SWAPAN KUMAR BASU Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ application has been filed, inter alia, challenging the entire disciplinary proceedings and for quashing the charge-sheet, order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order of the Appellate Authority. It is the petitioner's case that the petitioner was appointed as clerk with United Bank of India (in short "UBI"). In course of his employment, by an order dtd. 26/8/1987, he was placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental proceedings. On 27/8/1987, Senior Chief Manager of UBI lodged a FIR and on the basis thereof, a criminal case being G.R. Case No. 2951 of 1989, T.R. No. 102 of 2002 was initiated against the petitioner which ultimately culminated in an order of acquittal passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15thCourt, Calcutta.

(2.) It is also the petitioner's case that in the interregnum, UBI stopped paying the petitioner subsistence allowance which he was entitled. This prompted the petitioner to approach this Hon'ble Court. By order dtd. 17/4/2003, this Hon'ble Court directed UBI to consider the fixation of subsistence allowance within a specified time frame. Despite passing of such order, since the General Manager (Personnel) of the UBI by his letter dtd. 19/6/2003, refused to fix the subsistence allowance, the petitioner filed another application before this Hon'ble Court which was registered as WP No.1579 of 2003. By judgment and order dtd. 12/1/2004, this Hon'ble Court directed that the petitioner was entitled to benefits of the Bipartite Settlement. The aforesaid order passed by this Hon'ble Court was carried in appeal. It is in connection with the aforesaid appeal that the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court fixed the subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner at Rs.5000.00. Since UBI did not proceed with the aforesaid appeal, the same was, accordingly dismissed by an order dtd. 26/7/2005.

(3.) It is during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal that the UBI issued a charge-sheet against the petitioner dtd. 8/4/2005. The petitioner had duly responded to the said charge-sheet. It is the further case of the petitioner that notwithstanding the petitioner's objection, the Disciplinary Authority had continued with the disciplinary proceedings during the pendency of the criminal trial and had also passed a final order. In the interregnum, challenging the continuance of disciplinary proceedings, a writ application being WP No. 1737 of 2005 was filed. The aforesaid writ application was finally heard and disposed of by order dtd. 20/3/2009, in terms whereof both the disciplinary proceedings as also the final order passed in connection with the same were quashed. Later by an order dtd. 8/7/2009, the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, in an appeal arising out of the order dtd. 20/3/2009 passed by the learned Single Judge, was pleased to permit the Disciplinary Authority to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings afresh, as in the interregnum the criminal proceedings had come to an end by an order dtd. 30/12/2005, passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 15thCourt, Calcutta.