Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Bank Of Baroda & Ors vs Sri Chandra Shekhar on 5 February, 2021
05.02.2021
Item no. 07
Dd MAT 1016 of 2017
The Executive Director & Appellate Authority,
Bank of Baroda & Ors.
Vs.
Sri Chandra Shekhar
Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, adv.
Mr. Apurba Kumar Bandhopadhyay, adv.
Mrs. Ghazala Firdous, adv.
... ... For appellants
Mr. Soumya Majumder, adv.
Mr. Victor Chatterjee, adv.
... ...For respondent/writ petitioner
This appeal is being heard on dispensing all
formalities as with consent of parties, on papers
disclosed in the stay application. Mr. Majumder,
learned advocate appearing on behalf of
respondent/writ petitioner waives service of notice.
Mr. Ahmed, learned advocate appears on
behalf of appellants and relies on clause (b) in sub-
section (1) of section 10 in Banking Regulation Act,
1949. He submits, the provision, as applicable, is,
no banking company shall employ any person who
has been convicted by the criminal Court of an
offence involving moral turpitude. He draws
attention to show cause notice dated 6th December,
2012. It recites that vide orders dated 26 th April,
2012 and 1st May, 2012 the criminal Court had
convicted respondent under section 302 of Indian
Penal Code, for causing death of his wife. He was
told that as he had been convicted by competent
Court for an offence amounting to moral turpitude,
under said provision of the Act of 1949 he cannot be
continued in employment of the Bank. Respondent
replied to the show cause by letter dated 24 th
December, 2012 informing he had appealed against
the conviction, that he was under suspension with
effect of date of conviction and, inter alia, as follows
:-
"It would amount to gross miscarriage
of justice if any further action is contemplated
against me, prior to hon'ble court's verdict in
the matter. I shall be highly obliged if you
will take a compassionate view in the matter."
He submits, on long pendency of the appeal,
there was delay and finally order dated 30 th
January, 2016 was passed imposing punishment of
compulsory retirement and that the period of
suspension will be treated as 'time not spent on
duty'.
He relies on regulation 11 in Bank of Baroda
Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal)
Regulations, 1976. Regulation 11 is reproduced
below :-
11. SPECIAL PROCEDURE IN CERTAIN CASES
"Notwithstanding anything contained in
regulation 6 or in regulation 7 or in regulation
8 the Disciplinary Authority may impose any
of the penalties specified in regulation 4 if the
officer employee has been convicted on a
criminal charge, or on the strength of facts or
conclusions arrived at by a judicial trial.
Provided that the Officer Employee may
be given an opportunity of making
representation on the penalty proposed to be
imposed before any order is made."
He cites judgment of Supreme Court in Sushil
Kumar Singhal vs. Punjab National Bank
reported in (2010) 8 SCC 573, paragraphs 18 and
23 to 26.
On query from Court we have ascertained
from Mr. Majumer, no cross-objection was filed. We
find from the writ petition, prayer was to set aside
order of compulsory retirement and continue the
position of status quo as maintained since
December, 2012, till appeal before High Court is
finally decided.
Mr. Majumder will be heard on argument. List
on 15th February, 2021.
(Arindam Sinha, J.)
(Suvra Ghosh, J.)
