SUBRATA KUMAR CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the alleged illegal and arbitrary decision of the respondent authority by way of initiating "de novo" enquiry.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the State Bank of India as far back as in 1994. He was transferred to local head office at Kolkata in September, 1999. In 2004, he was shifted to Howrah Zonal Office where he was posted as Senior Assistant. The petitioner was promoted to the Junior Management Grade Scale-I w. e. f. 10. 11. 2006. He was served with a charge sheet dated 24th April, 2006 issued by the respondent No. 2 wherein it was alleged that one Ms. Amrita Mukherjee, Assistant BPMM and GB, Zonal office, Howrah had made allegations against him in her complaint dated 18th February, 2005. The charges against the petitioner are as follows:-

(3.) THE petitioner was directed to submit an explanation in respect of the said alleged misconduct within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter. The petitioner submitted his explanation before respondent No. 2 on May 3, 2006. He claimed that the allegations made by Ms. Amrita Mukherjee are wild, fictitious and false. He referred to the fact that he replied to such similar allegations earlier also. The petitioner denied that there had been any marriage between him and the said Amrita Mukherjee. He had no marital relation with Ms. Amrita Mukherjee. He also mentioned that on the basis of a complaint, the police authority started a case under Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code being G. R. Case No. 2103 of 2002. The same is reportedly pending before the learned 5th Court of judicial Magistrate, Howrah. He further claimed that the trial of the said criminal case has since begun. The petitioner further stated that there could be no occasion for him to cause any harassment or distress to Ms. Amrita Mukherjee. The petitioner emphatically submitted that there could be no basis whatsoever in the claim that the said Ms. Amrita mukherjee is married to the petitioner. The petitioner further denied to have made any derogatory remarks to her, which could be construed as sexual harassment. Thus, the petitioner claimed that he did not cause any misconduct within the meaning of the provisions of 5 (t) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10. 4. 2002. He approached the authority concerned for dropping the proposed enquiry and sought to be exonerated from all charges.