IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice, including the right to cross-examine witnesses and the provision of relevant documents during appeal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. Writ petition is directed against order dated 16th November, 1998 passed by the Board of Directors of North Suburban Wholesale Consumers’ Co operative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “said Society”) being respondent no.5 whereby petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f. 17th November, 1998. At the same time the order of the appellate authority dated 11th June, 2013 affirming order of the disciplinary authority is also under challenge in this writ petition. Petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 19th May, 1997 issued by the respondent no.5 with immediate effect. Along with suspension by the said order dated 19th May, 1997 charge-sheet was also served upon the petitioner for initiation of disciplinary proceeding.

2. Petitioner initially joined as Lifting Assistant and thereafter promoted to the post of Officer. Ultimately he was appointed as in-charge of the Departmental Store at Baranagar (hereinafter referred to as the “said Departmental Store”) vide order dated 17th March, 1992 issued by the respondent no.5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that by appointment order dated 17th March, 1992 along with petitioner Sri. H.P. Ghosh, Md. Mahiuddin, Sri. Jagadish Bhandari and Sri. Prabir Roy were also appointed as Assistant to the said Departmental Store at Baranagar having joint liability with the petitioner of Stock and Cash as well as to facilitate team work for effective running of the said store.

3. On 19th May, 1997 Chief Executive Officer of the said Society issued suspension order against the petitioner containing charge against him for which the said Society decided to initiate disciplinary proceeding against him. On perusal of the charge-sheet it appears that the said Society slapped charge against the petitioner to the extent of shortage of stock amounting to Rs.4,96,155.09/-amounting to breach of trust resulting in initiation of disciplinary proceeding. On receipt of the charge-sheet dated 19th May, 1997 petitioner furnished reply vide letter dated 11th June, 1997 denying charge leveled against him, thereafter inquiry officer was appointed before whom petitioner attended on 20th June, 1997 and 23rd June, 1997 in order to make deliberations in support of his contentions against the charge.

4. After the last appearance of the petitioner before the inquiry officer on 23rd June, 1997 it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there was a deceptive silence for a long period of time which triggered the first writ petition being W.P.A. 15567 of 1998 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 13th February, 2013. The coordinate Bench while disposing of the writ petition granted leave to the petitioner to prefer appeal against the order of dismissal dated 16th November, 1998 by directing the appellate authority to decide the same within a specified time on condoning delay due to pendency of the said writ petition. Pursuant to the direction of the coordinate Bench dated 13th February, 2013 appeal was preferred which culminated into an order of affirmation of dismissal dated 16th November, 1998 vide order dated 11th June, 2013.

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that by order of appointment dated 17th March, 1992 joint liability was fastened upon the petitioner and four other assistants but the petitioner has been singled out to fix responsibility only upon him as it emanates from the charge-sheet dated 19th May, 1997 propelling initiation of disciplinary proceeding. There was inordinate delay in preparing and furnishing inquiry report since petitioner appeared before the inquiry officer dated 20th June, 1997 and 23rd June, 1997 but the inquiry report was prepared on 4th September, 1998 which is approximately thirteen months after the last appearance of the petitioner before the inquiry officer and the said inquiry report was ultimately served upon the petitioner on 29th October, 1998. According to the petitioner only after filing of the first writ petition b