JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.

Prelude :

1. In invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner, through the present writ petition, challenges the propriety and justifiability of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, including the charge-sheet dated 23rd January 2010, the Enquiry Report communicated to him via a memo dated 28th December 2010, and the final order of dismissal from service. The petitioner also seeks the quashing of these documents and prays for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, commanding his reinstatement to the position from which he was dismissed.

Facts

2. Before addressing the contentious issue involved in the writ petition, the key facts emerging from the pleadings of the parties and the documents relied on by them that need to be adumbrated.

Contents of writ petition:

i) While serving as Assistant Grade-II (Deposit) in the Durgapur Steel People's Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'), the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 23^rd January, 2010 by the Chief Executive of the Bank. The charge-sheet contained two articles of charge, which are as follows:

a) On June 24, 2009, the specimen signature card of Sri Sunil Kumar Dhibar, the holder of Savings Bank Account No. 17, was altered. The alteration involved crossing out the specimen signature of the account holder and replacing it with the Left Thumb Impression (LTI) of Sri Dhibar, which has been denied by him. Sri Satchidananda Mukhopadhyay, without proper authorization or certification from the Bank Manager, made this alteration. Moreover, he did not sign the specimen signature card to disclose who made the change, although he himself registered the alteration in the bank’s computer system.

Subsequently, on June 27, 2009, a sum of Rs. 3,90,000/- was withdrawn using a withdrawal slip based on the LTI, which is again denied by the account holder, Sri Sunil Kumar Dhibar.

Therefore, Sri Satchidananda Mukhopadhyay was charged with major misconduct under Clause 27(J) of the Bank’s Service Rules. His actions exposed the bank to a significant potential loss of Rs. 3,90,000/-.

b) On August 5, 1992, Sri Sunil Kumar Dhibar of Village - Sreerampur, P.O. - Andal, District - Burdwan, with Membership No. 21193, opened a Savings Bank Account with the Bank. This account was assigned the number SB Account No. 17, and the Ledger Folio No. was 1/17. On the same day, Sri Dhibar signed the Specimen Signature Card, and his signature was verified by the authorized person of the bank.

However, on June 24, 2009, Sri Satchidananda Mukhopadhyay, while serving as Assistant (Deposit), took hold of the specimen card and made an unauthorized modification. He changed the account holder’s signature to a LTI without obtaining the certification or approval of an authorized bank officer. In doing so, Sri Mukhopadhyay crossed out Sri Dhibar’s original signature and failed to sign the specimen signature card to acknowledge the change he made. Instead, he only recorded the change from signature to LTI in the bank's computer system.

It is important to note that the depositor, Sri Sunil Kumar Dhibar, never intended to change his signature to an LTI. Furthermore, on June 27, 2009, an amount of Rs. 3,90,000/- (Three Lakhs Ninety Thousand only) was fraudulently withdrawn from the account using the LTI, which had not been certified by any authorized officer of the bank. The depositor has denied receiving the amount of Rs. 3,90,000/-.

Sri Satchidananda Mukhopadhyay’s actions were marked by gross negligence and failure to follow proper procedures, which have exposed the bank to a significant risk of loss.

ii) The charge-sheet, inter alia, notified the petitioner of an inquiry to be conducted against him in relation to charges, which he did not admit. The petitioner was asked to submit his written statement of defence on the Articles of charges.

iii) In his written defense, Sri Satchidananda Mukhopadhyay, Assistant-Grade-III (Deposit), a