DILIP KUMAR DEY Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has impugned the order dated 29.5.1992, by which a departmental proceeding against him was initiated relating to the charges of the year 1974 -75.

(2.) WHILE the petitiner was working as an Accountant in the Exhibition Road Branch of the Punjab National Bank at Patna in 1975, the respondent -Bank at his Jodhpur Branch lodged an F.I.R. against him for certain irregularities and some omission and commission committed by the petitioner while posted at Jodhpur Branch. On 20.8.1975 he was suspended pursuant to filing of the said criminal case. On 17.7.1990 the petitioner was discharged from all the charges except one regarding issuance of a Bank draft of rupees two thousand. At the time of filing of the writ application the criminal case in respect of one charge was pending. Neither of the counsel for the parties could inform the Court about the ultimate result of the said criminal case. The order of the Judicial Magistrate discharging the petitioner from other charges was also affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge at Jodhpur in appeal preferred by the respondents. Even after discharge when the suspension order was not revoked and the petitioner was not taken back, he moved the Calcutta High Court for quashing the suspension order. On 12.11.1984 the suspension order was stayed by the Calcutta High Court, which was affirmed even up to the Supreme Court when approached by the respondent Bank. Even when the respondent Bank did not reinstate the petitioner, he filed a contempt application in which, tendering unconditional apology the Bank revoked the order of suspension in July, 1987, and directed the petitioner to join Regional Office. It is stated that while the petitioner was working as an Officer at Patna in May, 1992, respondent Bank issued a chargesheet relating to the same omission and commission alleged to have been committed by the petitioner while posted at Jodhpur and for which a criminal case was started. The petitioner filed his show cause immediately contending, inter alia, that the charges levelled against him were the same on which he was exonerated by the competent court of law in the criminal case. Inspite of that when the respondent -Bank proceeded with the departmental proceeding, the petitioner approached this Court in the instant writ application.

(3.) THE main thrust of the argument of Mr. Banerjee is that the respondent - Bank could not have started the departmental proceeding in the year 1992 relating to certain illegalities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in the year 1974 -75 in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh and another reported in A.I.R.1990 S.C. 1308. Elaborating his argument learned counsel submits that this is not a case where the respondent -Bank had no idea about the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner while he was posted at Jodhpur because admittedly, for such illegalities a criminal case was filed by lodging a F.I.R. on 27.7.1975. According to him if the F.I.R. was lodged in the year 1975, the Bank could have easily initiated a proceeding in the year 1975 itself or immediately thereafter. Learned counsel further submits that only because the respondent -Bank had to tender unqualified apology before the Calcutta High Court in a contempt proceeding for not obeying the order of the High Court as well as the Supreme Court, out of vengeance the petitioner was subsequently harassed and a chargesheet was submitted against him.