Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mangal Prasad Adhvaryu vs Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank & Ors on 7 January, 2021
25
07.01.2021.
d.p.
W.P.A 9392 of 2020
(Via Video Conference)
Mangal Prasad Adhvaryu
-versus
Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank & Ors.
Mr. Arunava Ghosh,
Md. Yasin Ali,
Mr. Arindam Ghosh.
...For the Petitioner.
Ms. Aparajita Rao
...For the Respondents.
The petitioner is a retired officer of the Bank. He
retired from service on attaining the normal age of
superannuation on 30th June, 2020. When the
petitioner was in service, a disciplinary proceeding and
a criminal proceeding was initiated against him in
response to a complaint lodged on 8th July, 2003.
The petitioner was placed under suspension by
the order of the disciplinary authority and the
Chairman of the Bank on 16th July, 2003. A charge
sheet was issued to the petitioner on 3rd January, 2005.
The petitioner complains that though the charge-
sheet was issued but the supporting documents in
connection thereto were not supplied to him. The
petitioner applied for supplying the relevant documents
which he required in his defense. The order of
suspension was withdrawn by the Chairman of the
Bank on 11th March, 2006.
The petitioner had to approach this Court on
three earlier occasions by filing writ petitions being
W.P. No. 25746 (W) of 2010, W.P. No. 18587(W) of 2011
and W.P. No. 12133(W) of 2013.
By an order dated 12th June, 2013 passed in W.P.
No. 12133 (W) of 2013, the Court directed the
respondents to supply the documents which were not
supplied to him earlier within a period of one month
and it is only thereafter that the enquiry shall proceed.
Admittedly, the documents could not be supplied
to the petitioner within the time specified by the court.
The enquiry officer on 23rd December, 2013 recorded in
the minutes of the enquiry proceeding that unless the
enquiry officer arranged to supply the documents the
charge-sheeted officer will be compelled to seek help of
the High Court again and as such, the proceeding had
to be adjourned.
The petitioner filed an application for release of
his superannuation dues by a letter dated 4th May,
2020 but his prayer stood rejected by the Bank on the
ground of pendency of the writ application and the
ongoing disciplinary proceeding.
The earlier Enquiry Officer as well as the
Presenting Officer got themselves relieved from their
assignment. The newly appointed Enquiry Officer
issued a notice on 3rd June, 2020 by fixing 17th June,
2020 as the next date of hearing of the disciplinary
proceeding. The petitioner could not attend on the said
date as he was under home quarantine. The petitioner
retired from service on 30th June, 2020 and on 4th July,
2020 the Regional Manager of the Bank visited the
residence of the petitioner and handed over certain
documents under the cover of a note sheet dated 30th
June, 2020.
The petitioner submits that till date the list of
witnesses in support of the charge sheet has not been
supplied to him. The petitioner prays for releasing his
retiral dues as well as for dropping the departmental
proceeding initiated against him.
Be it recorded that the petitioner was acquitted in
the criminal case initiated against him, by a judgment
dated 29th September, 2016.
The learned advocate appearing for the Bank
opposes the prayer of the petitioner. It has been
submitted that since the initiation of the disciplinary
proceeding in the year 2005, the petitioner has not
cooperated with the disciplinary authority. He went on
filing one after another petitions before the Court. In
view of the pendency of the writ petition, the Bank was
not in a position to conclude the departmental
proceeding.
It has however been admitted that there has been
delay on the part of the Bank to supply the necessary
documents to the petitioner. It has been submitted that
as the documents have been presently supplied to the
petitioner the court may fix a time frame within which
the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner may
be concluded by the Bank.
I have heard the learned advocates appearing for
the parties. It appears from records that the
disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the
petitioner in the year 2005 but the same could not be
concluded for any reason whatsoever till the petitioner
attained his normal age of superannuation on 30th
June, 2020. It also appears that during the pendency of
the disciplinary proceeding, promotion was given to the
petitioner. Though he was placed under suspension
initially but the same was withdrawn later on.
The very purpose of initiating the disciplinary
proceeding gets defeated, if the same is kept pending
for more than fifteen years. Had the bank been
seriously interested to proceed against the petitioner
they would not have sat tight over the issue for more
than a decade and a half. Only after the petitioner
retired from service, did the bank wake up from their
deep slumber and sought to reopen and revive the
dormant proceeding.
In service law, disciplinary proceeding is initiated
against an erring officer to punish him for his
misdeeds, but if the same is kept pending for fifteen
long years, then the proceeding gets vitiated. It is
evident that the respondent authority was not sincerely
interested to proceed against the petitioner. The Bank
failed to supply the required documents to the
petitioner, despite orders of court. The petitioner has
submitted that the list of witnesses has not been
supplied to him till date. Due to non-supply of the
required documents the task of proving the charges
becomes difficult.
The inordinate unexplained delay on the part of
the Bank clearly shows that they were never interested
to proceed with the disciplinary proceeding. The pace in
which the Bank proceeded belies their decision to
proceed against the petitioner. The proceeding was
merely initiated but never carried forward.
As the petitioner has already retired from service,
it will neither be proper nor justified to permit the Bank
to reopen the old case of 2005 in the year 2021. After so
many years it will be practically impossible for the
petitioner to identify the witnesses whom he could
summon to appear before the enquiring authority in his
support. It may not also be possible to properly
recollect as to what happened way back in 2005. The
officers of the bank whom the petitioner intends to
cross-examine may also not be available. Permitting the
bank to proceed with the said proceeding any further
would, in my opinion, be prejudicial to the interest of
the petitioner. The same will also amount to violation of
the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play.
Accordingly, the prayer of the Bank for fixing a
time frame to conclude the disciplinary proceeding is
disallowed by the court.
In view of the above, the instant writ petition is
disposed of by directing the Chairman of the Bank to
take necessary steps for disbursal of the
superannuation dues of the petitioner, strictly in
accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks
from the date of communication of a copy of this order.
The disciplinary proceeding which was initiated
against the petitioner in the year 2005 shall be deemed
to have been dropped by the Bank.
The learned advocate appearing for the Bank
prays for stay of operation of the order. As the Bank
has been given enough time for releasing the
superannuation dues of the petitioner, there is no
immediate need for staying the operation of the order.
Accordingly, the prayer for stay is refused.
W.P.A. 9392 of 2020 is disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be
supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as
possible.
( Amrita Sinha, J.)
