SAUBIR BHATTACHARYA Vs. JAI PRAKASH KORI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') with a request to set aside the order dated 12.12.05 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur in criminal complaint case No.50/05 (Jai Prakash Kori Vs. Chief General Manager and others) and unregistered criminal complaint case No.UR/2005 (Jai Prakash Kori Vs. Saubir Bhattacharya and others) to quash both the proceedings of criminal complaint cases pending against the petitioners in which the cognizance was taken and to discharge the petitioners.

(2.) The petitioners have preferred this petition disclosing various facts of both the cases and brief facts for the disposal of the petition are as follows:- The petitioners are either working or retired officers of the State Bank of India. The respondent No.1 was an officer in Junior Manager Grade Scale I in the State Bank of India and he was posted at Ambikapur Branch. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the respondent No. 1 and as the charges were found proved against the respondent No.l, the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed vide order annexure 3 against the respondent No.l by the then Chief General Manager, who was the Appointing Authority. Being aggrieved by tins order, the respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal against the said order, but the same was rejected. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging his dismissal and the punishment was converted into removal from service. The Letters Patent Appeal was preferred by both the parties against this order and the order of dismissal from service, passed against the appeal was preferred by both parties against tins order and the order of dismissal from service, passed against the respondent No.l, was quashed and the case was sent back to the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the matter after providing opportunity of hearing to respondent No. 1 vide order annexure 16. The petitioner No.3 after reconsideration of the matter, found that some of the charges have been proved and two charges were partially proved and then the petitioner No. 2, who was the Appointing Authority, imposed the punishment of removal from service against the respondent No.1.

(3.) The respondent No. 1, instead of filling a departmental appeal against that order, preferred a writ petition No. 5065/05. The respondent No. 1 preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the order passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.691/02, but the same was dismissed holding that the respondent has remedy to challenge the order passed by the Appointing Authority. The petitioner No.2 passed the order annexure 8 on 17.12.04 and against this order, the writ petition has been filed by the respondent No. 1.