The absence of an allegation of natural justice breach in the writ petition undermined the respondent's claims, and the second show-cause notice was flawed for being issued without a fair hearing.

JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated April 24, 2024 in WPA 28977 of 2013.

2. Appeal is at the behest of the Co-operative Society.

3. Appellant initiated a departmental proceeding as against the private respondent herein, which ultimately resulted in an order of dismissal from service as upheld by the Appellate Authority. Such order of the Appellate Authority was assailed by way of the writ petition in which the impugned judgment and order was passed.

4. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis of breach of principles of natural justice at the time of conduct of the enquiry proceedings. He submits that the writ petition does not contain any averment to such effect. He points out to that, subsequent to the issuance of a charge-sheet as against the private respondent, the enquiry proceeding was undertaken. A portion of the enquiry proceeding was made subject-matter of a dispute-case under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. Such dispute-case was ultimately disposed of by finding that the private respondent was guilty of causing loss to the appellant. The dispute-case quantified the loss caused by the respondent to the appellant.

5. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant submits that there is no challenge to the Award. According to him, therefore, the award attained finality between the appellant and the private respondent.

6. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the dispute-case, therefore, established both the quantum of loss caused by the private respondent to the appellant as also the fact that the private respondent was responsible for causing loss to the appellant. He submits that one of the grounds in the charge-sheet is the loss caused by the private respondent to the appellant. Therefore, he submits, such issue stood conclusively decided in the dispute-case proceedings. Once such issue stood conclusively decided, it no longer lies in the mouth of the private respondent is to complain breach of principles of natural justice in the conduct of the enquiry proceedings on such an issue, assuming though not admitting that the private respondent raised such issue in the writ petition.

7. On the ground of breach of natural justice, the learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant relies on Ashwin S. Mehta & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2012) 1 SCC 83 and submits that, in addition to a mere breach of the principle of natural justice, the private respondent is required to establish that he suffered any prejudice. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the private respondent did not suffer any prejudice.

8. Learned senior advocate appearing for the private respondent submits that, the authorities proceeded with a closed mind as against the respondent. He submits that his client was denied the right of cross-examination at the enquiry proceedings. He submits that, the second show-cause notice is dated October 29, 1998 and the order of the disciplinary authority is dated November 16, 1998.

9. Learned senior advocate appearing for the private respondent submits, when authorities, issued the second show-cause notice on October 29, 1998, the authorities decided that all charges as against the respondent were proved. The authorities accepted the enquiry report without affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent. He points out the second show-cause notice in this regard. He submits that since the authorities proceeded with a close mind, the entire departmental proceedings stood vitiated.

10. A departmental proceedings was initiated as against the private respondent. He was initially placed under suspension. He was granted subsistence allowance. A show-cause notice dated August 8, 1995 was issued to the private respondent. A charge sheet was issued as against him on May 19, 199