UNITED BANK OF INDIA Vs. PRADYUT KUMAR MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of the respondent no.1 of the writ petition arises out of order dated 25.03.2010 passed in W.P. No.15326 (W) of 1997, by which Learned Single Judge was pleased to set aside the punishment awarded to the writ petitioner and direct the respondent no.1 to impose punishment on the writ petitioner for minor misconduct.

(2.) The writ petitioner was a cash clerk of the United Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the appellant bank). It is alleged that on 7th September, 1983 at 3:40 p.m. the writ petitioner left the Titagarh Branch of the appellant bank where he was working and entered Kanchrapara Branch of the said bank. It is further alleged that the writ petitioner entered the chamber of the agent of Kanchrapara Branch of the appellant bank and abused him with filthy language and threatened him with bodily injury. The writ petitioner was charged for committing the following misconduct: i) riotous and/or disorderly or indecent behaviour on the premises of the bank, ii) doing an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank, iii) leaving the place of work and iv) interfered with the bank's work without any purpose. The departmental enquiry started against the writ petitioner on the allegation of committing the above misconduct culminated in imposition of penalty of "stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect having the effect of postponing future increments." The writ petitioner challenged the order of imposition of penalty dated 27th April, 1985 by filing W.P. No.15326 (W) of 1997 which was disposed of on 25.03.2010. Learned Single Judge was pleased to set aside the order of imposition of penalty on the writ petitioner and directed the appellant bank to revise punishment in the light of the observations made in the judgement, so that only penalty contemplated for minor misconduct may be imposed.

(3.) It is held by Learned Single Judge that the charges alleged against the writ petitioner have not been proved and that there is also an element of bias on the part of the Enquiry Officer in coming to the conclusion that the charges have been proved. It is also held by Learned Single Judge that the conduct of the writ petitioner may fall within the ambit of minor misconduct and as such the disciplinary authority was directed to impose punishment on the writ petitioner for minor misconduct.