IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: - Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhendu Samanta.

IN THE MATTER OF WPA 2728 (W) of 2020 With CAN 1 of 2022 Pratul Kumar Nayak Vs.

United Bank of India & Ors For the Petitioners : Mr. Sidhartha Banerjee, Adv., Ms. Chittapriya Ghosh, Adv., Mr. Gautam Acharya, Adv., Ms. Priyanka Saha, Adv.

For the respondent Bank : Mr. RN Majumder, Adv.

Mr. S.M. Obaidullah, Adv.

Mr. R. Chowdhury Adv Reserved on : 27.03.2025 Judgment on : 11.06.2025 Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. Petitioner was working as a Head Cashier, United Bank of India Raghurampur Branch, under Purba Medinipur region. He was served with a memo Dated 17th March 2018 issued by Chief Manager (DIR) and a competent Authority, by such he had been suspended from service with immediate effect pending disciplinary action and disposal thereof. Subsequently a charge sheet dated 17.11.2018 was issued against the petitioner alleging gross misconduct in terms of Clause 5 (a) and Clause 5 (k) read with Clause 5 (j) of memorandum of settlement dated 10.04.2002.

2. Petitioner submitted written statement of defence against the said charge sheet. Chief Manager (DIR) and Disciplinary Authority also forwarded a list of documents relied by the authorities to the petitioner. By placing the written statement of defence, the petitioner denied and disputed the allegation contained in the charge sheet, inquiry officer was appointed. The Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 31st May, 2019 has passed the final order of punishment as a major punishment imposed upon petition to the effect that “removal from service with superannuation benefits, i.e., Pension and/or Provident funds and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the rules or regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment” in terms of Clause 6 (b) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th April, 2010 with immediate effect.

3. Petitioner approached to the appellate authority, the appellate authority after hearing the petitioner has affirmed the final order of punishment issued by the disciplinary authority by its order dated

16.09.2019.

4. Being aggrieved by against the order dated 16.09.2019, petitioner approached this court through a writ petition being WP No. 20728 (w) of 2019 for seeking necessary direction. After hearing the parties a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated- November 19, 2019 remanded back the matter to the appellate authority to take a fresh decision with regard to ground Nos. (X) to (XIV) of Paragraph (XVI) of memo of appeal filed by the petitioner.

5. In terms of the said direction the concerned authority has passed the impugned order on 21st January 2020.

6. Hence this writ.

7. It is the contention of the petitioner that order of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority and punishment thereof against the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner is suffering double jeopardy in this matter. The concerned authority/respondent authority has already imposed punishment upon the petitioner on the earlier occasion against the selfsame alleged charges. Now the impugned order of punishment by the disciplinary authority is a complete non-application of mind. He submits that it would be revealed from the charges that for Para-B of the charges the concern authority has passed a punishment to the petitioner in terms of “sensor” vide a memorandum dated 22nd December 2017 issued by Chief Manage (Admin).

8. He further submits that according to Clause 9 of bipartite settlement “sensor” come under punishment for gross misconduct. The authority concern has already imposed the punishment. Thus they cannot again impose punishment for the same offence. It is the further contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that at the time of serving show cause upon the petitioner the respondent authority has served 16 Nos. of relied documents but during the course of departmental proceed