ARUP BASU CHOWDHURY Vs. UCO BANK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal question that has arisen herein is as to when a challenge to the conduct of any disciplinary proceedings ought to be entertained in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The petitioner is an employee of the first respondent, which is a nationalised bank. The substance of the charges levelled against him is that he had exceeded his authority in granting over-draft facilities or overdrawal in certain loan accounts that had either resulted in pecuniary loss to the bank or had the potential to do so. The petitioner is familiar with the court and his previous essay about a year back set the clock back by several years upon his obtaining an order by which the punishment awarded to him was set aside on the ground of breach of the principles of natural justice.

(3.) The process of taking disciplinary action against the petitioner began by or about January, 2008. The voluminous papers appended to the petition reveal that a final order of April 13, 2010 was passed against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority, imposing a punishment of compulsory retirement from service. The appeal failed on January 20, 2011 whereupon the petitioner sought a review of the appellate order. On such review petition not being disposed of within reasonable time by the concerned executive director of the bank, the petitioner carried WP 31682(W) of 2013 to this court which was disposed of on October 7, 2013 with a direction on the concerned official to decide the review petition in accordance with law within four weeks of the receipt of a copy of the order. Upon the review failing, the petitioner challenged the order of punishment, as upheld in appeal and not interfered with in review, in WP no. 172 of 2014.