HEM KANTA SAIKIA Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Justification to place the petitioners under suspension in the above two writ petitions is the question raised in these writ petitions. Both the writ petitioners are bank employees. The Bank authority has placed them under suspension pertaining to the same incident. They have initiated the writ proceedings by filing two separate writ petitions raising common; questions of fact and law. The writ petitions were heard analogously and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, they were taken up together for final disposal.

(2.) The petitioner in W.P.(C) No 1198/2004 at the relevant time was posted as Deputy Manager of Amguri Branch of United Bank of India. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 1199/2004 was also posted in the same Branch as Manager. They have initiated the writ proceedings being apprehensive of placing them under suspension by the Bank authority relating to an incident which is common to both of them.

(3.) Adverting to the facts of the case which are identical in both the cases, it is the case of petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1199/2004 that upon detection of certain anomalies in the functioning of one Shri Prasenjit Sarkar, Computer Operator of the Bank working in the same Branch and on receipt of complaints from the customers of the Bank, he issued a letter dated November 5, 2003 to said Shri Sarkar asking him to explain the matter. He also wrote a letter dated December 27, 2003 to one of the customers who had lodged the complaint to bring his Passbook for a detailed verification and for sorting out the anomalies. Subsequently by his letter dated December 29, 2003, the petitioner also furnished information relating to anomalies to the respondent No. 4 and sought for his advice. This was followed by seizure of documents etc. as directed by the respondent No. 4. Meanwhile, Shri Prasenjit Sarkar absconded and remained unauthorizedly absent from his duties. He was placed under suspension by an order dated January 8, 2004. The petitioner has further stated that pursuant to the directions of the respondent No. 4, he kept on informing the developments to the authorities of the Bank from time to time. Meanwhile, an FIR was lodged against Shri Sarkar.