MRINAL KANTI CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This is an appeal against the judgment and order dt. 19th March, 1990 passed by the learned trial Judge is Civil Order No. 2713 (W) of 1990. In the writ application the appellant-writ petitioner challenged the validity of the charge-sheet dt. 26th December, 1989 as also for release of the retirement benefit, namely, the provident fund dues, leave salaries, gratuity etc. together with interest thereon. The appellant was appointed as a clerk under 24-Parganas (South), Southern Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and in the year 1965 he was promoted to the post of Head Assistant Subsequently, he was designated as Office Superintendent. Thereafter the appellant was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager and from that post he was further promoted to the post of Branch Manager. The appellant writ petitioner was due to retire from service on attaining the normal age of superannuation on 31st December, 1987. After the retirement, the service of the appellant petitioner was extended for one year with effect from 1st January, 1988 and another extension of service was also given to the appellant petitioner for further period of one year with effect from 1st August, 1989. It was alleged that such extension of service was given by the bank authorities considering the past performance of the petitioner. Accordingly the appellant after completion of such extended service was due to retire from the bank on and from 1st January, 1990. On 23rd December, 1989 the appellant petitioner submitted an application for leave up to December 30, 1989 and proceeded on such leave preparatory retirement after handing over charge to one, Sri K. P. Mondal. During this period on 26th December, 1989, a charge-sheet was served to the petitioner by a special messenger. The charge-sheet was issued by the Special Officer, West Bengal State Co-operative Bank. Thereafter the General Manager of the said bank by a letter dt. 5th January, 1990 informed the appellant petitioner that the Board of Directors of the said bank in the meeting held on 1st January, 1990 directed to withhold the retirement benefit of the appellant petitioner till the enquiry proceeding was completed.

(2.) The appellant petitioner thereafter moved a writ application before the learned trial Judge on 19th March, 1990 challenging the said charge-sheet and also against the withholding of the said retirement benefit. The writ application was heard by the learned trial Judge and by order dt.19th March, 1990 the learned trial Judge disposed of the writ application by giving liberty to the appellant writ petitioner to raise all points taken in the writ petition before the disciplinary authority including the maintainability of show-cause by the disciplinary proceeding itself. It was further observed that the appellant petitioner raised the question regarding the validity of the initiation of the proceeding and the issuance of the charge-sheet and that if such points were raised, in that event authority concerned shall consider the same to the basis of matter on records by passing a reasoned order. The learned trial Judge also gave time within which the appellant petitioner should submit reply of the show cause and the disciplinary authority was also directed to conclude the said proceeding within certain time.

(3.) The age of retirement was 58 years and that on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31st December, 1989 a notice of retirement was served upon the appellant petitioner. The extension was given by the managing committee of the bank initially for one year with effect from 1st January, 1988 and another extension was given for a period of one year with effect from 1st August 1989. The charges against the appellant petitioner were as follows : "You were grossly negligent in preserving valuable documents such as, Title Deeds, Deeds of Lease, agreement for sale etc. although you were responsible for their safe-custody. You deliberately omitted to take appropriate steps regarding Court cases relating to the landed property of the bank (24 Parganas South Unit) at Diamond Harbour. As a result of failure on your part to diligently look after the matters the Bank suffered enormous loss and prejudice. You deliberately allowed the litigation to go in favour of the parties whose interest was adverse to the Bank. You failed to take reasonable care for the protection of the property belonging to the Bank. The bank has lost substantially in respect of the said property by reason of your willful disregard of duties and responsibilities attached to your office and/or gross negligence. You are hereby charged with having committed gross misconduct causing loss of Bank's property either willfully or by gross negligence or dereliction of duties."