SAFEMA Tribunal Confirms PMLA Attachment in West Bengal TET-2014 Recruitment Case

1. Background of the Proceedings

The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, New Delhi, was called upon to decide a batch of appeals filed under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). These appeals challenged an order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, which had confirmed a provisional attachment of properties under Section 5(1) of PMLA.

The provisional attachment order, PAO No. 05/2022 dated 06.12.2022, was issued by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata. Under this PAO, movable and immovable assets valued at ₹7,93,20,546/- belonging to:

  • Dr. Manik Bhattacharya (Appellant No. 1),
  • his son Souvik Bhattacharya (Appellant No. 2), and
  • his wife Satarupa Bhattacharya (Appellant No. 3),

were provisionally attached as alleged “proceeds of crime”.

These proceedings have their genesis in an FIR relating to the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET), 2014 conducted by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education, concerning alleged large-scale irregularities and corruption in recruitment of Assistant Teachers in primary schools.

2. Origin of the Predicate Offence and ECIR

2.1 Registration of FIR and Alleged Offences

An FIR bearing No. RC0102022A0006 dated 09.06.2022 was registered by the CBI, ACB, Kolkata pursuant to directions of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in WPA No. 9979 of 2022. The case was registered for offences under:

  • Section 7, Section 7A and Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and
  • Section 120-B, Section 420, Section 467, Section 468, Section 471 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The allegation was that ineligible and unsuccessful candidates were inducted into the 2014 TET-based recruitment for Assistant Teachers in exchange for substantial unlawful consideration, while eligible and meritorious candidates were systematically excluded. The recruitment process was alleged to have been compromised by:

  • preparation of illegal panels,
  • tampering in evaluation, and
  • abuse of public office in collusion with private individuals.

2.2 ECIR and Commencement of PMLA Investigation

On the strength of the above FIR, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered ECIR No. KLZO-II/19/2022 dated 24.06.2022 and initiated investigation under PMLA.

During the probe, ED alleged that:

  • Dr. Manik Bhattacharya, then President of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education, misused his official position in connection with TET, 2014;
  • substantial proceeds of crime were generated; and
  • such funds were laundered and parked in fixed deposits, mutual funds, shares, and other assets in the names of the appellants and other associated persons/entities.

The investigation traced multiple bank accounts with heavy cash transactions, allegedly disproportionate to known lawful income, and claimed that these represented layering and integration of proceeds of crime.

3. Alleged Modus Operandi and Role of Each Appellant

3.1 Role of Appellant No. 1 – Dr. Manik Bhattacharya

ED’s case against Appellant No. 1 was that, as President of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education, he:

  • orchestrated illegal selection of 325 candidates in TET-2014,
  • received Rs. 3.25 Crore (Rs. 1,00,000/- per candidate) towards facilitating their selection, and
  • collected further amounts from D.El.Ed. colleges and students through various channels.

Specific allegations included:

  1. Acceptance of large sums to allow offline applications from candidates who had missed the online window, allegedly amounting to around Rs. 20.73 Crore.
  2. Collection of money from D.El.Ed. colleges via intermediaries, including Tapas Kumar Mondal, under different pretexts.
  3. Use of entities such as M/s Educlasses Online and M/s Acuere Consultancy Services to receive and route funds extracted from students and institutions.

The ED asserted that these activities cumulatively generated “proceeds of crime” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA, which were then invested and layered through various bank accounts and financial products in the names of the appellants and their associates.

3.2 Role of Appellant No. 2 – Shri Souvik Bhattacharya

According to ED, Souvik Bhattacharya actively aided and assisted in the laundering of proceeds of crime. Two proprietary concerns were central to the allegations:

  1. M/s Acuere Consultancy Services

    • Alleged to have been used to collect Rs. 2.64 Crore from around 530 self-financed D.El.Ed. institutions.
    • Each institution reportedly paid Rs. 50,000/- ostensibly towards consultancy services.
    • ED’s case was that no real consultancy was provided and that the concern served merely as a conduit for proceeds of crime.

  2. M/s Educlasses Online

    • Established during the Covid-19 period for alleged online classes to D.El.Ed. students.
    • Each student paid Rs. 500/-, and about Rs. 2.47 Crore was collected.
    • ED alleged that only token or superficial classes, if any, were conducted and that the entity was used to mask illicit funds as legitimate educational fees.

ED further asserted that Souvik Bhattacharya:

  • maintained and controlled several joint bank accounts,
  • projected himself as secondary or joint account holder, while effectively controlling transactions, and
  • used these accounts for depositing, transferring, and investing suspected proceeds of crime through fixed deposits and similar instruments.

3.3 Role of Appellant No. 3 – Smt. Satarupa Bhattacharya

ED’s allegations against Smt. Satarupa Bhattacharya were that she:

  • knowingly facilitated possession and concealment of proceeds of crime,
  • participated in opening multiple joint accounts with relatives and associates, and
  • allowed those accounts to be used for layering and integrating illicit funds.

A particularly suspicious instance cited by ED was a joint account in the name of Smt. Satarupa Bhattacharya and Late Shri Mrityunjay Chatterjee, who had passed away in 2016. Even after his demise, deposits were made and KYC formalities were allegedly manipulated by stating that the co-account holder was “out of station”, followed by substantial financial activity and creation of fixed deposits.