Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Malay Basu vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 26 April, 2022
26.04.2022 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Sl. No.5 CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
(PP) APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 3487 of 2022
Malay Basu
Vs.
Punjab National Bank & Ors.
Mr. Suchindram Bhattacharjee,
Ms. Sayantanee Bhattacharjee
....for the petitioner.
Mr. S. M. Obaidullah
....for PNB.
The petitioner while working in United Bank of
India (in short UBI) now known as Punjab National
Bank (in short PNB) faced a disciplinary proceedings
which culminated into a final order dated 29th
September, 2011 passed by the Disciplinary
Authority. The petitioner was also subjected to a
criminal proceedings on the allegation of fraud having
been perpetrated by him as an employee of the
erstwhile UBI. The petitioner was acquitted in the
criminal proceedings by a judgment and order dated
24th July, 2018 passed by the 3rd Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Barasat. The petitioner says
though he had preferred a statutory appeal in terms
of the extant rule of UBI, but the appeal has not been
heard or decided. The petitioner, therefor, has
approached this Court for a direction upon the
respondent authorities to complete the entire pending
proceedings within a time-frame and in accordance
with law as also to set aside the order of the
Disciplinary Authority dated 29th September, 2011
and to release all the dues and benefits of the
petitioner.
On behalf of the bank, it is submitted that the
petitioner is an award staff, and as such is governed
by the bipartite settlement prevailing in UBI and now
known as PNB. The petitioner is not entitled to
challenge the order of the Disciplinary Authority
before the Appellate Authority but has to approach
the Industrial Tribunal under the provisions of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Be that as it may, the appeal preferred by the
petitioner, even if it is before a wrong forum, a
pronouncement is required by either rejecting the
same on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or decided
on merits as per the applicable provision of law. This
decision from the Appellate Authority has admittedly
not been given despite lapse of a considerable period.
Assuming without admitting that the petitioner is
an award staff and is liable to go before the Industrial
Tribunal, then also the appeal requires to be decided
in one way or the other by the Appellate Authority by
holding either it has the jurisdiction or it lacks in the
same. If this exercise is not completed then a further
complexity will arise. If the petitioner approaches the
Industrial Tribunal during the pendency of the
statutory appeal, the Industrial Tribunal in that event
may not entertain the proceeding filed before it during
the penency of the appeal.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I direct
the present Appellate Authority authorised to hear
out an appeal after the merger of UBI with PNB to
decide on the petitioner's appeal within a period of
three months from the date of communication of a
server copy of this order in accordance with law. The
Appellate Authority shall allow the petitioner a
reasonable opportunity of hearing and shall pass an
independent order without being influenced in any
manner by any observations made in the instant
order.
It is also made clear that I have not gone into the
merits as to the maintainability and validity of the
appeal said to have been preferred by the petitioner.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of
without any order as to costs.
Since I have not called for any affidavits,
allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to
have not been admitted by the respondents.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance
of necessary formalities.
(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)
