SAFEMA Tribunal Upholds PMLA Attachment, Rejects Manik Bhattacharya’s Appeals

Manik Bhattacharya Vs Deputy Director (Appellate Tribunal Under SAFEMA Delhi)

SAFEMA Tribunal Upholds PMLA Attachment in West Bengal TET Scam; Rejects Manik Bhattacharya’s Appeals

The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA dismissed the appeals filed by Dr. Manik Bhattacharya, his son Souvik Bhattacharya, and his wife Satarupa Bhattacharya, upholding the confirmation of attachment of properties worth ₹7.93 crore under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The attachment arose from the alleged West Bengal TET-2014 recruitment scam, in which the Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleged that proceeds of crime generated through illegal selection of candidates and extortion from D.El.Ed. colleges and students were laundered through multiple bank accounts, fixed deposits, mutual funds and other investments.

The Tribunal rejected the appellants’ contention that they were not accused in the predicate offence, noting that Manik Bhattacharya had been chargesheeted, charges had been framed against him, and his discharge application had already been dismissed. It also held that the appellants had misread the Calcutta High Court’s 2025 judgment concerning cancellation of appointments of 32,000 primary teachers, observing that the High Court decision related to the 2016 recruitment process, whereas the present PMLA proceedings concerned alleged corruption in the TET-2014 eligibility examination. The Tribunal found no merit in the argument that the High Court judgment exonerated the appellants.

The Tribunal further held that the ED had sufficient material to record “reasons to believe” under Section 5 of the PMLA before attaching the properties. It observed that the investigation revealed multiple bank accounts, substantial cash deposits, routing and layering of funds, and evidence linking the appellants to alleged proceeds of crime through witness statements, digital evidence and financial records. It also noted that the appellants failed to satisfactorily explain the source of substantial cash deposits despite the statutory burden under Sections 8 and 24 of the PMLA. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the provisional attachment and its confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority to be legally sustainable and declined to interfere with the impugned order.

Cases Discussed

• The West Bengal Board of Primary Education and Anr. Vs. Priyanka Naskar and Ors. (Calcutta HC), MAT/873/2023 dated 03.12.2025
• Dilbag Singh @ Dilbag Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Punjab and Haryana HC), CWP 22688-2024 dated 13.11.2024
• Pavana Dibbur v. Union of India, (2023) 15 SCC 91
• State of Odisha and Others vs Sulekh Chandra Pradhan and Others, (2022) 7 SCC 482
• Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2022) 10 SCC 1
• R. Adyanthaya, (1994) 4 SCC 164
• Bishwa Ranjan Shaw and Others (supra)
• Monika Das (Supra)
• Rabiul Sk. (Supra)
• Seema Garg’s case (supra)
• Axis Bank’s case (Supra)
• Prakash Industries case (supra)
• Abdullah Ali Balsharaf’s case (supra)
• Kumar Pappu Singh’s case (supra)
• HDFC Bank’s case (supra)
• M/s. Himachal Amta Power Limited’s case (supra)
• Hemanshu Rajnikant Shah’s case (supra)

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI

By these appeals under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short “the Act of 2002”), a challenge has been made to the order dated 01.06.2023 passed by Adjudicating Authority.

2. The present appeals are arising out of Provisional Attachment Order No. 05/2022 dated 06.12.2022 issued by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), whereby movable and immovable properties of the appellants, valued at Rs. 7,93,20,546/- were provisionally attached.

Brief facts of the Case:

3. It is a case where an FIR No. RC0102022A0006 dated 09.06.2022 was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Kolkata, pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in WPA No. 9979 of 2022. The FIR was registered for offences punishable under Section 7, 7A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with large-scale irregularities and corruption in the recruitment of Assistant Teachers through the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET), 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “TET, 2014) conducted by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education.

4. The allegation in the complaint was that ineligible and unsuccessful candidates were illegally selected in TET, 2014 for the post of Assistant Teachers in primary schools in consideration of huge sums of money, while eligible and meritorious candidates were deprived. It was alleged that the selection process was manipulated through preparation of illegal panels, tampering with evaluation processes and abuse of official position by public servants and other private persons acting in conspiracy. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, while examining the selection process, noticed serious irregularities and directed investigation by the CBI into the illegal selections.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, the respondent recorded ECIR No. KLZO-II/19/2022 dated 24.06.2022 and commenced investigation under the provisions of the Act of 2002. During investigation, it was revealed that Shri Manik Bhattacharya, the then President of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education, along with other persons, had abused their official position in TET, 2014 in lieu of monetary consideration. It was alleged that substantial proceeds of crime were generated through the illegal activities and were subsequently projected as untainted property and was invested in fixed deposits, shares, mutual funds and other assets held by the appellants and in the names of family members, associates and controlled entities.

6. The investigation further revealed that Shri Manik Bhattacharya had opened and operated numerous bank accounts in his own name as well as in the names of his wife, son and other associates. Large cash deposits and fund transfers were noticed in such accounts, which were found to be disproportionate to the known sources of income of the account holders. The Directorate of Enforcement relied upon statements recorded under Section 50 of the Act of 2002, digital evidence recovered during search operations and financial records allegedly demonstrating generation, layering and integration of proceeds of crime arising out of the illegal recruitment scam.

7. The investigation disclosed that Shri Manik Bhattacharya, in conspiracy with Shri Tapas Kumar Mondal and others, facilitated selection of several ineligible candidates in TET, 2014 in consideration of illegal gratification. Further allegations were made regarding extortion of money from D.El.Ed. colleges. It is apart from collection of funds from Teacher Training Institutes under various pretexts. Collection of such amounts through entities including M/s Educlasses Online and M/s Acuere Consultancy Services. These transactions constituted proceeds of crime generated from the criminal activities relating to the scheduled offences.

8. During the course of investigation, searches conducted under the provisions of the Act of 2002 resulted in seizure of incriminating documents, digital devices and records. Analysis of the seized material revealed details of candidates who had been benefited from the illegal selection process and evidence relating to collection and laundering of funds generated through corrupt practices. The investigation further disclosed that proceeds of crime had been routed through various bank accounts and investments. The attached properties represented assets derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, from criminal activity relating to the scheduled offences.

9. Being satisfied that the attached properties constituted proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA and were liable for attachment under Section 5(1) of the Act, the Deputy Director provisionally attached the properties vide PAO No. 05/2022 dated 06.12.2022. The Original Complaint No. 1882/2023 was filed before the Adjudicating Authority seeking confirmation of the attachment. The present proceedings are arising out of the said complaint and the consequential adjudication undertaken under Section 8 of the Act of 2002.

Role of the Appellant No.1 – Shri Manik Bhattacharya:

10. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that Shri Manik Bhattacharya, the then President of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education, is involved in large-scale irregularities and corrupt practices relating to the TET, 2014 selection process for appointment of Primary Teachers in the State of West Bengal. According to the Directorate of Enforcement, Shri Manik Bhattacharya abused his official position and in conspiracy with Shri Tapas Kumar Mondal and other persons, facilitated the illegal selection of 325 candidates in the TET-2014 examination in consideration of monetary benefits. The amount of Rs. 3.25 crore was collected to qualify such candidates.

11. The investigation further disclosed that Shri Manik Bhattacharya was involved in collection of money from D.El.Ed. colleges and students through various unlawful means. It was found that candidates who failed to submit online applications for admission in D.El.Ed. courses were allowed to submit offline applications upon payment of illegal consideration. Shri Tapas Kumar Mondal, President of the All Bengal Teachers’ Training Achievers Association, allegedly acted as an intermediary and collected the amounts from students and institutions on behalf of Shri Manik Bhattacharya. According to the investigation, an amount of approximately Rs. 20.73 crore was collected from offline candidates during different academic sessions and was ultimately delivered to Shri Manik Bhattacharya.

12. The investigation also revealed that Shri Manik Bhattacharya extorted money from D.El.Ed. students under the guise of providing online classes during the Covid-19 pandemic through a proprietary concern, namely M/s Educlasses Online, owned by his son Shri Souvik Bhattacharya. It was alleged that students were required to pay Rs. 500/- each for online classes and an amount of approximately Rs. 2.47 crore was collected through this arrangement, though no meaningful online classes were actually conducted. Similarly, it was found that self-financed D.El.Ed. institutions were compelled to make payments of Rs. 50,000/- each to M/s Acuere Consultancy Services, another entity of Shri Souvik Bhattacharya, purportedly for consultancy services. According to the investigation, approximately Rs. 2.64 crore was collected from such institutions despite no consultancy services being rendered.

13. Further investigation revealed that Shri Manik Bhattacharya, along with his wife Smt. Satarupa Bhattacharya and son Shri Souvik Bhattacharya, allegedly opened and operated numerous bank accounts, including several joint accounts with the relatives and other individuals. These accounts were used for depositing, transferring and layering funds generated from the illegal activities. The investigation further disclosed that certain accounts were opened and operated under suspicious circumstances, including a joint account maintained in the name of Smt. Satarupa Bhattacharya along with a person who had already expired. The substantial amounts were deposited in those bank accounts and subsequently invested in fixed deposits and other financial instruments.

14. The funds generated through illegal selection of the candidates, collection of money from D.El.Ed., students and institutions, and other related activities constituted proceeds of crime. The proceeds of crime was laundered through multiple bank accounts, investments, fixed deposits and other assets held in the names of Shri Manik Bhattacharya, his family members, associates and controlled entities with an attempt to project the same as untainted property.

Role of Appellant No. 2 – Shri Souvik Bhattacharya

15. Shri Souvik Bhattacharya, son of Shri Manik Bhattacharya, actively assisted his father in the acquisition, possession, concealment and laundering of proceeds of crime generated from the illegal selection process and other corrupt activities connected therewith. It was revealed that Shri Manik Bhattacharya, while functioning as President of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education, compelled self-financed D.El.Ed. institutions to make payments of Rs. 50,000/- per institution to an entity owned by his son. In order to channel and project such collections as legitimate receipts, Shri Souvik Bhattacharya established a proprietary entity, namely M/s Acuere Consultancy Services. An agreement was executed between the said concern and the Bengal Teachers Training Colleges Association purportedly for providing consultancy services to self-financed D.El.Ed. institutions. According to the investigation, an amount of approximately Rs. 2.64 crore was collected from around 530 institutions and credited into the accounts of M/s Acuere Consultancy Services. It was found that no consultancy services were actually rendered and that the entitiy was utilized as a vehicle for routing and projecting proceeds of crime as legitimate business income.

16. The investigation further disclosed that during the Covid-19 pandemic, D.El.Ed. students were asked to pay Rs. 500/-each towards online classes. For this purpose, Shri Souvik Bhattacharya established another proprietary concern, namely M/s Educlasses Online. An amount of approximately Rs. 2.47 crore was collected from students and deposited into the accounts of the said entity. Investigation revealed that apart from a few superficial classes, no substantial educational services were provided and the entity was utilized for layering and projecting illegally collected funds as genuine business receipts.

17. It was further found that Shri Souvik Bhattacharya, in conspiracy with Shri Manik Bhattacharya and other family members, opened and operated multiple joint bank accounts in the names of relatives and associates. Substantial cash deposits and fund transfers were routed through such accounts and subsequently invested in fixed deposits and other financial instruments.

18. Shri Souvik Bhattacharya projected himself as a secondary account holder in several accounts. The investigation revealed that the accounts remained under his effective control and operation and were utilized for concealment and layering of proceeds of crime.

Role of Appellant No. 3 – Smt. Satarupa Bhattacharya

19. Smt. Satarupa Bhattacharya, wife of Shri Manik Bhattacharya, knowingly assisted for possession, concealment and laundering of proceeds of crime generated through the illegal activities attributed to Shri Manik Bhattacharya. The investigation revealed that she, along with Shri Manik Bhattacharya and other family members, induced relatives and associates to open multiple joint bank accounts without disclosing the true purpose for which such accounts were being maintained. According to the Directorate of Enforcement, these accounts remained under the control and operation of Smt. Satarupa Bhattacharya and were utilized for receiving, transferring and investing proceeds of crime.

20. The investigation further disclosed that one joint bank account was maintained in the name of Smt. Satarupa Bhattacharya along with Late Shri Mrityunjay Chatterjee, who had expired in the year 2016 itself. The KYC particulars of the said account were updated by representing that the co-account holder is out of station. Substantial sums of money were deposited into the account after the death of the co-account holder and were thereafter utilized for creation of fixed deposits and other investments in the names of family members and relatives. It was found that although Smt. Satarupa Bhattacharya projected herself merely a joint or secondary account holder, the account remained under her effective control and was utilized for holding and managing proceeds of crime generated from the activities under investigation.

Submissions of the Appellants:

21. The appellants in person submitted that they have not been named as accused in predicate offences and the charge sheet filed by the CBI. It was also submitted that no money trail exists for alleged proceeds of crime in selection of TET, 2014 taken up by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta, which inter alia directed the CBI to investigate alleged corruption in the selection process of TET, 2014.

22. The order of Ld. Single Judge was assailed before the Divisional Bench of the Hon’ble Court and subsequently before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while staying the operations of the order, directed the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta to reconsider the matter afresh.

23. In a separate litigation, the Hon’ble Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in MAT 873 of 2023 and other matters on 03.12.2025 came to specific finding that there was no corruption, money trail or irregularities in appointments of 32,000 teachers which were cancelled by the learned Single Judge in a separate litigation. The allegation of corruption and fraud thus stood demolished after the judgement dated 03.12.2025.

24. The appellants in person further submitted that the provisional attachment proceedings originated under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 mandates the recording of valid and tangible “reasons to believe” before attachment of any property alleged to be proceeds of crime. The reasons for attachment have been recorded by the Deputy Director in Paragraph 9 of the Original Complaint dated 06.12.2022. The allegations contained therein are factually incorrect, unsupported by evidence and liable to be rejected for the following reasons:

Allegation regarding Multiple Bank Accounts in the Names  of Family Members:

25. It was submitted that the allegation that several bank accounts in the names of family members to siphon the money deposited therein is based solely on suspicion and conjecture. The bank accounts in question were opened after due compliance with KYC requirements and were jointly held by the Appellants, namely Dr. Manik Bhattacharya, Smt. Satarupa Bhattacharya and Shri Souvik Bhattacharya. Most of the bank accounts were in existence since 1998, much prior to the alleged occurrence of any scheduled offence. No material has been produced to establish that any alleged proceeds of crime were deposited in such accounts. Mere existence of multiple bank accounts does not constitute an offence, nor can attachment be sustained merely on suspicion in the absence of cogent material linking the funds therein to the proceeds of crime.

Allegation relating to Receipt of Rs. 3.25 Crores from 325 Candidate:

26. The appellants in person further submitted that the allegation against Dr. Manik Bhattacharya, for conspiracy with Tapas Mondal and received Rs. 3.25 Crores from 325 unqualified candidates for securing qualification in TET-2014 is demonstrably false. The confrontational statement of Tapas Mondal and Kuntal Ghosh dated 24.01.2023 clearly reveals that the amount of Rs. 3.25 Crores was paid by Tapas Mondal to Kuntal Ghosh. The said transaction is duly recorded through a money receipt acknowledging receipt of Rs. 3.25 Crores signed by Kuntal Ghosh. During the proceedings, Kuntal Ghosh admitted receipt of the amount and disclosed the names of the beneficiaries to whom the money was allegedly distributed. Significantly, neither Dr. Manik Bhattacharya nor any member of his family was named as a beneficiary or recipient of the said funds. Consequently, there exists no evidence whatsoever connecting the Appellants with the alleged sum of Rs. 3.25 Crores. Furthermore, pursuant to an application under the Right to Information Act, the West Bengal Board of Primary Education, by report dated 08.01.2026, confirmed that the results of all 325 candidates remained unchanged, except in the case of two candidates who were declared qualified pursuant to orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta. The said RTI response completely demolishes the allegation that money was accepted for qualifying 325 candidates in TET, 2014.

Allegation regarding receipt of Rs. 20 Crores and Recovery of Names of 2500 Candidates:

27. The appellant in person also submitted that the allegation that he had accepted approximately Rs. 20.73 Crores for considering offline applications while only Rs. 7.5 Crores could be recovered and was ultimately dropped at the stage of framing of charge due to lack of evidence. The allegation was unsupported by any documentary or oral evidence and therefore could not survive in judicial scrutiny. As regards the alleged recovery of names of approximately 2500 candidates during search and seizure operations, the matter was examined by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in WPA No. 9979 of 2022.

By order dated 29.08.2023, the Hon’ble High Court directed the Enforcement Directorate to furnish details of all suspected candidates and directed the West Bengal Board of Primary Education to verify the same. Upon consideration of the verification report submitted by the Board, the Hon’ble High Court, vide order dated 21.09.2023, concluded that the candidates referred to by the Enforcement Directorate were neither illegally qualified nor appointed. The said proceedings were conducted in the presence of both the Enforcement Directorate and the CBI. No appeal was preferred against the said order and the findings have attained finality. In view thereof, the foundational allegation of corruption in respect of the said candidates stands negated by judicial determination.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice before the  Adjudicating Authority:

28. The appellant in person further submitted that the proceedings before the Learned Adjudicating Authority stand vitiated on account of violation of the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem. The Relied Upon Documents (RUDs) were supplied to the Appellants in jail only on 17.06.2023 through a pen drive, whereas the impugned order had already been passed on 01.06.2023. Consequently, the Appellants were denied a meaningful opportunity to inspect, verify and rebut the documents relied upon by the prosecution, rendering the adjudication proceedings contrary to principles of natural justice.

Illegal Attachment of Statutorily Protected Accounts:

29. The appellant further submitted that the attached bank accounts includes pension, gratuity, provident fund, employees’ provident fund, public provident fund, salary and MLA honorarium accounts. The amounts lying in these accounts represent statutory receipts and protected deposits, which are immune from attachment under various statutory enactments. The Appellants specifically pointed out the statutory protections applicable to such accounts through an application dated 20.11.2025. The relevant statutory protections include:

(a) Pension Account – protected under Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871.

(b) Gratuity Account – protected under Section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Section 60(1)(g) CPC.

(c) Provident Fund – protected under Section 3 of the Provident Funds Act, 1925.

(d) Employees’ Provident Fund – protected under Section 10 of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 and Section 60(1)(k) CPC.

(e) Public Provident Fund – protected under Section 9 of the Public Provident Fund Act, 1968.

(f) MLA Honorarium Account – receiving honorarium under Article 195 of the Constitution of India.

(g) Election Commission Account – maintained and audited under directions issued by the Election Commission of India.

(h) Salary Account – containing salary earned as Principal of a Government Law College is protected under Section 60 CPC.

The sole objection raised by the appellant pertains to deposits of approximately Rs. 15 Lakhs in the PPF account. However, by affidavit dated 12.05.2026, the Appellant explained that more than Rs. 45 Lakhs had been periodically withdrawn from salary and pension accounts and subsequently deposited into the PPF account. Therefore, the amount deposited in the PPF account is fully traceable to lawful withdrawals and cannot be characterised as proceeds of crime.

Attachment of Funds Existing Prior to the Alleged Commission of Crime:

30. The appellant in person further submitted that the prosecution itself alleged that the offence commenced on 14.09.2016, being the date of publication of TET-2014 results, and that the recruitment process concluded in January 2017. Despite such allegation, funds lying in the attached bank accounts prior to 14.09.2016 have also been attached and treated as proceeds of crime. It is inconceivable that funds existing prior to the alleged commission of the offence could constitute proceeds derived from that offence. The attachment of such pre-existing funds is contrary to law and violates the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pavana Dibbur v. Union of India (2023) 15 SCC 91.

Illegal Attachment of Accounts of M/s Acuere Consultancy Services and M/s Educlasses Online:

31. The appellant in person submitted that whatsoever have been recorded in Original Complaint for attachment of the accounts of M/s Acuere Consultancy Services and M/s Educlasses Online is contrary to the material on record. In the case of M/s Acuere Consultancy Services, the amounts received were contractual payments pursuant to agreements executed for implementation of the Integrated Teacher Education Programme (ITEP) launched by the Government of India. All payments were received through banking channels. The taxes were duly paid on it and the amounts remain in escrow owing to non-execution of contractual obligations arising from orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. The Detailed Project Report itself demonstrates that the projected profit margin was minimal and approximately Rs. 3,000 per institute.

32. Similarly, M/s Educlasses Online conducted online educational classes during the Covid-19 pandemic were pursuant to valid agreements and received fees through banking channels at the agreed rate. Nearly 100 online classes were conducted and educational content remains publicly available on YouTube. No complaint has ever been lodged by any student alleging deficiency of service or fraud.

33. The institutional clients of M/s Acuere Consultancy Services and the students enrolled in Educlasses Online were not candidates in TET-2014 and had no connection whatsoever with the recruitment process concluded in January 2017. There is no allegation or evidence for transfer of funds between the accounts of the said entities and Dr. Manik Bhattacharya or his family members. The transactions are therefore wholly unrelated to the alleged scheduled offence and cannot constitute proceeds of crime.

Absence of Scheduled Offence and Consequent Failure of PMLA Proceedings:

34. The appellant in person further submitted that the principal allegation against the Appellants is of extortion. In the absence of a scheduled offence, there can be no proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA. Consequently, attachment of property under the PMLA becomes legally unsustainable. Furthermore, there is no complaint by any party before any jurisdictional police authority regarding the alleged contractual transactions. The legality of the predicate proceedings itself remains under challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, therefore, continuation of PMLA proceedings is impermissible in light of the principles recognised in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India reported in (2022) 10 SCC 1.

Absence of Any Allegation against Shri Souvik  Bhattacharya:

35. The appellant further submitted that there is no allegation that Shri Souvik Bhattacharya received any proceeds of crime. Shri Souvik Bhattacharya was never associated with the West Bengal Board of Primary Education in any official capacity. The attachment of his accounts is based solely on allegations relating to M/s Acuere Consultancy Services and M/s Educlasses Online. Since neither any scheduled offence nor any proceeds of crime have been established against him, attachment of his accounts is wholly arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

36. The appellants submitted that he is not required to raise any other issue than raised above and when the facts of the case don’t prove it to be the case of money laundering; rather, a total ignorance of the material available on record by the adjudicating authority while passing the impugned order, it deserves to be set aside.

Submissions of the Respondents:

37. The learned counsel for the respondents contested the appeals on all the issues raised by the appellants. Elaborate arguments were made and would be referred while addressing each issue raised by the appellants in the appeals. It is to avoid repetition of the same facts and for the sake of brevity.

Finding of the Tribunal:

38. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully.

39. The present case is arising out of FIR dated 09.06.2022 registered by the CBI, ACB, Kolkata pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in WPA No.9979/2022. It was for the offences under Section 7, 7A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B,420,468,471 and 34 of IPC, 1860 in regard to the large-scale irregularities and corruption in the selection of TET,2014 conducted by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education.

40. The allegation in the FIR was for the selection of ineligible and unsuccessful candidates in TET, 2014 in consideration of huge sums of money, while eligible and meritorious candidates were deprived of selection. It was alleged that the selection process was manipulated through the preparation of illegal panels, tampering with evaluation process and abuse of official position by public servants. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, while examining the selection process, found serious irregularities and directed for investigation by the CBI.

41. The respondent ED recorded ECIR on 24.06.2022 and commenced investigation under the Act of 2002. It was revealed that 325 candidates were selected in TET, 2014 in an illegal manner and it was out of the irregularities and corrupt practice adopted by the officials. The involvement of illegal gratification in the process of selection of the candidates of TET, 2014 was also revealed. 325 candidates paid Rs.1,00,000/-each for their selection and, therefore, the accused remained in receipt of Rs.3.25 Crores from those candidates. It is apart from the receipt of Rs.20.73 Crores to allow the candidates to apply for TET, 2014 through offline applications, as they had failed to submit their applications online.

42. Another sum involved was Rs.2.47 Crores collected from the students for providing online classes during the Covid-19 pandemic. Each student was asked to pay Rs.500/- each for online classes which was undertaken by an entity created by one of the main accused Manik Bhattacharya’s son and furthermore the son collected Rs.50,000/- from the self-financed D.El.Ed. institutions towards consultancy services. It was at the instance of Dr. Manik Bhattacharya, who was then President of West Bengal Board of Primary Education and responsible for conducting TET, 2014. The respondents, having found proceeds of crime in the hands of the appellants, provisionally attached the movable and immovable properties and sent the original complaint to the Adjudicating Authority for its confirmation. The impugned order was passed confirming the provisional attachment of the appellants’ movable and immovable properties worth of Rs.7,93,20,546/-. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the provisional attachment of the properties, the appellants preferred appeals and argued the matter in person.

43. The brief facts have already been stated above and would be elaborated while recording finding on each ground raised by the appellants for challenge to the impugned order.

44. The appellants in person submitted that they were not named as an accused for predicate offence and even not named in the charge sheet filed by the CBI. It is coupled with the fact that no money trail exists vis-à-vis the proceeds of crime in the hands of the appellants said to have been derived out of the selection of primary teachers in TET, 2014. According to the appellants, the respondents could not have attached the properties only for the reason that Calcutta High Court directed the CBI to investigate the matter in regard to the selection of candidates, who were either not eligible or unsuccessful in TET, 2014. In view of the above, the prayer was made to cause interference in the impugned order.

45. The first issue raised by the appellants was contested by the respondents. It was submitted that, apart from the then Minister Shri Partha Chatterjee, the appellant Shri Manik Bhattacharya, President of West Bengal Board of Primary Education was also involved in the commission of crime and has been named in the FIR and the charge sheet. The Court has passed order of cognizance of the offences and even dismissed the discharge application filed by the appellant. It is coupled with the framing of charges.

46. In view of the facts given by the respondents and perusal of the records reveals that appellant Shri Manik Bhattacharya is one of the accused against whom charge sheet has been filed followed by the framing of charges. His application for discharge has also been dismissed. Thus, misleading statement of facts has been made by the appellant in person, Shri Manik Bhattacharya. He is also named even in the ECIR and, therefore, search and seizure operation was conducted. He was found involved in the selection process of TET, 2014. Therefore, the first argument raised by the appellant in person, Shri Manik Bhattacharya cannot be accepted.

47. The appellants in person further submitted that though the FIR was registered pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court but the said order was challenged before the Division Bench followed by challenge before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Apex Court set aside the order of the Calcutta High Court and directed to reconsider the matter by a Division Bench of the High Court. The appellants further submitted that, in a subsequent litigation before the Single Bench, appointments of 32,000 candidates on the posts of Primary Teacher were cancelled. However, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed the order of the Single Bench after holding that there was no illegality or irregularity in recruitment process under West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016. The entire allegation of corruption and fraud stood demolished after the judgment dated 03.12.2025 and, therefore, this Tribunal should cause interference in the impugned order.

48. The appellants in person referred to Paras 179, 180, 186(v) and 190 of the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in the case of The West Bengal Board of Primary Education and Anr. Vs. Priyanka Naskar and Ors.(MAT/873/2023) dated 03.12.2025 to show that the allegation levelled against the appellants could not sustain and thereby the judgment of the learned Single Judge cancelling the appointments of 32000 candidates was set aside.

49. The learned counsel for the respondents contested the issue elaborately. I have gone through the judgment dated 03.12.2025 passed by the Calcutta High Court to find out the truthness of the statement of the appellants about their exoneration in the selection of primary teachers. At the outset, I find statement of the appellants to be misleading and contrary even to the paras referred by him. The perusal of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of The West Bengal Board of Primary Education  (supra) would reveal cancellation of the appointments of 32,000 primary teachers appointed pursuant to the selection under the Recruitment Rules, 2016 while the allegation against the appellants is in reference to selection of candidates in TET, 2014. The TET is Teachers Eligibility Test conducted of the candidates for eligibility to appear in the selection for the posts of Primary Teacher. However, it is subject to the training. The selection to the posts of Primary Teacher took place under the Recruitment Rules of 2016 and narrated in Para 5 of the judgment (supra) rendered by the Division Bench which is quoted hereunder for ready reference:

“5. The matter involves cancellation of appointment of 32,000 primary teachers, who have rendered uninterrupted service till date in different primary schools all over the State. There is no accusation of any offence or wrongdoing against any individual teacher, however, it has been alleged inter alia that the Board committed fraud and the recruitment process was not conducted as per the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the RR, 2016)”.

50. The allegation in this case is not in regard to the selection of candidates and appointment to the posts of Primary Teacher under the Recruitment Rules of 2016 but in regard to selection test of TET, 2014. The allegation against the appellants and accused is in regard to only 325 candidates said to have been selected in TET, 2014 by illegal means.

51. So far as the litigation regarding selection of 32000 candidates on the posts of Primary Teacher is concerned, the petitioners therein had taken up the matter separately before the Single Bench in their writ petition to seek relief for themselves. It, however, resulted in cancellation of 32,000 appointment on the posts of Primary Teacher. It was alleged to be after granting additional marks to unsuccessful candidates and even without going through the selection test by way of interview/aptitude test, the candidates were selected. It was also noted that 269 candidates, whose appointments were ultimately cancelled by the Court in several writ petitions did not apply for participation in the recruitment process initiated by Notification dated 26.09.2016 and, therefore, those candidates were not eligible for the selection process. It was found that two different issues were inter-mixed by the Single Bench while considering mala fides in dealing with the entire selection of 2016. The order of the Division Bench is substantially in regard to the cancellation of the appointment of 32000 candidates on the legal grounds while considering the facts of that case. The Division Bench had even taken note of the fact that there was no allegation in the writ petition in regard to the recruitment process of 2016, rather there was no pleading in the writ petitions pursuant to which 32,000 appointments on the posts of Primary Teacher could have been cancelled. The Division Bench found lack of allegation. The petitioners therein prayed for the relief for themselves at par with the appointment of untrained candidates under the recruitment process of 2016. Para 173 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder to show the aforesaid:

“173. Indisputably, the writ petitioners emerged to be successful in TET, 2014 and accordingly they had participated in the recruitment process of 2016. In the writ petition, there is no pleading that the selection procedure as prescribed under the RR, 2016 had not been adhered to or that no aptitude test was held. There is no allegation that the petitioners were denied participation in the 2016 recruitment process after they had emerged to be successful in TET, 2014. There is also no averment that no interview or no aptitude test was held. No ground to that effect had been taken in the writ petition. On the rudiments of such averments and grounds, the writ petitioners have sought for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondents to grant them the benefit as granted to other untrained candidates appointed by the Board in the 2016 recruitment process. There was no challenge against the appointment of untrained candidates and the petitioners consciously chose not to implead the untrained appointed candidates since their grievance was pertaining to TET, 2014”.

52. I may further refer to Para 174 of the said judgment where reasons as to why the selection of Primary Teaches under the Rules of 2016 could not have been cancelled by the Single Bench. The Division Bench did not find any allegation against the appellants therein for their involvement in the alleged scam in selection process of 2016. It was noted that allegation exists against the State functionaries but for that the appellants before the Division Bench could not have been made to suffer. Para 174 of the judgment (supra) is quoted hereunder for ready reference:

“174. The petitioners have alleged that there had been a scam in TET, 2014, however, nothing has been produced by the petitioners to establish the involvement of any single appellant in such alleged scam. In the writ petition all the allegations are pertaining to TET, 2014 in which petitioners themselves have emerged to be successful. Indisputably, corruption and scam are severe allegations and the same needs to be established on the rudiments of proper documents and evidence. Nothing has been produced by the petitioners to establish the involvement of any single appellant in such alleged scam. For the alleged involvement of the functionaries of the State in any illegality, the appellants cannot be made to suffer and a fresh 117 recruitment could not have been directed upon cancellation of appointment of 32,000 teachers”.

53. I may further refer to Para 177 of the said judgment to indicate that the matter was largely considered in reference to the selection test of 2016 for the posts of Primary Teacher. It was not in reference to selection test of TET, 2014. Para 177 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference:

“177. Records would reveal the writ petition was first heard on 02.12.2022 and the petitioners were directed to pay the full Court fees. On the returnable date i.e., 06.12.2022 it was observed that the petitioners appeared in 2016 recruitment process and were TET qualified and had approached the Court after documents and marks were produced before a Division Bench in which His Lordship was a party. The petitioners contended that ‘large number of candidates were appointed who got marks below the petitioners’ and that they were not called in the interview. On behalf of the Board, it was submitted that the petitioners have prayed for publication of some information which are already in public domain except ‘the petitioners breakup of marks’. Leave was granted to the petitioners to file a supplementary affidavit enclosing the call letters for interview and the documents as regards their training. Thereafter, on 20.12.2022 the Court recorded that ‘though the petitioners got higher marks before addition of 119 marks against interview and aptitude test comparing to some candidates who have been given appointments against 2016 recruitment process even after adding their marks for personality test and aptitude test, they have not been given appointments’. In the said order, it was also recorded that the petitioners have prepared a tabular chart of 139 candidates who have got higher marks than the last employed candidate but they have not been given appointment. The supplementary affidavits were taken on record and the Board was directed to verify the marks of the petitioners along with that of the 139 candidates and to come up with the particulars as regards the marks obtained by the last candidate of different categories and different medium of all the districts. The matter again appeared on 17.01.2023 when it was alleged by the petitioners that ‘only interview was taken and there was no aptitude test’. In view thereof, the Court decided to exercise power under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘IE Act’) and asked some questions after administrating oath to 7 of such candidates being the petitioner nos.1,4,7,19,50,90 and 94. In the said order, the Court also observed ‘from their evidence I am satisfied that there was no aptitude test for the petitioners’ and the President of the Board was directed to file an affidavit disclosing as to whether ‘there was any aptitude test in 2016 selection process and what is the method the Board is following this year to take aptitude test of the candidates’. The matter was heard thereafter on 24.01.2023 when the Court in exercise of its powers under section 165 of IE Act took evidence of 19 candidates. Some of such names were intimated to the Court by the petitioner’s learned advocate. In total, 26 candidates were examined but no leave was granted to Board to file affidavit-in 120 opposition. Instead, the President of Board was directed to file affidavit explaining what is an ‘aptitude test’ and to produce a list in a sealed cover containing the list of names of the interviewers. On 06.02.2023 the affidavit filed by the Board was taken on record. The Court also perused the letters issued by the Board to different experts seeking their response as regards the meaning of aptitude test and the same were also placed in a sealed cover. Another list of persons who took interview in different districts was also perused. However, the lists of interviewers of 5 districts (Hooghly, Howrah, Uttar Dinajpur, Cooch Bihar and Murshidabad) were opened and kept in a separate file. The interviewers of the said 5 districts were directed to appear on 21st February, 2023 at 2.00 pm. In the district of Hooghly, the names of interviewers called were at serial numbers 1,3,5,7,11,14,18 and 20. The names of the interviewers called from the district of Uttar Dinajpur were at serial numbers 32 and 43 in the list. The names of the interviewers called from the district of Cooch Bihar were at serial numbers 5 to 14 in the list. The names of the interviewers called from the district of Murshidabad where at serial numbers 4,5,6,7,8 and 9 in the list. In the order it was further observed that questions would be put to the interviewers and the proceeding of asking questions to the interviewers would be done in camera. Thereafter on 21.02.2023 the Court observed that the real question was as to whether aptitude test of the candidates was taken or not. The answers given by 30 interviewers were incorporated in the said order with a further observation that ‘no question was asked by the appearing parties to the above interviewers’. The Court thereafter noted that there were no formal engagement letters for acting as interviewers and they were called over 121 phone. There was also no guideline towards awarding of marks for aptitude test and that ‘a large number of interviewers were not intimated by the Board/DPSC’s that there is one aptitude test, a different test altogether; also beside interview’ and that one interviewer (Md. Maruf Alam) stated that he took the aptitude test and that an aptitude test means confidence and body language of a candidate. On the next date of hearing, i.e., on 05.04.2023, the Court suo motu directed the Superintendent of Presidency Correctional Home for physical production of the President of the Board, namely, Manik Bhattacharya on the self-same date at 3.00 pm. Such direction was duly complied with and the answers given by Mr. Bhattacharya to the questions put by the Court were also recorded in the said order. Thereafter hearing was concluded on 11.05.2023 and judgment was delivered on 12.05.2023”.

54. The appellants have relied on Paras 179, 180 and 186 (v) of the said judgment to show their exoneration. Those paras are also quoted hereunder for ready reference:

“179. The findings that can be culled out from the impugned judgment are as follows :

i) No aptitude test was taken;

ii) There was no formal engagement letter for acting as an interviewer nor any guideline for awarding marks for aptitude test;

iii) The marks given to the candidates against aptitude test is wholly illegal and false exercise ‘to hoodwink all concerned including the court’;

2023:CHC-AS:31867-DB

iv) There was wholly absurd assessment in interview and such assessment reveals ‘extraneous factors (which includes corruption) as has been alleged by the petitioners and now has come to light from the investigation by CBI & ED’;

v) Non empanelment of reserved category candidates in the panel for general category candidates who got better marks than the general category candidates in open competition;

vi) No selection committee was constituted for the purpose of selection by the Board and an outside agency was engaged and the Board and its officials including its former President conducted the whole affair as that of a local club and jobs were actually sold to some candidates who had the money to purchase the employment;

vii) In the recruitment scam stinking rats are being smelt;

180. The first finding is contrary to the statement of the writ petitioners themselves that they were called for the interview, as recorded in paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment and in the second paragraph of the order dated 20.12.2022. The second finding has been arrived at being oblivious of the fact that the Board did produce the letters issued to different interviewers which were perused by the Court on 06.02.2023 and some interviewers were also examined by the Court. The third finding was arrived at on the basis of a perception that the marks in aptitude and the marks in academics should be proportional. Mere suspicion, howsoever high, cannot be a substitute of actual proof and writ Court ought not to interfere with the selection made by expert bodies upon assessing the comparative merits of 125 the candidates. The investigation by CBI & ED could not have been the basis towards cancellation of the recruitment process more so when in the writ petition no appointment of any candidate amongst the 32,000 appointees could be cited as an instance of biased or illegal selection and that as such the fourth finding is not sustainable. The material on record does not prove the chain of circumstances pointing out the guilt of the appellants beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch and hesitancy. The fifth finding has been arrived at being oblivious of the fact that similar ground as urged in the earlier writ petitions had been turned down and no appeal had been preferred against the said judgments delivered in the cases of Monika Das (Supra) and Md. Rabiul Sk. (Supra). The sixth finding that no selection committee was constituted for the purpose of selection by the Board is not sustainable inasmuch as the Court itself found that interviewers were engaged and thirty interviewers were also summoned and questioned by the Court. Rule 4 of the RR, 2016 conferred authority towards engagement of any specialized agency. The Court made sweeping observations that the Board and its officials including its former President conducted the whole affair as that of a local club and jobs were actually sold to some candidates who had the money to purchase the employment, in the absence of appropriate pleadings. Even a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts. The allegations of mala fides are more easily made than proved. The law casts a heavy burden on the persons alleging mala fides to prove the same on the basis of facts. Such proposition of law was, however, not considered which renders the finding to be 126 unacceptable and beyond the pale. The seventh finding that in the recruitment scam stinking rats are being smelt is also not supported by the pleadings in the writ petition. There is no existence of any material to suggest that the candidates appointed were involved in any money trail. Such finding is thus the outcome of mere surmises and conjectures.

186. (v) In the case of Bishwa Ranjan Shaw and Others (supra) in support of the contention that principle of natural justice need not be strictly adhered to in a case mass malpractice. Such findings were rendered in the facts 132 where fictitious roll numbers were allotted to each candidate and the CBI reported that the investigation revealed that interview sheets of some of the board members were blank and there had been fabrication of records. In the backdrop of such fact the Court held ‘fraud has reached its crescendo’. Accordingly, the entire selection process was set aside and the Court directed that ‘the appointment held by these 96 candidates (including the respondents, will have no right to go to the office’. In the present case no material had been brought on record to come to any irresistible conclusion that fraud or corruption had been practiced…”

55. The perusal of the paras quoted above would reveal the issues taken up by the appellants therein before the Division Bench to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge cancelling the appointment of 32000 candidates which has nothing to do with this case. In para 180 of the judgment (supra) quoted above, it was noted that in none of the writ petitions before Single Bench, a challenge to the appointment of 32000 candidates was made. It was coupled with the fact that nothing was placed on record to prove chain of circumstances pointing out the guilt of the appellants before the Division Bench, who were selected on the posts of Primary Teacher. The contradiction in the argument about the constitution of the Committee/Board and aptitude test was also taken into consideration for selection of teachers in the selection of 2016. The petitioners before the learned Single Judge did not plead allegation against any one, rather the Division Bench found that there was no allegation to this effect and, therefore, could not have been accepted. The matter before the Division Bench was different so as the context than the case before me. The Division Bench has not given clean chit to the appellants herein, rather the case was not brought for the aforesaid with necessary consideration. The Division Bench has addressed the issue in regard to appointments of 32,000 Primary Teacher cancelled by the Single Bench. It was not in regard to TET, 2014. The appellant in person herein further made a reference of Para 186(v) which is not in reference to the present case but a finding in the case of Bishwa Ranjan Shaw and Ors. for addressing the issue of adherence of the principles of natural justice. The Division Bench of the High Court finally clarified that the recruitment process was conducted in two phases, which is given in para 186(xvi) and is quoted hereunder:

“xvi) In the present case the recruitment process was conducted in two phases, the first phase was the TET 2014 and the persons who emerged to be successful were thereafter considered after they faced interview and aptitude test and that as such the proposition of law that appointments made in contravention of statutory provisions are void ab initio is not applicable and the judgments delivered in cases of H.R. Adyanthaya, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 164 and State of Odisha and Others vs Sulekh Chandra Pradhan and Others, reported in (2022) 7 SCC 482 are not applicable to the facts of this case..”

The first phase of selection was the TET, 2014 which was followed by the selection test by way of aptitude test/interview under the Rules of 2016. The allegation against the appellant Dr. Manik Bhattacharya herein is in regard to the selection of the candidates in TET, 2014. I find that the appellants have tried to make misleading statement in reference to the judgment of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of The West Bengal Board of Primary Education (supra).

56. The appellants in person further made a reference that initial direction of the Single Judge to register the case was assailed before the Division Bench and finally before the Apex Court. The Apex Court directed the High Court to reconsider the matter afresh and accordingly the matter was reconsidered in the case of The West Bengal Board of Primary Education (supra) vide order dated 03.12.2025. The statement aforesaid is also misleading and untrue. The Division Bench’s judgment in the case of The West Bengal Board of Primary Education (supra) was against the judgment of the learned Single Judge cancelling the appointment of 32000 Primary Teachers and not pursuant to the alleged direction by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

57. In fact, the appellant has suppressed the fact that he moved an application for his discharge in the criminal case. It was dismissed but the fact aforesaid has not been narrated coupled with the facts about the framing of the charge against the accused which include Shri Manik Bhattacharya. Thus, I do not find any substance in the argument in reference to the judgment of the High Court in the case of The West Bengal Board of Primary Education (supra).

58. Coming to the next issue, the appellants in person submitted that the proceedings for provisional attachment of the property should originate strictly as per Section 5(1) of the Act of 2002 which mandates recording of valid and tangible “reasons to believe” before attachment of any property alleged to be proceeds of crime. The “reasons to believe” have been given in Para 9 of the original complaint dated 06.12.2022 but are factually incorrect, unsupported by any evidence and thus liable to be rejected for the reason that there is no bar under any law for opening of the multiple bank accounts by a person in his own name or in the name of family members. It is coupled with the allegation of siphoning of money using those bank accounts. In fact, the bank accounts were opened after due compliance of KYC requirement and were jointly held by the appellants, namely, Shri Manik Bhattacharya, Smt. Satarupa Bhattacharya and Shri Souvik Bhattacharya. Most of the bank accounts were in existence since 1998, much prior to the alleged scheduled offence. The appellants further alleged that no evidence was produced to establish the alleged proceeds of crime in those accounts thus merely existence of the multiple bank accounts could not have been basis for attachment of the properties.

59. The argument raised by the appellants in reference to Section 5(1) of the Act of 2002 for recording “reasons to believe” has been seriously contested by the respondents. It was submitted that several bank accounts were opened at the time of commission of offence and subsequently leaving few which were existing but those were also used to layer the proceeds of crime. In the evidence collected during the course of investigation, it was found that apart from the bank deposits, huge cash was deposited in the bank accounts held by the appellants and their family members. It is coupled with one bank account which was opened in the name of a dead person, namely, Shri Mrityunjay Chatterjee. The dead person was shown to be out of station to open the bank account in joint name where also huge money was parked. It is sufficient to show how the appellants have managed the “proceeds of crime” and their involvement even in opening a bank account in the name of dead person. The appellants have shown ignorance about the said account and claimed no right on it. The appellants have even failed to disclose the source of the cash amount deposited in the bank accounts in response to the notice under Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002 which requires a person to disclose the source of the money involved in money laundering. Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002 is quoted thus for ready reference:

“8. Adjudication.

(1) On receipt of a complaint under sub-section (5) of section 5, or applications made under sub-section (4) of section 17 or under sub-section (10) of section 18, if the Adjudicating Authority has reason to believe that any person has committed an offence under section 3 or is in possession of proceeds of crime, it may serve a notice of not less than thirty days on such person calling upon him to indicate the sources of his income, earning or assets, out of which or by means of which he has acquired the property attached under sub-section (1) of section 5, or, seized or frozen under section 17 or section 18, the evidence on which he relies and other relevant information and particulars, and to show cause why all or any of such properties should not be declared to be the properties involved in money-laundering and confiscated by the Central Government:

Provided that where a notice under this sub-section specifies any property as being held by a person on behalf of any other person, a copy of such notice shall also be served upon such other person:

Provided further that where such property is held jointly by more than one person, such notice shall be served to all persons holding such property”.

60. The appellants herein failed to disclose the source for deposit of the cash amount in the bank accounts despite onus of proof on them as per Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002 coupled with Section 24 of the said Act. It is more so when as per the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 50 of the Act of 2002, it was found that the entry about receipt of proceed was maintained and found with the person, namely, Tapas Kumar Mondal and Kuntal Ghosh. The amount of Rs.3.25 Crores was received on behalf of the appellant Shri Manik Bhattacharya and, therefore, the appellant failed to disclose the source of cash amount deposited in different bank accounts. The allegation in regard to the multiple bank accounts has wrongly been construed to be a crime by the appellants. It is in reference of the allegation of layering and siphoning of the proceeds deposited in multiple bank accounts with subsequent transfer for fixed deposits, shares, mutual funds and other assets and, therefore, the ground aforesaid is not tenable and cannot be accepted.

61. The appellants in person further submitted that though allegation exists regarding receipt of Rs.3.25 Crores from 325 candidates @ Rs.100000/- each from a candidate but the amount aforesaid was not received by the appellant but remained with Kuntal Ghosh as per the statement of Tapas Kumar Mondal and Kuntal Ghosh. I find that during the course of investigation, Kuntal Ghosh, Accused No. 15 was found to be close to Sujoy Krishna Bhadra who used to visit the office of Shri Manik Bhattacharya regularly although he was not a Govt. employee or a politician. Shri Sujoy Krishna Bhadra used to visit the office of Shri Manik Bhattacharya, ex-President of West Bengal Board of Primary Education related to appointment/admission of candidates and a list of 325 candidates of TET, 2014 was also sent to Shri Manik Bhattacharya through him for getting them qualified/passed in TET, 2014 for an amount of Rs.3.25 Crores. It was found that Shri Sujoy Krishna Bhadra, one of the accused person in the case was in regular touch with Shri Manik Bhattacharya, the then President of West Bengal Board of Primary Education and from his mobile number 9123079742, forwarded the details of candidates which includes admit cards for TET-2012 & TET-2014 through WhatsApp on the mobile of Shri Manik Bhattacharya. Shri Sujoy Krishna Bhadra not only shared the admit cards of the candidates with Manik Bhattacharya but also used to visit the office of West Bengal Board of Primary Education to meet Shri Manik Bhattacharya for the purpose of selection of the candidates. He was not associated with Education Department or West Bengal Board of Primary Education in any official capacity. The WhatsApp chats of Manik Bhattacharya and Sujoy Krishna Bhadra were retrieved from the seized mobile phone of Manik Bhattacharya in forensic examination. Shri Sujoy Krishna Bhadra (A-23) never held any political position but still various candidates had approached him for redressal of the problems related to TET-2012 & TET-2014. This shows a deep rooted and long-standing nexus and conspiracy between the highly influential and powerful persons like Manik Bhattacharya and Sujoy Krishna Bhadra for getting undeserving and unmeritorious candidates to be selected in TET.

62. The facts given above show deep involvement of the appellants along with others in commission of offence of money laundering. They had acted on behalf of the appellant Dr. Manik Bhattacharya and thereby were in possession of the list of 325 students otherwise there was no reason to possess the list of all those candidates appeared in TET, 2014.

63. The statement of the appellants that result of 325 candidates remains unchanged except of 2 candidates is without any basis and erroneously made in reference of the judgment of Delhi High Court without giving details of the said judgment because judgment in the case of The West Bengal Board of Primary Education(supra) does not refer to the selection of 325 candidates in TET, 2014 and thus the argument in reference to non-receipt of Rs.3.25 Crores by the appellants cannot be accepted, otherwise the appellants would have given source of deposit of cash amount in several bank accounts possessed jointly by Manik Bhattacharya, his wife and son, apart the relatives and even one account in the name of dead person.

64. The next issue taken up by the appellants was for the receipt of Rs.20.73 Crores. It was stated that the students failed to fill online application, the appellant did not facilitate them to fill the form offline @ Rs.5000/- per candidate. It was found that Tapas Kumar Mondal worked as conduit between the students/D.El.Ed colleges and Shri Manik Bhattacharya and pursuant to which Tapas Kumar Mondal collected Rs.5000/- per candidate for offline forms. Investigation revealed that an amount of Rs.20.73 Crores collected from offline candidates applied during the session 2018 to 2022 was handed over to Manik Bhattacharya. The appellants in person submitted that the charge in regard to collection of Rs.20.73 Crores has not been framed by the Trial Court. It was only for a sum of Rs.7.5 Crores and ultimately dropped at the time of framing of charge due to lack of evidence. The appellants have failed to refer any such order because order dated 29.08.2023 in Writ Petition No. 873/2023 does not speak about dropping of the charge. It was to furnish details of all suspected candidates.

65. Reference of the order dated 21.09.2023 has been given and perused by me. It does not give clean chit to 325 candidates, rather the matter in regard to 96 candidates was taken up. The appellant has tried to mislead the Tribunal. In fact, allegation against the appellants was for collection of Rs.5000/- per candidate for acceptance of offline applications. The fact aforesaid stands proved by the witness and accused Tapas Kumar Mondal who was the instrument to collect the money to pass on it to the appellant Manik Bhattacharya. The detail of the collection of money given by the students for their enrolment in D.El.Ed college during the session 2018-20, 2019-21 and 2020-22 is reproduced hereunder:

S.No.	Session	Number of colleges	Total number of students	Total Payments (Rs.)
1.	2018-20	353	9549	4,77,45,000
2.	2019-21	322	12824	6,41,20,000
3.	2020-22	360	19091	9,54,55,000
			Total	20,73,20,000/-

Shri Tapas Kumar Mondal in his statement provided details of payment referred to above which was to be handed over by the owner of the respective D.El.ED colleges to Shri Gautam Dass, one of the staff working with Shri Manik Bhattacharya and it was finally transferred to Shri Manik Bhattacharya. In view of the above, I do not find any substance in the argument and otherwise the matter is pending trial.

66. The appellants next contended about the violation of the principles of natural justice by the Adjudicating Authority. It is with an allegation that accused Manik Bhattacharya was supplied relied upon documents on 17.06.2023 and that too in the pen drive where the appellant had no facility to take out hard copy of those documents and at the same time, the impugned order was passed on 01.06.2023. I find no substance in the argument and is otherwise defended by the respondents in detail pointing out that not only relied upon documents were supplied but based on the aforesaid, a detailed reply to the notice was given coupled with the contest of the notice effectively thus the allegation for violation of principles of natural justice cannot sustain.

67. The appellants then submitted that there was no schedule offence so as to result in the proceedings under the Act of 2002. The argument aforesaid has been raised in ignorance of the facts and material available on record. It is not only that cognizance of offence disclosing the predicate offence has been taken but even the charge has been framed while rejecting the application filed by Manik Bhattacharya for discharge. Thus, argument that no predicate offence under the Act of 2002 remains without any basis and thus summarily rejected.

68. The appellant Manik Bhattacharya further submitted that provisional attachment has been caused even of those amounts which are legally protected because it was the amount received by him out of gratuity, PF, employees PF, Public PF, Salary and MLA Honorarium account. The reference of the statutory protection for those amounts has been given. The issue aforesaid has been considered in reference to the argument of the respondent who has pointed out that huge amount was deposited in those accounts, therefore, provisional attachment of those accounts was caused. It was not carrying purely the benefits towards the retirement which includes pension and other benefits. In any case, I direct the respondents to release the amount to the extent of pension amount so as the gratuity and the PF. The order would, however, not protect MLA Honorarium amount and salary apart from other amounts because proceeds in the hands of the appellants is much more than the provisional attachment of movable and immovable properties.

69. The appellant has pleaded that he deposited Rs.5 lakhs in PPF account after periodical withdrawals of amount out of salary and pension account but it remains without any proof. No document for the aforesaid was referred during the course of argument. The issue aforesaid is concluded with the finding given above.

70. The next question taken up by the appellant was attachment of the funds available prior to commission of crime. The appellant has stated that the period of crime commenced from 14.09.2016. The appellants acquired proceeds of crime of Rs.29 Crores. As against the aforesaid, provisional attachment is only for a sum of Rs.7.93 Crores, much below the amount of proceeds received by the appellants and, therefore, to protect the amount of proceeds, the amount acquired prior to it was provisionally attached for “value thereof”. The law on the issue has been settled by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Dilbag Singh @ Dilbag Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. (CWP 22688-2024) dated 13.11.2024. The relevant paras of the judgment in the case of Dilbagh Singh (supra) are quoted hereunder:

“3.2. In light of the Division Bench’s judgment in Seema Garg’s case (supra), this Bench would have been obligated to either follow it or refer the matter to a Larger Bench. However, the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary’s case (supra) has interpreted the provision in para 298, which is extracted as under:

“It was also urged before us that the attachment of property must be equivalent in value of the proceeds of crime only if the proceeds of crime are situated outside India. This argument, in our opinion, is tenuous. For, the definition of “proceeds of crime” is wide enough to not only refer to the property derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, but also of the value of any such property. If the property is taken or held outside the country, even in such a case, the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad can be proceeded with. The definition of “property” as in Section 2(1)(v) is equally wide enough to encompass the value of the property of proceeds of crime. Such interpretation would further the legislative intent in recovery of the proceeds of crime and vesting it in the Central Government for effective prevention of money-laundering.”

3.3. The aforesaid observations made by the Supreme Court enable this Bench to re-examine the entire issue, as in the considered opinion of this Bench, the judgment passed in Seema Garg’s case (supra) is no longer a good law. This Court has taken this view due to the subsequent interpretation by the Supreme Court, which has superseded the legal principles established in Seema Garg’s case (supra).

3.4. It is evident that the original (unamended) definition of phrase ‘proceeds of crime’ was structured into two distinct parts. The first part relates to the property derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, whereas, the second part relates to the value of any such property where the proceeds of crime are not traceable. This clearly means that if the property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, from the proceeds of a crime of scheduled offence is not traceable, then any property of equivalent value falls within the scope of the expression ‘proceeds of crime’. In 2015, the amendment restructured the definition into three parts to cover the property taken or held outside the country. The concept of the property of equivalent value was introduced with respect to the aforementioned properties. The amendment enabled the authorities to go after any other property of a person of equivalent value. In 2019, the scope of the phrase ‘proceeds of crime’ was further expanded so as to include other properties which were not directly or indirectly the proceeds of crime, but were held abroad, to be liable to attachment. In 2019, the explanation has been added so as to give a wider scope to the authorities. From the objects and reasons of the ‘2002 Actç it becomes evident that the money laundering posed a serious threat not only to the financial system of the countries but also to their integrity and sovereignty. The ‘2002 Act’ was enacted to prevent money laundering and connected activities. The act of money laundering is a multi-layered, complex and complicated diversion of the property, which is required to be prevented. Consequently, the definition of proceeds of crime has undergone transformative changes from time to time so as to include all the complex acts involved in the offence of money laundering.

3.5. In Axis Bank’s case (Supra), the Delhi High Court has dissected the definition in three parts while covering tainted property and untainted property held in India; and the ‘proceeds of crime’ taken out of the country or any other property of equivalent value thereof. However, this Court is of the considered view that the definition can be divided into two broader categories namely tainted properties and untainted properties. The first part provides about the tainted properties derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. Thereafter, the untainted properties are further divided into two parts; the first part deals with a situation where the property derived or obtained from ‘proceeds of crime’ is not traceable. In the aforesaid situation the competent authority is authorized to attach or confiscate any other property of accused, which is of the same value as that of the ‘proceeds of crime’. The second sub-category is a result of amendment brought in 2015 and 2019 in the Act. It provides that if the property derived or obtained from the proceeds of crime has already been taken out of the Country then the property equivalent in value held within the Country or abroad can be made liable to be attached. This position has been explained by the Delhi High Court in an elaborate manner in Axis Bank’s case (supra) and Prakash Industries case (supra).

3.6. It is not disputed that the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary’s case (supra) was examining the scope of the ‘2002 Act’ including definition of phrase ‘proceeds of crime’. The submission put forth by the learned counsel that the phrase ‘or the value of any such property’ is superfluous was rejected by the Court and it was held that the definition of ‘proceeds of crime’ is wide enough to not only include to the property derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity related to a schedule offence but also any other property of equivalent value.

3.7. While interpreting a statutory provision, it is the bounden buty of the Courts to interpret it in manner so that each word used by the statute conveys a meaning it was assigned by the Legislature. The words used in statute are of utmost significance. The Court cannot widen or restrict the provisions on its own whims and fancies. When a statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, the general rule of interpretation of statute is to read the provision as a whole and the Court must adhere strictly to the ordinary, plain meaning of the words used. The words in a statute are used precisely, not loosely, and efforts must be made to interpret them in a literal manner to give effect to the objective of the Act. This approach of interpretation is based on the idea that the legislature’s intent is best reflected in the exact words of the statute.

3.8. Moreover, the reasoning adopted in Seema Garg’s case (supra) to the effect that there was no need to insert third part in the definition of the ‘proceeds of crime’ and that ‘value of such property’ is superfluous does not appear sound. It appears that transformative journey of the definition of phrase ‘proceeds of crime’ was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench in Seema Garg’s case (supra). In Abdullah Ali Balsharaf’s case (supra), Delhi High Court inadvertently overlooked the sub-category (i) of second part of definition of ‘proceeds of crime’. Similarly, Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kumar Pappu Singh’s case (supra) was not properly assisted. Furthermore, the attention of Patna High Court was not drawn to part 2(i) in HDFC Bank’s case (supra). Similar is the position in M/s. Himachal Amta Power Limited’s case (supra). In this case, the attention of the Bench was not drawn to the second broader category of the definition. In Hemanshu Rajnikant Shah’s case (supra) the Court relied upon Seema Garg’s case (supra) and held that the properties acquired before the alleged crime and before the enforcement of the ‘2002 Act’ cannot be attached.

3.9. On the other hand the judgments passed in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary’s case (supra), Axis Bank’s case (supra) and Prakash Industries case (supra) completely answer the question in favour of ED.

3.10. The petitioner’s counsel has also heavily relied upon Pavana Dibbur’s case (supra). This Bench has carefully read the aforesaid judgment. The aforementioned case involved attachment of properly falling under the category of ‘direct’ or ‘indirect’ proceeds of crime. The complaint under Section 44-45 of 2002 Act was quashed by the Supreme Court. The Bench was never called upon to analyse the contentions based upon Section 2(i)(u) of 2002 Act, whereas, in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary’s case (supra) the Court directly answered the aforesaid question. Hence, there is no substance in the first argument of learned counsel for petitioner”.

The judgment aforesaid covers the issue. Apart from the fact that appellant has failed to disclose the source for deposit of huge cash amount in the bank accounts and, therefore, the respondents have rightly attached the properties and there is no embargo against provisional attachment of properties acquired even prior to the crime if the proceed to the extent involved in crime is not found available having been vanished or laundered.

71. The appellants Souvik Bhattacharya and Manik Bhattacharya had contested the provisional attachment of accounts of M/s Acuere Consultancy Services and M/s Educlasses Online. It is mainly on the ground that M/s Acuere Consultancy Services had entered into agreement with many institutions to provide consultancy services and accordingly the money was transferred through banking channel. It could not have been considered to be proceeds of crime. The same plea has been taken for M/s Educlasses Online where an amount of Rs.500/- was collected from each student for online classes making it a sum of Rs.2.47 Crores. The appellant Souvik Bhattacharya has defended the case mainly on the ground that collection of amount was legitimate. The online classes provided by the entity was available on YouTube and, therefore, the attachment of the bank account of M/s Educlasses Online is illegal.

72. I have considered the submission and find that the challenge to the attachment of accounts of the two entities owned by Souvik Bhattacharya has been raised. It is mainly on the ground that the amount was received under agreement for providing online classes and for consultancy services. During the course of investigation, it was found that online classes were not undertaken as was claimed, rather it was closed subsequently in absence of the payment to the teachers. The same is the position regarding consultancy charges from each education institution. It is very peculiar that the institutions  and the students to be governed by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education would engage only the son of main accused.  It is either for consultancy or for the online classes. The investigation revealed that no effective consultancy was provided by the entity owned by Shri Souvik Bhattacharya while a sum of Rs.50,000 was charged from each D.El.Ed institutions. A group of association was created representing D.El.Ed institutions and it was at the instance of Tapas Kumar Mondal. He asked the then Education Centre for the payment of Rs.50,000 in favour of M/s Acuere Consultancy Services. Shri Manik Bhattacharya was present in the meeting of the institutions. An institution which did not submit payment was purposely kept pending for registration. During the course of investigation, Shri Tapas Kumar Mondal acknowledged the aforesaid and otherwise one cannot conceive an idea that more than 500 institutions would engage an entity for consultation with a fixed amount of Rs.50,000/- and that too when the entities were not having previous experience. The fact speaks about the involvement of the appellants for collection of the huge amount from 530 institutions and even the collection of Rs.2.64 Crores from the online classes which were not found to have completed. The students were, however, compelled to pay Rs.500/- for alleged online classes because it was also pertaining to the courses for Primary Teachers. The  respondents thus rightly attached the property to secure the amount of proceeds of crime from the two entities.

73. The fact now remains about Smt. Satarupa Bhattacharya who is none else but the wife of the main accused Manik Bhattacharya. She was holding joint account where the proceeds was parked by the main accused and otherwise she remained the joint bank holder along with Shri Mritunjay Chatterjee who expired in the year 2016, however, showing him to be out of station, the joint account was opened and thereupon substantial amount was deposited therein. The amount thereupon was utilized for FD and investments in the name of family members of the appellants. The appellant has failed to give source of cash deposit. It is by referring to any material or evidence to justify deposit of amount in joint account at the instance of Smt. Satarupa Bhattacharya and, therefore, the amount in joint account was found to be proceeds of crime.

74. I do not find any substance in any of the appeals on the grounds urged by the appellants other than to the extent of the provisional attachment of the pension amount, amount of gratuity and PF. To the extent of the amount towards the aforesaid, interference is caused in the impugned order while maintaining the provisional attachment for other amounts. With the aforesaid, the appeals are disposed of.