DILIP KUMAR SARKAR Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 19. 5. 2005 passed by the Deputy General Manager and c. R. M. , Appellate authority, United Bank of India. The petitioner, by filing such application, also sought for quashing of the order of dismissal dated 15. 3. 2005 passed by the Assistant Manager and Disciplinary Authority, United Bank of India.

(2.) THE backdrop of the present case may briefly be stated as follows:-Petitioner was appointed as cash clerk in the U. B. I. , Kolay Market Branch on 16th may, 1973. After more than 30 years, certain complaints were lodged i. e. on 29. 10. 2003 resulting in the authority's issuance of an order of suspension dated 1. 11. 2003. Charge sheet was thereafter issued on 25th March, 2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 30th april, 2004. Enquiry proceedings commenced on 21st May, 2004. It was on 3rd of March, 2005 that the petitioner was intimated about the proposed punishment of dismissal from service. He was requested to appear on 14th March, 2005 before the disciplinary authority. Then on 15. 3. 2005, the order of dismissal was issued and thus, the petitioner was dismissed from service with immediate effect. On 24th March, 2005, he challenged the order of dismissal by preferring an appeal. He appeared before the said authority on 29th April, 2005. The appellate authority by its order dated 19th May, 2005 affirmed the order of dismissal dated 15. 3. 2005 as made by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner thereafter filed the instant application seeking necessary redress.

(3.) THE respondent/bank, by filing Affidavit-in-Opposition, denied the material allegations made in the writ application. It was claimed that the petitioner being an Award staff is admittedly a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 and as such, he has an efficacious alternative remedy before a Forum under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, maintainability of the writ application was challenged. It was further claimed that adjudication of the controversy raised in the application involves analysis of the disputed question of facts which, a writ court is not likely to entertain. It was specifically claimed that during his service at Sealdah Branch of the respondent/bank, the petitioner allegedly committed certain gross misconduct within the meaning of Clause 5 (j) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th April, 2002. The petitioner gave reply to the charge sheet by letter dated 30th April, 2004. Since it was not considered to be satisfactory, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the charge sheet dated 25th March, 2004. The petitioner duly participated in the said enquiry and was afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Such enquiry was held in due compliance with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was duly represented by his representative Sri Amalendu Halder, Cash-cum-General Clerk, New market Branch of the respondent/bank and Vice-President, National Executive, UBIFC. He was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses who adduced evidence on behalf of the management and was further given opportunity to produce his own witnesses. The Enquiry officer thereafter submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 12th July, 2004 thereby holding that all the charges as levelled against the petitioner were proved or partially proved. The petitioner was thereafter served with a copy of such report and was invited to make his submission on the same. Such service could be effected through the superintendent of Presidency Correctional Home, Alipore on 20th August, 2004 during his remand to the Correctional Home. The petitioner was released on 14th October, 2004, but did not choose to furnish his submission on the enquiry report. The authority concerned by subsequent letter dated 17th November, 2004 offered further opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner on 23rd November, 2004 responded to the same. After taking into consideration all relevant facts and materials, the disciplinary authority issued second show cause notice. It was tentatively decided by the disciplinary authority to impose the major penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner. But the authority before taking a final decision gave an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard personally in terms of Clause 12 (a) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th April, 2002. Petitioner was given a personal hearing on 14. 3. 2005. The said authority after due consideration of all relevant aspects imposed the penalty of "dismissal without notice". The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said punishment of dismissal on 24th March, 2005. By letter dated 22nd April, 2005, the petitioner was given an opportunity of such personal hearing and accordingly, he appeared before the appellate authority on 29th April, 2005. The said authority by passing a reasoned order dated 19. 5. 2005 confirmed the punishment of "dismissal without notice" that was imposed by the disciplinary authority. On behalf of the respondent/bank, it was repeatedly claimed that the entire disciplinary enquiry was conducted in due compliance with the relevant rules and following the principles of natural justice. As a result of such misconduct on the part of the writ petitioner, the respondent/bank had been exposed to a financial loss to the extent of Rs. 5. 54 lakhs. It was categorically denied that the punishment inflicted on the writ petitioner was, by any means, disproportionate to the charges.