AMIYA BHUSAN DEB Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to certify and send up to the Court the record relating to the complaint case upon the purported complaint and the purported summons issued by the 5th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta Annexure "C", for a Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the respondents from giving any effect or further effect to the said purported complaint and the purported summons including Annexure 'C' and from taking any further steps in terms thereof and from taking any further steps in the Criminal case pending before the 5th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and for a Writ of Mandamus to withdraw, recall and cancel the purported complaint and the said purported summons and forbear from taking steps pursuant thereto or acting in terms thereof and therefore other consequential reliefs.

(2.) The allegations made in the petition may be briefly stated as follows: The petitioner was appointed by the Respondent No. 3 as Assistant Engineer on 21st June 1957 and by dint of his satisfactory service has been given various promotions from time to time and has ultimately been appointed as General Manager in or about 1983-84. He was due to retire as per the normal superannuation are of employees of the Respondent No. 3 on or about 31st October, 1985. However, the Company extended the services of the petitioner obviously in consideration of his dedicated satisfactory and unblemished service in the Company till 31st December 1987. In or about 29th September 1986 the petitioner submitted his resignation from the services of the Respondent No. 3 which was to take effect on and from 31st December 1986, i.e., the petitioner gave three months notice in terms of the conditions of Service. Thereafter on or about 10th December, 1986 Respondent No. 3 purported to issue an Order not to accept the resignation but to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against him. The petitioner was served with a chargesheet, dated 10th December 1986 wherein various allegations have been made regarding alleged prejudicial acts committed by the petitioner. In the said charge it was alleged, inter alia, that the petitioner had compromised the appeal being F.A.T. No. 1583 of 1986 pending in High Court even though he was not authorised to enter into such compromised and that he had also compromised Suit No. 482 of 1982 and undertook to deliver vacant possession of the Company's Head Office premises at 27, R. N. Mukherjee Road to the Landlord even though he did not have any legal authority to effect such compromise. In the reply the petitioner stated that he had compromised the appeal in question in his best judgment and in the interest of the Respondent No. 3 and regarding the alleged compromise of Suit No. 482 of 1982 the petitioner stated that he had not given any instruction to the concerned Advocate-on-record for compromising the Suit and some fraud was practiced in the matter. However, the Respondent No. 3 did not allow the petitioner to resign hut had been proceeding with the enquiry and had appointed an Enquiry Officer and on conclusion of illegal enquiry has passed the Order of dismissal against which the petitioner has moved the writ jurisdiction of this Court and has obtained interim relief.

(3.) The Respondent No. 3 has also filed various proceedings against the alleged compromise and the effect of the alleged compromise have not been given effect to and the Respondent No. 3 has not suffered any damage whatsoever.