SANJIB CHATTERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is at the instance of Five employees of the United Industrial Bank Ltd., who have challenged the criminal proceeding initiated by respondent 2, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on the basis of a complaint filed by respondent 9 Chief Officer (Administration and Vigilance) at the head office of the said Bank on the grounds inter alia, that the said complaint does not prima facie disclose any cognizable offence to be investigated upon and there was unusual delay in submitting a final report/charge-sheet as envisaged in S. 173 Cr. P. C. by the Investigating Officer for about a period of three years.

(2.) The facts in brief are as follows Petitioners 1 to 5 are employed in the said bank as clerks and were entrusted to discharge duties attached to the post of Teller, Special Assistants, ledger keeper, etc., in the bank. It has been stated that petitioner 2 was elected as the general secretary of the United Industrial Bank Sports Club sometime in March, 1978 and since then he was relieved by the management of the normal duties in the bank as he was entrusted with the duty of looking after the sports organisation of the bank, and on some occasions he had to do duties of a clerk in the cash department.

(3.) It has been further stated that all these petitioners, i.e. 1, 3, 4 and 5 used to work under the control of respondent 9, and in accordance with the rules, every cheque above a sum of Rs. 5000/- before encashment has to be verified, signed and passed by the branch manager before any payment on such cheque is made. It has been stated that on 5th February, 1982 notices to show cause were issued to the petitioners alleging that they were involved in activities siphoning out bank money in connection with an alleged fictitious account opened in the name of a concern, M. M. Cloth Stores. It has been stated that on receiving the said show cause notices, the petitioners 2, 4 and 5 replied on 10th March, 1982 and 12-2-1982 denying the allegations made against them and also asked for inspection of some of the documents. It has been stated that the procedure for enquiry in connection with a disciplinary proceeding as provided in the bipartite settlement, more particularly, in paras 19.12 has not been properly observed or followed by the management. It has been alleged that the disciplinary proceeding was purported to be abandoned as the same was not proceeded with and the criminal proceedings were started against the petitioners. It has been further alleged that on the basis of the purported FIR warrant of arrest against the manager of the said bank was issued and he was subsequently enlarged on bail. The petitioners also were arrested and were enlarged on bail on various dates dating from 8th May 1982 to 17th May 1982. After their enlargement on bail the petitioners tried to resume their duties in the office of the bank where the manager verbally asked them not to resume their duties as they have been suspended. On 10th May, 1982 the petitioners were placed under suspension. The petitioners thereafter moved the instant writ application before this Court on 15th October, 1982 wherein Basak, J. passed an interim order to the effect that investigation should continue in accordance with law and directed the police authorities to submit report stating the time they require for the purpose of completing the investigation and submitting charge-sheet. On November 29, 1982 the learned Judge passed another order directing this matter to appear after six weeks as a listed motion and the officer-in-charge of the Police Station was directed to submit his report on the said date. On 7th February, 1983 this matter again appeared before G. N. Ray, J. who was pleased to issue a Rule and pass an interim order to this extent that the investigation in the criminal case against the petitioners will proceed subject to the result of the Rule. It was also recorded in the said order that it was reasonably accepted that the police authorities would complete investigation as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months from that date. The petitioners were further directed to serve copies of the writ petition on the respondents and to file an affidavit of service. Thereafter this matter has come up for hearing before this Court.