N.L. MAPARI Vs. UCO BANK, A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1970 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT, UCO BANK, HEAD OFFICE, KOLKATA - 700

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner had put in 27 years of service with the by an order dated 7.4.2006 by the second respondent. An appeal filed against that order not having been considered for a long time, the petitioner had approached this court by way of a writ petition in WP 1139/2007. This court disposed of the writ petition by its order dated 19.2.2007, with a direction to the appellate authority to decide the appeal within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. However, the appellate authority by its order dated 12.6.2007 dismissed the appeal. Questioning the same, the present petition is filed.

(3.) WHILE the learned counsel for the respondents would strongly resist the petition and would submit that insofar as the charges, in respect of which, the disciplinary authority may not have given reasons and which opinion was expressed without hearing the petitioner, even if held to be an infirmity, the appellate authority having eschewed those charges and having proceeded to affirm the order of punishment, with reference to other charges which were equally grave. The punishment imposed being in accordance with law and though the petitioner was liable to be dismissed from service, the appellate authority having taken a liberal view, that the order of compulsory retirement would sufficiently meet the ends of justice there is no infirmity. He would further submit that insofar as the legal position is concerned, he is supported by the opinion expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union Bank of India Vs. Vishwa Mohan, AIR 1998 SC 2311 and would also submit that even if this court were to take a view that the matter ought to be remanded to the disciplinary authority, no purpose would be served as the result is predictable having regard to the gravity of the charges which are held proved and having regard to the large number of charges which are of a serious nature. He would submit further that the consequence of such a remand would reward the petitioner with a large amount of money by way of subsistence allowance which ought not to be and he would submit that the petitioner being provided any such benefit ought to be prospective and further subject to the result of the further proceedings. For otherwise, the learned counsel would submit that, it would result in grave injustice and imbalance to the respondents. In this regard, he would place reliance on Paragraph -35 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, etc. etc. Vs. Karunakar, etc. etc., AIR 1994 SC 1074 , to contend that the consequential relief, if this court were inclined to grant, ought to be prospective and the monetary benefits ought not to be extended to the petitioner with effect from a retrospective date from the date of dismissal from service as it would result in undue benefit to the petitioner.