SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(Cal) 335

High Court Of Calcutta
D. P. KUNDU
RAM KR.TEWARI - Appellant
Versus
ASSTT.GENERAL MANAGER (CCR), BANK OF BARODA - Respondent
C. O.  18286 (W)  Of  1995
Decided On : 08/27/1996

Advocates Appeared:
Ajit Kumar Panja, Jotin Ghosh, MALAY MOHAN GUHA, R.K.Gaurisaria

Headnote:

Writ petition challenging the order of suspension, charge sheet and corrigendum issued to the petitioner, a bank employee, on the ground that the provisions of the bipartite settlement between the banks and their workmen were not complied with. The court held that the provisions of the bipartite settlement are not statutory provisions themselves and have no statutory force, and therefore, cannot be enforced in a writ jurisdiction. The court further held that the order of suspension is legal and valid, and that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner is not vitiated due to the pendency of a criminal case against him. The court also held that the retirement of the petitioner pending departmental proceeding does not cast any cloud on such departmental proceeding.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a bank employee, was issued an order of suspension, a charge sheet, and a corrigendum. The petitioner challenged these orders on the ground that the provisions of the bipartite settlement between the banks and their workmen were not complied with.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the provisions of the bipartite settlement are not statutory provisions themselves and have no statutory force, and therefore, cannot be enforced in a writ jurisdiction. The court further held that the order of suspension is legal and valid, and that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner is not vitiated due to the pendency of a criminal case against him. The court also held that the retirement of the petitioner pending departmental proceeding does not cast any cloud on such departmental proceeding.

Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the bipartite settlement are statutory provisions and have statutory force. 2. Whether the order of suspension is legal and valid. 3. Whether the departmental proceeding against the petitioner is vitiated due to the pendency of a criminal case against him. 4. Whether the retirement of the petitioner pending departmental proceeding casts any cloud on such departmental proceeding.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of the bipartite settlement are not statutory provisions themselves and have no statutory force, and therefore, cannot be enforced in a writ jurisdiction. 2. The order of suspension is legal and valid. 3. The departmental proceeding against the petitioner is not vitiated due to the pendency of a criminal case against him. 4. The retirement of the petitioner pending departmental proceeding does not cast any cloud on such departmental proceeding.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.

D. P. KUNDU, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of suspension dated 20. 04. 95 (Annexure 'e' of the writ petition), the charge-sheet dated 12. 06. 95 (Annexure-'f' of the writ petition) and the corrigendum of the charge-sheet dated 10. 07. 95 (Annexure-'g' of the writ petition ).

( 2 ) THE petitioner, inter alia, prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents and/or their Managers, officers, subordinates to (a) forthwith rescind, recall forbear and withdraw and/or not to give any effect or further effect to the charge-sheet dated 12. 06. 1995 (Annexure-'f') read together with corrigendum dated 10. 07. 1995 (Annexure-'g') and the order of suspension dated 20. 04. 1995 (Annexure-'e') and (b) treat the petitioner on duty during the period of suspension and accordingly pay him his full wages and allowances and other privileges for which he would have been entitled as if he came on daily duties and also to pay salaries for 65 days to the petitioner while he was in judicial custody and/or not to take any step or further steps which are prejudicial to the interest of petitioner on the basis of the charge-sheet dated 12. 06. 1995, corrigendum dated 10. 07. 1995 and order of suspension dated 20. 04. 1995 (Annexures 'f', 'g', 'e' and/or not to proceed further with the departmental enquiry instituted on the basis of the aforesaid charge-sheet and corrigendum.

( 3 ) THE petitioner further prayed for a writ of certiorari commanding the respondents and/or their Managers, officers, subordinates to certify and to send to this court the records of the disciplinary proceedings relating to the charge-sheet dated 12. 06. 1995, corrigendum dated 10. 07. 1995 and order of suspension dated 20. 04. 1995 (Annexures 'f', 'g', 'e') for examination and for quashing if found illegal invalid and/or inoperative and thus, to render complete justice.

( 4 ) THE petitioner stated that he was born on 01. 08. 1935 and joined the service in the respondent Bank on 10. 01. 1953 and thereafter on 01. 02. 78 he was promoted to the post of Sp1. Assistant. He stated that in or about April 1988 he was transferred to Burrabazar Branch from India Exchange Place Branch, Calcutta and during the period from 18. 2. 91 to 21. 4. 92 he was in the Clearing Department of the Respondent Bank and during the period from 22. 4. 92 to 21. 4. 92 he was allotted to write case scroll book and to check two Current Account Ledgers. He stated that on 19. 5. 92 and 21. 5. 92 though he was attached to cash department, yet he was asked to wrok in the Savings Bank Department because the regular incumbent was absent on those dates. He stated that in or about July, 1993 he was again asked to work in Savings Bank Department due to exigency of work and thereafter, often, he had to work in the said department as the regular incumbent almost remained absent or on leave preparatory to retirement. He stated that on 20. 7. 94 he had been awarded 'silver Salver' by Asstt. General Manager (Personnel) of the respondent Bank. He stated that on 20. 10. 94 he had to go to his native place as his wife was sick thereat but on 25. 10. 94 the Senior Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Burrabazar Branch sent a letter to him asking him to come back as his presence was needed at local Police Station. He stated that on 7. 11. 94 he returned for duty as directed by the Senior Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Burrabazar Branch and on 7. 11. 94 itself he visited the Burrabazar Police Station and met the Police authorities and came to know about the information lodged vide letter dated 8. 10. 94 by the Senior Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Burrabazar Branch for irregularities in Savings Bank Account. He alleged that on 7th, 8th and 9th November, 1994 the Senior Branch Manager of Bank of Baroda, Burrabazar Branch was continually creating unnecessary pressure on him by way of misbehaving and threatening and on 9. 11. 94 he was asked by the said Senior Branch Manager to stay in the office even







































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top