Asit Baran Guria vs The State Of West Bengal & Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 7962 Cal

01.12.2022
Item No. 5.
Court No.6.
   AB
                              M.A.T. 1740 of 2022
                                      With
                               I A CAN 1 of 2022
                               I A CAN 2 of 2022

                               Asit Baran Guria
                                      Vs
                       The State of West Bengal & Others

                    Md. Sarwar Jahan,
                    Mr. Jayanta Samanta      ...for the Appellant.

                    Mr. Pinaki Dhole,
                    Mr. Avishek Prasad       ...for the State.

                    Mr. Ritwik Pattanayak
                                 ....for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4.

By consent of the parties, the appeal and the

applications are taken up for hearing together.

In re : IA CAN 2 of 2022

This is an application for condonation of delay of

1480 days in filing the appeal. Causes shown being

sufficient, the delay is condoned.

I A CAN 2 of 2022 is, accordingly, disposed of.

In re : MAT 1740 of 2022, IA CAN 1 of 2022

A Judgment and Order dated September 11,

2018, whereby the appellant's writ petition being W. P.

No.24917 (W) of 2017 was practically dismissed, is

under challenge in this appeal.

The appellant/writ petitioner was appointed as

Assistant Cashier by the respondent Cooperative Bank

(in short "the Bank") in the year 1977. On or about

January 24, 1998, a criminal case was initiated again

him for alleged defalcation of funds. He was placed

under suspension. Disciplinary proceedings were also

initiated against him.

He filed W. P. No.10416 (W) of 1998 challenging

the order of suspension. He failed to obtain any

interim order. The writ petition was dismissed for

default on June 10, 2008. No steps were taken for

restoration of the writ petition.

In the meantime, the disciplinary proceedings

culminated in an order of dismissal of the appellant.

This was on or about June 8, 1998.

In the usual course, the appellant would have

retired on August 25, 2009.

The appellant was acquitted of the criminal

proceedings on or about July 31, 2013.

More than four years after that, the appellant

approached the learned Single Judge saying that since

he had been acquitted of the criminal trial, he should

be paid his terminal benefits and arrear salary. The

learned Judge was told by the Bank that the

appellant /writ petitioner had been dismissed from

service upon completion of the disciplinary

proceedings in June, 1998. Noting the same, the

learned Judge disposed of the writ petition by

observing "the question of payment of terminal

benefits, if not already paid, except the petitioner's

own contribution to Provident Fund, therefore, does

not arise." Hence, this appeal.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Mr. Jahan, learned Advocate appearing for the

appellant, in his usual fairness, has stated that the

appellant should have preferred a departmental appeal

against the order of dismissal, as is provided for in the

relevant Rules. However, he was not properly advised.

He prays for condonation of the delay and an order

permitting the appellant to file appeal against the

order of dismissal. He very fairly submits that this is a

mercy petition.

We may have full sympathy for the appellant but

we are unable to pass an order permitting him to

prefer departmental appeal against an order, which

was passed way back on June 8, 1998. More than 24

years have elapsed, since the order of dismissal was

passed. It would be very unfair to the respondent Bank

if today we condone such huge delay and permit the

appellant to reopen the entire issue.

We also keep in mind that a criminal trial and

disciplinary proceedings are two independent

proceedings. The fact that the appellant had been

acquitted of the criminal charges does not necessarily

mean that he would succeed in the disciplinary

proceedings. The result of the criminal trial would

really have no bearing on the disciplinary proceedings.

We find no infirmity in the order of the learned

Single Judge. We wish, we could show mercy to the

appellant but we have to be guided by law and not by

emotion.

The appeal fails and the same is, accordingly,

dismissed along with the connected application,

without any order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be supplied expeditiously after compliance

with all the necessary formalities.

(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)