing of the fact of losses by the plaintiff to the Management of these defendants. The plaintiff along with his other colleagues in the International Division, has hidden the entire picture of losses from the Management of these defendants and provided fictitious profit figure to the Accounts Department of these defendants. When the matter has detected in July 2003, the Management of these defendants constituted a committee to conduct a preliminary investigation. The committee submitted its report to the Managing Director accusing several former employees of these defendants including the plaintiff by dint of prima facie evidence on their record. Thereafter the Management of these defendants served show cause notice on several employees including the plaintiff. The accused submitted their written reply within the dead line and the Bank Authority suspended two of them including the plaintiff finding their reply not acceptable. At the same time, the authority initiated a departmental proceedings against them. All those action were taken as per Service Rules of the Bank.

10. That the statements made in paragraph No. 5 of the plaint are false, fabricated, misconceived and hence strongly denied by the defendants. Contrary to what have been alleged, these defendants submit that the enquiry committee found the plaintiff guilty of three charges out of four. These defendants incurred huge loss for the plaintiff and which he has been deliberately concealing to the Management of these defendants with a view obtain illegal financial gain. This defendants submits that there was negligence on the part of the plaintiff in not stopping the transaction of foreign exchange despite recurring losses from very beginning. Being the Chief dealer, the plaintiff was liable to intimate all the losses to the Management of these defendants, which he miserably failed. Rather the plaintiff continued the onslaught for about 18 months and during this period the whole picture was kept hidden from the Management of the Bank resulting these defendant suffer a huge loss of Tk. 23 crore approximately. For such gross and sheer negligence, the dismissal of the plaintiff was justified as per the terms of the Service Rules of these defendants. No loss would have been suffered by these defendants, should the plaintiff had not suppressed the loss from the Management of these defendants.

11. That the statements made in paragraph No. 6 of the plaint are false, fabricated, misconceived and hence strongly denied by these defendants. It is submitted that the enquiry committee conducted the enquiry strictly in compliance with the Service Rules of the Bank and collected necessary evidence from the International Division and also interrogated other concerned officers.

12. That the statements made in paragraph 7 of the plaint are baseless and misconceived and hence strongly denied by these defendants. Contrary to what has been stated, these defendant submits that the plaintiff signed many official documents, during his incumbency, using the designation ‘Chief Dealer’. These defendants further submit that the plaintiff in his Operation Department was acting as the ‘Chief Dealer’ in both the rank of Senior Principal Officer and Assistant Vice President .

13. That the statements made in paragraph 8 of the plaint are made out of spite and conjecture and hence denied by these defendants. Contrary to what have been alleged, these defendants submit that the dismissal was made by a lawful authority as punitive measures as provided under the Service Rules.

14. That the statements made in paragraph 9 of the plaint are admitted.

15. That the statements made in paragraph Nos. 10, 11 & 12 of the plaint are unfounded, irrelevant and vexatious, as such denied by these defendants. It is submitted that the disciplinary proceedings was conducted in full compliance with the Service Rules. Further, as per BRPD Circular No. 16 dated 24th July 2003, Bank Management enjoys the power regarding recruitment, promotion, posting and disciplinary action against the employees up to a level which is 2-level junior to the Chief Executive.

16. That the statements made in paragraph 13 of the plaint are unfounded and hence strongly denied by these defendants. Contrary to what have been alleged, the defendants submit that the appeal committee reviewed the actions taken by the Management of the Bank against the plaintiff and having found those in order discharged the plaintiff’s appeal.

17. That the statements made in paragraph 14 of the plaint are false and concocted and hence strongly denied by these defendants. Contrary to what have been alleged, the defendants submit that the authority constituted a 3-member Enquiry Committee to conduct the enquiry and two of the committee member’s were senior to the plaintiff. It is submitted that there is no provision in the Service Rules that debars an officer, junior to the plaintiff, to be member of Enquiry Committee.

18. That the statements made in paragraph 15 of the plaint are false, fabricated, misconceived and hence strongly denied by the defendants. Contrary to what have been alleged, the defendants submit that the plaintiff, in connivance with his other colleagues, conducted the onslaught, continued it and concealed the facts from the Management of these defendants. The Bank authority has filed Criminal Case and also a Money Suit against the plaintiff and others and also terminated another employee from his service for such delinquency. Further, the Management of these defendants have terminated the contract of Ex-Managing Director for his utter negligence in duty and also suppressing the above losses to the Management .

19. That the statements made in paragraph No. 16 of the plaint are irrelevant, as such are denied by the defendants. It is submitted that Charges were formed against the plaintiff for suppressing information as to the losses suffered by these defendants.

20. That the statements made in paragraph Nos. 17, 18 and 19 of the plaint are false, fabricated, misconceived and hence strongly denied by the defendants. Contrary to what have been alleged, the defendants submit that the charges brought against the plaintiff were specific. Departmental proceedings was drawn in strict compliance of the Service Rules and the penalty was imposed in accordance with the Service Rules. The plaintiff was negligent in protecting the Bank’s interest. Plaintiff did not stop in dealing in FOREX business despite incurring losses from the very beginning only. Despite incurring huge loss from the very beginning, plaintiff provided false figures of profit to the Accounts of these defendants. This was done by posting the profit making vouchers only, but on the other hand the loss incurring vouchers were not posted. Even loss incurring deal slips were kept hidden by the plaintiff. Plaintiff also willfully concealed the facts, in as much as, by marking “replenishment” in fund purchase approval process. He should have clearly mentioned the true purpose of fund purchase (in foreign currency). Had the plaintiff mentioned the true purpose of fund purchase, the Management of the Bank could have learnt about the loss.

21. That the statements made in paragraph No. 20 of the plaint are irrelevant, as such are denied by the defendants. Contrary to what have been alleged, the defendants submit that the plaintiff was the Chief Dealer of the Bank. As the Chief Dealer, he should have proposed for purchase of Reuter’s Direct Dealing System and also for dealing Guidelines. There is no proof that the plaintiff submitted any such proposal. The plaintiff joined the Bank in December 2001 and before his joining there was no dealing in FOREX. He was appointed in the Bank for starting FOREX dealing.

22. That it is also submitted that the plaintiff has miserably failed to establish any case and as such they are not legally entitled to any injunction/relief whatsoever. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

23. That for the reasons above, the prayer prayed by the plaintiff is not maintainable as against these defendants.

Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that your Honour would graciously be pleased to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff with compensatory costs in favour of these defendants.

And for this act of kindness these defendants as in duty bound shall ever pray.

VERIFICATION

That the statements made above are true to our knowledge and matters of records whereof we put our signature on this the ____ day of ____________.

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.