Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AMRITA SINHA, J.
Nitya Ranjan Mallick – Appellant
Versus
Punjab National Bank and Another – Respondents
WPO No. 684 of 2024
Decided On : 20-05-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. historical factual background of employment, disciplinary proceedings, and criminal case acquittal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding departmental proceedings, criminal acquittal, and maintainability of writ. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 3. petitioner's arguments asserting the existence of overlapping remedies and common law rights. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 4. court's discretion to hear writ petitions notwithstanding alternative statutory remedies due to specific circumstances. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 5. evaluation of disciplinary proceedings, evidence sufficiency, and scope of judicial review intervention. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 6. distinction between criminal acquittal and departmental guilt; limitations on judicial interference in administrative punishments. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61) |
| 7. disciplinary findings upheld; writ petition dismissed due to lack of procedural infirmity. (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65) |
JUDGMENT :
AMRITA SINHA, J.
1. The petitioner was serving as a general clerk in the United Bank of India, currently merged with the Punjab National Bank. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and he was placed under suspension with effect from 10th November, 1994. Subsistence allowance was paid to him. Charge sheet was issued on 30th January, 1996. An enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was provided opportunity to defend himself. The enquiry report was submitted on 19th June, 1998.
2. The disciplinary authority passed order of dismissal of the petitioner from service without notice on 25th March, 1999. Appeal was preferred by the petitioner on 8th May, 1999 mentioning that the grounds of appeal would be submitted at the time of hearing. The petitioner submitted his grounds of appeal on 1st October, 2010.
3. A writ petition being WP No. 13950 (W) of 2012 was filed by the petitioner alleging non-disposal of his appeal. The said writ petition was heard and disposed of by the Court on 14th August, 2023 directing the competent appellate authority to consider and dispose of the appeal within four months by passing a reasoned order after giving the petitioner opportunity of hearing and to allow the petitioner to rely upon relevant documents in support of his defence.
4. After issuance of the charge sheet against the petitioner and during pendency of the departmental proceeding, the Branch Manager of the bank where he was serving, filed a written complaint against him before the police giving rise to Bongaon Police Case No. 35 dated 15th February, 1995 under Sections 420/468/467/471/409 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge sheet in the criminal case was filed against the petitioner on 19th March, 1999. On trial of the criminal case the petitioner stood acquitted vide judgment dated 25th February, 2010 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, Barasat, North 24 Parganas.
5. The sheet anchor of the petitioner’s submission is that as the departmental proceeding and the criminal proceeding stood initiated on self-same charges and as the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case by the competent court of law, accordingly, the order of dismissal passed against him by his employer ought to be revoked and he ought to be reinstated in service along with all service benefits.
6. It has been submitted that both the proceedings were initiated approximately at the same point of time. The departmental proceeding ought to have been kept in abeyance till the disposal of the criminal case. It has been contended that the employer deliberately proceeded with the disciplinary proceeding and passed the order of dismissal on surmises and conjectures. None of the persons whose bank account were alleged to have been tampered by the petitioner ever affirmed such allegation in the criminal proceeding. On t
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference in departmental proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 and the importance of justifying the penalty imposed.
Acquittal in a criminal case does not entitle automatic reinstatement in employment; employers have discretionary power in disciplinary proceedings based on misconduct.
Disciplinary proceedings against bank employees must adhere to established regulations, and decisions upheld by the appellate authority are not subject to re-evaluation by the High Court unless deeme....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
