BANDANA DEY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the present case raise several issues of not only legal but also social import. The sequence of events involved in the case not only touch on the dreary legalism but the problem arising therefrom should be answered keeping a broader aspect in mind. The petitioner is the widow of a former bank employee who died on July 24, 2006 before he attained the age of superannuation. When he was in service of the concerned bank a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on charges of certain financial irregularities. He was found guilty and an order of removal was passed against him. An appeal taken against the said order of the disciplinary authority was ultimately rejected.

(2.) Simultaneously with the departmental proceeding the bank authorities had lodged a complaint with the police and a criminal case was started against the said employee. Ultimately the said employee was found not guilty and was acquitted. After acquittal in the criminal case the petitioner's husband had filed a representation before the bank authorities for his reinstatement in service. Since the petitioner's husband died in the meantime his widow, i.e., the present petitioner had filed a writ petition before this court which was disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the bank ventilating all her grievances including the appointment of her son on compassionate ground. The petitioner accordingly submitted the representation but the same was turned down by the bank authorities which has been assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Lakshi Kumar Gupta, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submitted that since the employee was acquitted of the charges after a full-fledged trial the order of removal passed by the bank authorities based on self-same charges cannot stand when the evidence in both the proceedings was the same. Mr. Gupta submitted that at the disciplinary proceeding the employer had produced only one witness but at the trial the prosecution produced as many as 15 witnesses. According to him when a court of law had acquitted an accused the same must prevail over the finding of a disciplinary authority.