BIDYUT KUMAR ROY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has claimed to be an employee under the Kalna Central Co -operative Bank Limited. Such Kalna Central Co -operative Bank was merged with the Burdwan Central Bank Limited in the year 1973 and consequently, the Petitioner became an employee of such Bank. According to the Petitioner, he has been working under the category of Supervisor and the duty of the Supervisor i.e. a field staff is to distribute the agricultural loans in the field outside the Bank office and also to make recovery of such loans from the loaners/agriculturists. By way of transfer, he joined to the Ukhra Branch on July 13, 1978 as a Bank assistant and took over the charge as an Officer -in -charge with effect from April 27, 1979. He also worked in the post of Officer -in -charge till December 20, 1988 and he handed over such charge to the incoming Branch Manager and started work at the said Branch as an Assistant Accountant from December 20, 1988 to January 16, 1989. Thereafter, he was transferred to Monteswar Branch of the said Bank as an Officer -in -charge and again he was transferred to Kalna Branch on January 19, 1990. While he was posted at Monteswar Branch, he was served with a preliminary charge -sheet. In the said charge -sheet, several charges were made against him and the Deputy Manager of the said Bank was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. Subsequently, he submitted that such preliminary charge -sheet was a show -cause notice under which the enquiry officer was appointed who was directed to enquire into the preliminary charges and he framed a final charge against the Petitioner. According to him, the reason for holding enquiry regarding preliminary charge was as to whether a disciplinary proceeding would be initiated against the delinquent or not. But whenever an enquiry officer has already been appointed, it has to be construed that there is a pre -determination of the case on the part of the management as against the delinquent in framing the charges. The enquiry officer wanted to know as to whether the Petitioner has any defence against the charges and he fixed a date for personal hearing. In compliance with the same, the Petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer and gave early replies denying all the charges. Additionally, he wrote a reply to the charges. He also wrote to the Bank for early realisation of the amount on which the dispute arose and to hand over to the management of the Bank. However, nothing else was done as against such preliminary charges even to the extent of framing of final charges. In the meantime, the Petitioner was transferred to Kalna Branch of the said Bank on promotion as Grade -ll A Officer. The Chief executive Officer of the said Bank served an order upon the Petitioner in the nature of show -cause as to why a disciplinary action would not be taken as against the Petitioner in terms of the provisions of Rule 30(3) of Ch. IX of the Service Rules for the employees of the Burdwan Central Co -operative Bank Limited. Again, an enquiry officer was appointed against the charge -sheet. However, a show -cause notice was issuer to the Petitioner by the enquiry officer stating therein that as to why no 'disciplinary action' would be taken against him. The Petitioner duly appeared before the enquiry officer and answered few oral questions put to him. Thereafter, the enquiry officer informed the Petitioner that further enquiry would be made at Ukhra Branch and advised the Petitioner to be present before the enquiry officer, the said Enquiry Officer was withdrawn by the Chief Executive Officer for some unknown reason and further ordered that a Sub -Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation would be appointed as a Presenting Officer. The Petitioner had no knowledge about the appointment of such Presenting Officer prior to August 10, 1990. According to the Petitioner, excepting the departmental staff, no one can be present in the case of dispute in between the employer and employees. The appointment of a staff of the Central Bureau of Investigation is not permissible under the Acts and Rules. The Petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer and recorded his attendance. But excepting the recording of attendance, nothing else was done in the enquiry till August 23, 1990.

(2.) The Petitioner appeared on August 24, 1990 and recorded similar attendance. Against this background although no enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer excepting the formalities but with an utter surprise, on October 19, 1990, the Petitioner received a letter from the Chief Executive Officer directing him to appear before the Board of Directors. Accordingly, he appeared but no meeting of the Board of Directors was held there to the knowledge of the Petitioner during the long period of waiting pursuant to such direction. As a result whereof he left the place in the late after -noon but by a letter dated October 29, 1990, the Chief Executive Officer of the said Bank dismissed the Petitioner from service of the said Bank from the after -noon of the same date, it was handed over to the Petitioner at 2.00 p.m. on the same date while the Petitioner was working at Kalna Branch. Upon perusing such order it has been observed that the charges framed against the Petitioner were proved to be in violation of the Rules made for the Bank. The Petitioner worked for the Bank which has been wholly established on the basis of the report of the enquiry officer. According to the Petitioner, such action is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. No enquiry was held. No witness was examined in presence of the Petitioner. No opportunity was given to cross -examine the witnesses. No scope was given for submission as against the enquiry report. No copy of the enquiry report was served upon him. Therefore, the action which has been taken by the Respondents -authorities frivolously, can be struck down by the writ court particularly when it is in violation of the Co -operative Rules.

(3.) Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bandopadhyay, learned Counsel appearing in support of the Petitioner, contended before this Court that when the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) has entrusted with the work of the disciplinary proceeding, the original proceeding was vitiated. From the purported finding of the enquiry officer I have come to know that he has drawn his inference by holding that 'Had Sri Roy followed all the norms relating to opening of accounts, withdrawal, cheque discounting, payment to L.I.C. account holders, such acts could not have occurred. Such acts could not have occurred with tacit approval, consent and connivance of Sri Roy who -must have ulterior motive behind the whole affairs. The acts of Sri Roy constitutes gross violation of the Service Rules of the Bank and as such he is required to be dealt in accordingly. Since the terms of reference to me do not contain any clause relating to recommendation to the management, I refrain from giving the same and conclude that the charges have been proved without any semblance of doubt.