DENA BANK Vs. AMIYA KUMAR DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15th Jan., 1987 passed by the learned Trial Judge in Civil Order No. 15936 (W) of 1986. The aforesaid Civil Order No. 15936 (W) of 1986 arose out of an application made under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by the writ-petitioner, Sri Amiya Kumar Dey. It appears that Sri Dey was an employee of Dena Bank and in the year 1974, he was holding the post of Branch Manager, Brabourne Road Branch of the said Bank. Sri Dey was placed under suspension on 23rd Oct., 1974 and a charge-sheet was also issued by the said Bank to Sri Dey. In reply to the said charge-sheet, Sri Dey submitted his written explanation on 28th Nov., 1974. Sri Dey also requested the administration of the Dena Bank for early disposal of the enquiry by an imperial body. The Dena Bank Administration, however, informed Sri Dey on 17th Jan., 1975 that his explanation to the charge-sheet was not satisfactory and a departmental enquiry would be held against him shortly. After waiting for sometime, on 3rd March, 1976, Sri Dey, through his lawyer requested the Bank to start the enquiry proceedings. Sometime in July 1976, the Bank informed Sri Dey that in view of the investigation being made by the Central Bureau of Investigation, the enquiry proceedings had been kept in abeyance. It appears that on 20th April, 1977 the C.B.I. filed its report of the investigation in Special Court Case No. 6 of 1977 (before the Third Additional Special Judge, Calcutta) and the learned Judge took cognizance of the investigation report of the C.B.I, and the case before the Special Judge was started and the said case is still pending. It may be noted that the Dena Bank filed a suit being Suit No. 366 of 1974 in the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court against M/s. Tea Agents, inter alia, praying that a money decree and also a decree for sale of all the charged assets be passed against the said defendant. It may also be mentioned in this connection that Sri K. K. Chirimar of M/s. Tea Agents is also a co-accused with Sri Dey in the said criminal case pending before the Special Judge and an affidavit in reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the said Sri Chirimar in the said Suit No. 366 of 1974 was affirmed by the writ petitioner Sri Dey on behalf of the Bank. As the writ petitioner was scheduled to retire on attaining the age of superannuation by the end of Feb. 1987, Sri Dey moved a writ petition before this Court on 1st Oct., 1986 with a prayer for a direction on the Bank Administration to conclude the departmental proceeding without any further delay. A copy of such application was served on the Bank Administration and the Court directed the said writ petition to come up for final disposal as a contested application upon notice to the respondents. On 6th Oct., 1986, the Bank administration received the copy of the writ petition and Sri Dey affirmed an affidavit of service on 7-10-1986 to that effect. This Court closed for the long Puja Vacation and on reopening of this Court on 7th Nov., 1986, the writ petition moved by Sri Dey was listed in the Daily List as a contested application. It is the case of the petitioner that the business of the court did not permit the writ petition to be disposed of earlier although on two occasions the matter was mentioned before the learned Trial Judge. On the reopening of this Court, after the Christmas Vacation, the matter was again mentioned on behalf of Sri Dey for early disposal of the writ petition, and the matter was thereafter specially fixed on 13th Jan., 1987 and intimation of such fixation was served by the petitioner on the Bank and the Bank received such notice on 8th Jan., 1987 and affidavit of service to that effect was also affirmed by the petitioner on 12th Jan., 1987. The said writ petition was thereafter taken up for hearing on 15th Jan., 1987 and the same was disposed of by the learned Trial Judge, inter alia, directing the .Bank to complete the enquiry proceedings within 3 weeks from the date that is 15th Jan., 1987 and it was further directed that in default of completing of the enquiry proceeding within the stipulated time the order of suspension and the charge-sheet would stand set aside and quashed. The writ petitioner Sri Amiya Kumar Dey was directed by the court to intimate the purport of the order passed on 15th Jan., 1987 upon the Bank by the 17th Jan., 1987. The text of the order, dated 15th Jan., 1987 was also communicated by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner Sri Amiya Kumar Dey to the Bank and the Bank received the communication on the 17th Jan., 1987.

(2.) It appears that the Dena Bank thereafter moved an application for vacating the said judgment and order, dated the 15th Jan., 1987, but such application was dismissed by the learned trial Judge after a contested hearing. As the departmental, proceeding had not been concluded within the period specified in the aforesaid order passed in the writ proceeding, Sri Dey requested the Bank to allow him to join his duties and on 10th Feb., 1987 such letter/request was made by the writ petitioner. But Sri Dey was not allowed to join his duties and he was informed by the Bank that the Bank had preferred an appeal and as such Sri Dey would not be allowed to join. It may be noted in this connection that initially the Bank preferred an appeal against the order rejecting the application for recalling the judgment, dated Jan. 15, 1987 but later on the Bank filed an appeal against the judgment and order, dated 15th Jan., 1987 and such appeal was numbered as F.M.A.T. No. 563 of 1987, which is being considered in this judgment.

(3.) The learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment, dated 15th Jan., 1987 has held that it was a matter of great regret that from 1974 till 1987, the nationalised Bank thought it fit not to conclude the disciplinary proceeding even though the writ petitioner was kept under suspension. The learned trial Judge has noted in his judgment that suspension was permissible under the law in contemplation of disciplinary proceeding, but the suspension ought not be treated as a strong weapon to harass an employee. The learned trial Judge was of the view that reasonableness and fairness must be the attitude of a public authority and the law courts should take appropriate action if it is found that such public authorities have not reacted fairly and reasonably. It was held by the learned trial Judge that it could not be held to be a fair and reasonable action on the part of the respondents Bank to keep the disciplinary proceeding pending for long 12 years although the poor employee of the Bank was suspended all the time. The learned trial Judge also noted that the Bank informed Sri Dey that the departmental enquiry would not be taken up until the end of the C.B.I, enquiry, but it was reasonably expected that both the. C.B.I, and the Bank administration should try to expedite the matter so that it would not hang on for an indefinite period. The learned trial Judge has also noted in his judgment that the writ petition was moved on 1st Oct., 1986, but no interim order was made but it was directed by the "court that the writ petition would come up for hearing one week after the Long Vacation and direction was given to the writ petitioner to serve the copy of the petition within 10 days and to file affidavit of service. We have already indicated that the writ petition had in fact been served without any delay and affidavit of service had been filed. The learned trial Judge has further noted that inspite of reasonable opportunities being given to the Bank administration, the Bank did not think it fit and proper to appear before the learned trial Judge and the learned Judge has further noted that he had no other alternative but to pass appropriate order considering the urgency of the matter.