An employee cannot be punished for disobeying an illegal order of his superior.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Bank of India and its Zonal Manager of Kolkata zone from the judgment and oader dated January 16, 2002 passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/ respondent No. 1 herein. By the said judgment and order learned single Judge of this court allowed the said writ petition and quashed the impugned orders passed by the bank authorities.

( 2 ) FROM the records it appears that the concerned disciplinary authority of the appellant bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner/ respondent No. 1 by issuing the charge-sheet dated August 4, 1993 which contained the following charges:

(i) refusing/disobeying the lawful and reasonable order of your superior (i. e. , Manager of the Branch) repeatedly. (ii) not allowing the Manager to engage the said Sri Bharat Sahoo for the aforesaid purpose. (iii) compelling the Manager to lift the cash box by himself. (iv) disrupting the customer services and normal functioning of the branch.

( 3 ) BY written representation dated October 1, 1993, said writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 herein replied to the aforesaid charge-sheet dated August 4,1993 denying all the allegations mentioned in the said charge-sheet. Ultimately, the Enquiry Officer upon conducting the enquiry proceedings in relation to the aforesaid charges mentioned in the charge-sheet dated august 4, 1993 submitted the enquiry report on september 6, 1994.

( 4 ) SCRUTINISING the said enquiry report it appears that the Enquiry Officer bifurcated the charge No. (i) into various components and found the said charge No. 1 has been proved although the said Enquiry Officer categorically held that the other three charges stood disproved. The disciplinary authority thereafter, issued the second show cause notice to the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 herein agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry officer in respect of charge No. l (i) and disagreeing in respect of charge Nos. (ii), (iii)and (iv ).

( 5 ) THE said writ petitioner, namely, the respondent No. 7 herein thereafter challenged the entire disciplinary proceedings including the second show cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority before this Honourable court by filing a separate writ petition being c. O. No. 10957 (W) of 1994 which was finally disposed of by Ms. RUMA PAL, J. (as Her lordship then was) on March 21,1995 whereby and whereunder the proceedings after the submission of the enquiry report by the' enquiry Officer was set aside. The operative part of the said judgment and order passed by ms. RUMA PAL, J. on March 21, 1995 is quoted hereunder:

"for the reasons stated earlier the proceedings after the submission of the enquiry Report by the Enquiry Officer is set aside. The petitioners will be given an opportunity of criticising the report before the Disciplinary Authority on such points as they may be advised including the points raised in the writ proceedings. The disciplinary Authority will thereafter arrive at a finding of guilt on the basis of the material before him and the arguments advanced. The Disciplinary Authority will conclude the proceedings in the manner prescribed".

( 6 ) THE writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 herein, however, was aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated March 21,1995 passed by ms. RUMA PAL, J. and preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of this Honourable court which was finally disposed of by the division Bench presided over by S. B. SINHA, J. (as his Lordship then was) on February 25, 2000 by allowing the said appeal in part with certain observations and directions as specifically mentioned in the said judgmentand furthermore, quashed and set aside the impugned order.

( 7 ) PURSUANT to the aforesaid order of the division Bench disciplinary authority issued a letter to the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 herein enclosing the copy of the findings of the enquiry Officer and asked the writ peti