Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, providing adequate opportunity for defense, especially when an employee is facing serious charges and imminent retirement.

JUDGMENT :

Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.

1. This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 22/05/2024 passed in Writ Petition WPA-773 of 2022 by a Learned Single Judge of this Court. Learned Single Judge by order dated 22/05/2024 was pleased to allow the Writ Petition WPA-773 of 2022 by setting aside and quashing enquiry report dated 24th December 2019, the order of dismissal from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority/Appellant no-2 dated 30th December 2019 and the order of Appellate Authority dated 7th October 2021, which were under challenge in the said Writ Petition.

2. The Writ Petitioner joined service of State Bank of India the Appellant no-2 herein after retirement from the Indian Army. He joined on 24/04/2000 as Assistant in the Hasimara Branch of Appellant no-2. He was subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Associate. Upon his promotion he was transferred from Hasimara Branch to the Hamiltongunj Branch of State Bank of India. On or about December 12-2019, the petitioner was served with a Memorandum listing three charges and calling upon him to show cause to the charges within two days of the receipt thereof. It was stated that if the charges listed therein were found to be proved it would attract the penalty under clause 6 of the Provisions for Disciplinary Proceedings for Award Staff under Memorandum of settlement dated 10/04/2002. The writ petitioner on receipt of the charge sheet dated December 12, 2019, was perturbed and bewildered. The petitioner felt that he would be able to receive able guidance from his seniors associated with the state Bank of India Staff Association (Bengal Circle) who had the necessary experience of dealing with such matters. He was posted in a very remote area of Hamiltonganj, Jalpaiguri District from where he could not contact with the leaders of the said Union. In desperation the petitioner forwarded a copy of the charge sheet to an office bearer of the Union in Kolkata with whom he was acquainted by Whatsapp. During the night of December 12, 2019, the petitioner’s mother fell seriously ill as she was suffering from old age ailments. The petitioner was thus not in a position to seek permission for inspection of the concerned documents on December 13, 2019. December 14 and 15 2019 were Bank Holidays being 2nd Saturday and Sunday. Thus the petitioner had no opportunity at all to inspect the concerned documents relied in the charge sheet. On or about December 16, 2019, which was the 4th day of receipt of the charge sheet, the Disciplinary Authority served a notice on the petitioner informing the petitioner that no reply had been received and that a Departmental Enquiry into the charges framed against him would accordingly be held appointing Sunil Seth as the Enquiry Officer. As the Writ Petitioner did not receive any communication from the Union at Kolkata, he requested the Disciplinary Authority for extension of time by 15 days to reply to the charge sheet.

3. On December 17, 2019 in the late evening the petitioner received phone calls regarding advise to response to the charge sheet. The petitioner immediately prepared a reply to the charge sheet on December 18, 2019. During Office hours on December 18, 2019 the petitioner fell ill and was admitted to a local Government hospital at Hamiltanganj.

4. Since the petitioner could not submit the reply on December 18, 2019 the same was submitted by his wife subsequently on December 19, 2019. A separate letter to the Bank was also submitted by his wife. On December 18, 2019 the petitioner suffered Bifasciular Block CAG-Myarrdial bridging. He fe