DILIP KUMAR MUKHERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner seeks for cancellation of the suspension order dated 21st October, 2009 so also cancellation of the order of dismissal dated 28th December, 2010 amongst other reliefs.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was discharging his duties as Chief Executive of the respondent No. 4 Co operative Bank. In course of discharge of his duties, the petitioner is to receive withdrawal intimation slip in case a constituent is desirous of withdrawing monies from the co operative bank. The said information given in the withdrawal slip is entered in the computer and the slip is made over to the constituent. A requisition slip was put in by A/c. Holder No. 17 and on completion of formalities monies was disbursed to him. On the alleged ground of non receipt of sums and wrongful debit a complaint was filed by A/c. Holder No. 17 and on such complaint the petitioner was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. A charge sheet was issued to which a reply was given by the petitioner. The same was issued by an authority who was not empowered to do so. Without considering the same the enquiry was proceeded with. This renders the enquiry proceedings a nullity. Non consideration of the deposition reflects the bias attitude of the enquiry officer, which renders his finding perverse. The Enquiry Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by considering a charge not before him. The report of the Enquiry Officer did not consider the petitioner's representation. The disciplinary authority did not prove the charge and for assigning no reasons the order of dismissal be set aside.

(3.) ON 25.6.2009 the delinquent received the intimation slip but the charge levelled is that the registration made by him was without receiving the intimation slip and the same was also not given by him for binding or preservation. This was not the task of the petitioner. To the charge sheet which is no charge sheet a reply was given by the delinquent. At hearing the complainant though cross examined was not examined in the presence of the petitioner. It is on the basis of such invalid proceedings that the Enquiry Report was submitted. The Enquiry Officer did not rely on the report of Ascent Technologies which categorically stated that a withdrawal notice had been registered on 27.6.2009 @10:48:53 for 3,90,000/ in respect of Account No. 17. This matched with the document produced by the petitioner but the finding of the Enquiry Officer is to the contrary. Conducting the examination of the complainant in the absence of the delinquent vitiates the proceedings. The Enquiry Officer has relied on the evidence of Ratna Bhowmick (PW 5) who stated in her evidence that no intimation slip was given between 19.6.2009 and 29.6.2009, but this is contrary to the documents on record which show that on 29.6.2009 an intimation slip was filed for payment on 30.6.2009 for sum s exceeding 50,000/ . This was specifically stated in the petitioner's reply to the Report of the Enquiry Officer but the same was not considered prior to passing the order of dismissal.