- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11th May, 1989 passed by the learned trial judge in CO. No. 10286 (W) of 1987. By the aforesaid order, the learned trial " Judge has allowed the writ petition made by the respondent, Santosh kumar Chakraborty and quashed the charge-sheet, enquiry report and the order of the disciplinary authority of dismissal from service. The learned trial Judge has directed that petitioner should be treated as on duty for the entire period and he would be entitled to all service benefits including monetary benefits. It was also directed that after adjustment of substance allowance already paid to the petitioner, the other arrears should be paid within a period of one week from the date of communication of the judgment and the petitioner was allowed to resume his duties forthwith on a plain copy of the order directed to be supplied to the writ petitioner. The Chief Manager and Disciplinary Authority, allahabad Bank and other officials of the Allahabad bank, thereafter, preferred the instant appeal.
(2.) THE writ petitioner-respondent, Sri Santosh kumar Chakraborty was appointed as Comptist in Allahabad bank in 1966 and at the relevant time he was posted as a Clerk in Provident Fund Department, in the head office of the Allahabad Bank in Calcutta. At the relevant time his salary was Rs. 2 440/- per month. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against Sri Chakraborty by serving a charge-sheet on him and he was also placed under suspension in connection with the said disciplinary proceeding. It was inter alia, alleged in the charge-sheet that the writ petitioner Sri Chakraborty had deliberately and intentionally false a false credit to the extent of Rs. 6,000/- in his Savings Bank Account no. 348/5 without any supporting credit voucher. It was stated in the charge-sheet that such inflation of the false credit was made by writing 1 (one) on the left side of the posted entry as well as on the balance. One Sri Gopal Mukherjee was appointed as Enquiry Officer and the Manager, Golpark Branch was appointed as Presenting Officer, Sri Chakraborty made a representation to the Enquiry Officer that he should be allowed to be representated by a lawyer in the disciplinary proceeding, but such request was turned down. It is the case of the writ petitioner Sri Chakraborty that as he was not a member of the union he did not get assistance from the Union and the Secretary of the Union indicated that he should be represented by a lawyer. It appears that the writ petitioner moved a writ petition before this Court against the refusal to give assistance of a lawyer to Sri Chakraborty in the disciplinary proceeding. Such writ petition was disposed of after a contested hearing by this Court on 19th January, 1987 and the learned Judge directed that the disciplinary proceeding should be completed within three months from the date and it was further directed that he would be entitled to get assistance of any employee of any branch of the Bank as a defence helper. It however, appears that no defence helper appeared on behalf of the writ petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding, but the same was held on a number of days where the witnesses were examined on behalf of the department. It also appears from the records of the disciplinary proceeding that the petitioner had declined to cross-examine the witnesses. The Enquiry Officer thereafter submitted a report indicating that at one stage of the disciplinary proceeding the writ petitioner had admitted his complicity in the offence alleged in the charge-sheet. Accepting the Enquiry Officer's report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a second show cause notice to the delinquent employee asking him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service and after considering his representation, the order of dismissal was passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Against such order, a writ petition was moved by the writ petitioner Sri Chakraborty and as aforesaid, such writ petition was allowed by the learned trial judge in the manner indicated hereinbefore.
(3.) IT may be noted in this connection that in the appeal, the appellants asked for stay of the operation of the order of the learned trial Judge and the appeal Court did not stay the operation of the order of the learned trial Judge, but only directed that it would be option of the Bank not to utilise the service of the writ petitioner respondent but he should be paid his salary during the pendency of the appeal. Against the said order of the Court of appeal disposing of the application for interim order made by the appellants, a Special leave petition was moved by the Bank and such special leave petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble supreme Court by directing that there should be a stay of operation of the order passed by the learned trial judge, It may be noted that the Supreme Court has indicated in its Judgment disposing of the Special Leave petition that although ordinarily the Supreme Court was not inclined to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the Court of Appeal, in the facts of the case the Supreme Court had felt that no salary should be paid to the writ petitioner during the pendency of the appeal. There was a direction by the Hon'ble Supreme court to get the appeal disposed of at an early date and pursuant to such direction, this appeal has been taken out of turn for final disposal.;