Back
2013 Supreme(Cal) 459
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY & MURARI PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Bhuban Mohan Pal
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Others
F.M.A No. 1237 of 2010 (Appellate Side)
Decided On : 29-07-2013
For the Appellant:Debabrata Saha Roy, Indranath Mitra, Pingal Bhattacharya. Advocates. For the Bank:Joydeep Kar, Ms. Sarmila Das. Advocates.
For the Respondents:Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Nilotpal Chatterjee, Advocates.
Headnote:
BURDWAN CO-OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. - OUT-DOOR OFFICER - WEST BENGAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES 1974, RULE 48 (2) - The High Court quashed the dismissal order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Court directed the respondent Bank to treat the appellant in service all through as if no dismissal order was passed against the said appellant and pay admissible salary and allowances to the said appellant till the date of superannuation i.e. upto 31st July, 2000 and thereafter grant admissible retiral benefits to the said appellant without any further delay.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant herein was an Out-door Officer of the respondent Bank namely, Burdwan Co-operative Land Development Bank, subsequently renamed as Burdwan Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. On 16th July, 1984 a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant wherein certain allegations were levelled against the said appellant. The appellant submitted his representation in answer to the show-cause notice issued by the Executive Officer of the Bank denying all the allegations levelled against him. The Executive Officer of the respondent Bank on behalf of the Managing Committee thereafter without issuing any formal charge sheet and conducting any enquiry asked the appellant to show-cause as to why he should not be removed from service. The appellant thereafter submitted a representation against the proposed punishment. The Executive Officer of the respondent Bank by the order dated 15th March, 1986 terminated the service of the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The appellant herein was dismissed from service without issuance of a formal charge sheet and on the allegation of defalcation of an amount of Rs. 222/- only. The show-cause notice dated 16th July, 1984 issued to the appellant herein was treated as the charge sheet. The disciplinary authority, ultimately terminated the services of the appellant with effect from 15th March, 1986. Challenging the aforesaid order of termination, a writ petition was filed before this court and the learned Single Judge while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition being C.O. No. 4825 (W) of 1986 allowed the respondent Bank to hold a fresh enquiry against the appellant herein from the stage of the issuance of the charge sheet if it so desires.
Issues: 1. Whether the show-cause notice dated 16th July, 1984 issued to the appellant herein can be treated as the charge sheet. 2. Whether the disciplinary authority was required to pass a reasoned order after considering the representation submitted by the appellant herein. 3. Whether the Disciplinary Authority was totally biased against the appellant herein and therefore treated the description of the duties as the charge against the appellant even though no misconduct was alleged. 4. Whether the Disciplinary Authority acted in clear violation of the specific direction passed earlier by the Division Bench on 9th July, 1998 by not considering the representation submitted by the appellant herein in answer to the show-cause notice and also not deciding the serious objections raised by the said appellant upon application of mind afresh in accordance with law and on the basis of materials on record.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The show-cause notice dated 16th July, 1984 issued to the appellant herein cannot be treated as the charge sheet as it does not specifically disclose the charges. 2. The disciplinary authority was required to pass a reasoned order after considering the representation submitted by the appellant herein pursuant to the specific direction passed earlier by the Division Bench on 9th July, 1998. 3. The Disciplinary Authority was totally biased against the appellant herein and therefore treated the description of the duties as the charge against the appellant even though no misconduct was alleged. 4. The Disciplinary Authority acted in clear violation of the specific direction passed earlier by the Division Bench on 9th July, 1998 by not considering the representation submitted by the appellant herein in answer to the show-cause notice and also not deciding the serious objections raised by the said appellant upon application of mind afresh in accordance with law and on the basis of materials on record.
Final Decision: The High Court quashed the dismissal order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Court directed the respondent Bank to treat the appellant in service all through as if no dismissal order was passed against the said appellant and pay admissible salary and allowances to the said appellant till the date of superannuation i.e. upto 31st July, 2000 and thereafter grant admissible retiral benefits to the said appellant without any further delay. The Court also directed the respondent Bank to pay the entire admissible dues in terms of this order to the appellant within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of communication of this order.
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J. This appeal has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 10th August, 2010 passed by a learned Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge was pleased to dismiss on merits the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.
The appellant herein was an Out-door Officer of the respondent Bank namely, Burdwan Co-operative Land Development Bank, subsequently renamed as Burdwan Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd.
From the records available before us, we find that on 16th July, 1984 a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant wherein certain allegations were levelled against the said appellant. By the said showcause notice, the appellant herein was also informed about the appointment of an enquiry officer and the said appellant was directed to submit reply to the show-cause notice to the said enquiry officer. In the aforesaid show-cause notice, Executive Officer of the respondent Bank also specifically mentioned that the appellant herein has been placed under suspension pending completion of the enquiry and passing of final orders.
However, the appellant submitted his representation in answer to the show-cause notice issued by the Executive Officer of the Bank denying all the allegations levelled against him. The Executive Officer of the respondent Bank on behalf of the Managing Committee thereafter without issuing any formal charge sheet and conducting any enquiry asked the appellant to show-cause as to why he should not be removed from service. The appellant thereafter submitted a representation against the proposed punishment. The Executive Officer of the respondent Bank by the order dated 15th March, 1986 terminated the service of the appellant. The said order dated 15th March, 1986 issued by the Executive Officer of the respondent Bank is set out hereunder :-
“BURDWAN CO-OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. OLD COUT COMPOUND, P.O. & Dist. – BURDWAN. Ref No. 37 Dated : 15. 03. 1986.
ORDER
Whereas the reply dt. 5/3/86 of Sri Bhuban Mohan Paul, out door officer (under suspension) (hereinafter referred to as the delinquent) of the Burdwan Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) in reply to the Bank show cause notice bearing No. 31 dt. 21/2/86 has, after proper study been deemed unsatisfactory on proper verification against the Bank’s documents and records and the results of appropriate enquiry duly held by the Bank on the charges framed by it.
AND
Whereas the offences committed by the delinquent are of quite grave nature revealing gross misconduct on the part of an employee.
AND
Whereas further retention of the said delinquent, Sri Bhuban Mohan Paul in the services of the Bank will be prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. AND Whereas this is not the first offence committed by the said delinquent, he having committed another offence in the past.
AND
Whereas any further retention of the delinquent in the services of the Bank will cast evil influence amongst other employees of the Bank and its members - existing and future. Now therefore, I Sri Basudeb Chakraborti, Executive Officer of the Burdwan Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. exercising powers of the Managing Committee of the Bank under rule 48 (2) of the West Bengal Co-op. Societies Rules 1974 do hereby terminate the services of Sri Bhuban Mohan Paul, delinquent out door officer (under suspension) on and with effect from 15/3/1986 who shall cease to be an employee of the Burdwan Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. on and with effect from 15/3/86.
Sd/-
(Basudeb Chakraborti)
Executive Officer, Burdwan Co-operative Land Dev. Bank Ltd.”
The appellant herein filed a writ petition before this Court being C.O. No. 4825 (W) of 1996 which was allowed by the Hon’ble Justice Sudhir Ranjan Roy (as His Lordship then was) on 17th March, 1988 whereby the said learned Judge quashed the order of termination issued by the respondent Bank. The relevant extracts from
