LAKSHMAN KUMAR MONDAL Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the departmental proceedings on the ground that the chargesheet could not be issued and no departmental proceeding could be initiated and proceeded with, in view of Clause 6.3 of the Manual on disciplinary action and related matters of UCO Bank read with Clause 2.1 thereof. According to the petitioner, a disciplinary proceeding starts with the issue of the chargesheet, as is laid down in Clause 2.1 of the Manual. As such, issue of chargesheet is a step for proceeding departmentally. In terms of Clause 6.3, a departmental proceeding cannot be proceeded against a delinquent, if steps have been taken to prosecute an employee or get him prosecuted for an offence involving moral turpitude, unless he is put on trial within a year of commission of offence. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the expression "commission of offence" means the day when the commission of offence is brought to the notice of the prosecuting authority, namely, the date of lodging of the FIR and as such, unless one year expires from the lodging of the FIR, the departmental proceeding cannot be initiated. He also relies on the decision in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v, Bharat Gold Mines Limited & Anr., reported in AIR 1999 SC 1416 : 1999 (3) SCC 679 : 1999-I-LLJ- 1094, in support of his contention.

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, points out to Clause 19.4 of the Bipartite Settlement on the basis of which Clause 6.3 of the Manual was so incorporated. Relying on the said provision, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the one year embargo is related to the date of commission of offence and not the date of lodging of the FIR. He also contends that neither Clause 6.3 nor Clause 19.4 of the settlement prescribe issuing of the chargesheet. It is only the proceeding of the departmental enquiry that is prescribed. Therefore, the chargesheet was rightly issued and it could be proceeded with, since one year from the commission of offence has already expired. The decision in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) does not apply in the present case. Alternatively, he submits that if the period of one year is calculated from the date of commission of offence, in that event, chargesheet that has been issued on 5/03/2001, is a day long after lapse of one year after commission of offence. As such the same cannot be said to be invalid. He relied on the decision of this Court in Sekhar Chandra Saha v. West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation & Ors., reported in 1994 LIC NOC 331 (Cal).

(3.) I have heard the respective counsel at length, on the question of extension of Interim Order. Clause 19.4 of the Bipartite Settlement provides as follows: