UNITED BANK OF INDIA Vs. PROMODE RANJAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is against the judgment and order dated November 24, 1995 passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Rule No. 127 of 1989.

(2.) Mr. D.R. Chowdhury, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted for reconsidering the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge stating, inter alia, that the learned single Judge while exercising the power of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has gone beyond the accepted field within which the power of judicial review has to be exercised.

(3.) The admitted facts are that the respondent is a sub-staff i.e. Class-IV employee of United Bank of India, Teliamura Branch. On February 4, 1986 the respondent, while on leave, came to the said Branch of the Bank for withdrawal of his salary. As full salary for the month of January, 1986 had not been credited to his Account, he could not withdraw the full salary. Then he met the Branch Manager of the said branch of the Bank and demanded payment of his full salary which was needed for treatment of his ailing daughter. The Branch Manager was helpless as the full salary had not been credited to the Account due to non-sanctioning of leave for the period from January 6, 1986 to January 10, 1986 and from January 13, 1986 to January 28, 1986. As the full salary was not allowed to be withdrawn, the respondent started shouting and threatened the Branch Manager to be assaulted physically and created panic in the Bank and even attempted to assault the Branch Manager but the other staff members saved the Branch Manager. In this connection a report was made to the Teliamura Police Station against the respondent and after investigation charge sheet was filed and finally after trial the respondent was acquitted by a judgment and order dated March 15, 1988 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Khowai, West Tripura in G.R. Case No. 34 of 1986. Thereafter the respondent was kept under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. The charges levelled against him are as follows: