AMARENDRA NATH PAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The continuance of the departmental proceedings simultaneously with the Criminal Trial initiated on the basis of the first information report, dated June 28,1987, against the writ petitioner, Amarendra Nath Pan has been challenged in the instant writ petition.

(2.) At the time of admission of the writ petition, it appears that A. K. Sengupta, J, issued Civil Order, together with interim Order in terms of prayer (d) of the writ petition, which is set out hereinbelow:

(3.) It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was appointed as 'Chief Cashier' of United Commercial Bank, now UCO Bank at its Bagri Branch on March 6, 1971. From 1971 to 1987, the petitioner had been discharging the duties as 'Chief Cashier' of the said branch, without any difficulty. In the course of discharging function, as 'Chief Cashier', the petitioner was transferred to the Office of the Divisional Manager, West Bengal Division-III at 96, Deshpran Sasmal Road, Howrah. While he was working in the said office, the Divisional Manager, West Bengal Division-III (hereinafter referred to as the disciplinary authority) served the petitioner with a letter, dated July 2, 1987, informing that it was proposed to hold 'an enquiry', against the petitioner, under Regulation 6 of the UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Regulation'). Statement of allegations and the charges framed on the basis of the said allegations was also enclosed along with the said letter and the petitioner was directed to submit written statement of his defence within 10 days from the receipt of the said letter. On receipt of the said letter and the enclosure, the petitioner wrote back to the Disciplinary Authority, generally, deying the four articles of charges enclosed to the letter, dated July 2, 1987. However, the petitioner in his reply submitted, that, inasmuch as, all the charges involved matters relating to accounts maintained more than 3 years ago, it was not possible for the petitioner to file written statement in defence merely from memory and he prayed for inspection of all relevant documents relating to the said four charges. The petitioner, thereafter, requested that he should be supplied with the certified copy of the UCO Bank Officers Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976, for the said purpose and he should be allowed opportunity to inspect all relevant documents to be relied on, by the bank in support of the statement of allegations. The petitioner also prayed for appointment of 'a lawyer' for his defence, before the Disciplinary Authority and submitted that unless such inspection is made available, the petitioner will not be in a position to defend his case. True copies of the said letters have been annexed as Annexures 'A' and 'B' to the present writ petition.