AMARESH NARAYAN CHOUDHURY Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Amresh Narayan Choudhury, joined United Bank of India (in short, 'the respondent Bank') as cashier-cum-general clerk on 4. 3. 1964. Having received promotion from time to time, and having served in various capacities at various establishments of the respondent Bank, the petitioner came to be posted as Branch Manager of the respondent Bank, at Bharalumukh Branch, Guwahati, and the petitioner accordingly joined on 8. 11. 1993. When the petitioner so joined the respondent Bank on 8. 11. 1993, one Kalyan Chakraborty was already functioning as Branch Manager of the respondent Bank at Bharalumukh Branch. Though the petitioner joined as Branch Manager at Bharalumukh Branch on 8. 11. 1993, he, in effect, held the charge of this Branch as its Branch Manager, when Kalyan Chakraborty aforementioned was released from the said Branch on 12. 1. 1994. While the petitioner was still serving at the said Branch as its Branch Manager, he was, on 16. 2. 1996, placed under suspension and served with a chargesheet containing altogether four charges. The petitioner submitted, on 15. 7. 1996, his written statement to the charges levelled against him. As the respondent Bank found the petitioner's written statement unsatisfactory, a departmental enquiry commenced. The enquiry ended with the submission of the enquiry report by the Enquiry Officer on 31. 12. 98, whereunder the petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. The petitioner was, then, served, on 9. 1. 98, with a copy of the Enquiry Report directing him to show cause, if any, against the findings reached in the Enquiry Report. The petitioner submitted, on 18. 2. 98, his reply to the said show cause notice. In the reply to the said show cause notice, the petitioner not only challenged the correctness and justification of the manner in which the enquiry was conducted, but also the correctness of the findings reached by the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, the respondents/authorities concerned passed an order, on 12. 10. 99, imposing on the petitioner the penalty of removal from service. The petitioner, then, preferred an appeal on 6. 12. 99. Though the petitioner submitted reminders seeking disposal of his appeal, no order, in this regard, was passed by the appellate authority concerned. It were in these circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court with the help of the present writ petition, his case being, inter alia, that the departmental enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law and the findings reached against him are not correct and, further, while Kalyan Chakraborty aforementioned, whom the petitioner had succeeded as Branch Manager of the respondent Bank, at Bharalumukh Branch, had faced charges, which were more serious in nature than the charges levelled against the petitioner, Kalyan Chakraborty aforementioned was let off with mere penalty of reduction of basic pay including stagnation of increment and FPA, the petitioner, who had unblemished career spanning over 30 years, was penalized by removal from service. The penalty so imposed on the petitioner was, thus, according to the petitioner, arbitrary as well as discriminatory in nature and the same, being in violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India, is not sustainable.

(2.) I have heard Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned Senior counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. B. K. Goswami, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank.

(3.) BEFORE entering into the rival submissions, which have been made before me on behalf of the parties, it is imperative for effective disposal of the present writ petition that the four charges on which the petitioner had faced the disciplinary proceeding and his comments thereon as well as his explanation thereto are briefly taken note of and kept in mind, while deciding this writ petition on merit. The charges levelled against the petitioner and his explanation thereto are, in substance, as follows :