Tapen Sen, J. - (1.) IN this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has prayed for a Order commanding upon the Respondents to withdraw the letter dated 22.4.2010 as contained in Annexure-P/2 at Page 36 of the Writ Petition whereby and whereunder the Petitioner was directed to show cause on certain alleged irregularities and/or alleged violation of the code of conduct within a period of 3 days failing which, it was indicated, that it will be construed that he had no reply to offer and in that event, the Bank would take further appropriate action. The Petitioner has also prayed for an Order commanding upon the Respondents to withdraw the subsequent Order of suspension passed on 14.5.2010 as contained in Annexure-P/10 at Page 45 whereby and whereunder the Petitioner was informed that the appropriate authority had decided to place the Petitioner under suspension from the Banks service pending completion of the disciplinary proceedings in connection with the Violation of Service Rules and for gross misconduct by engaging in trade or business outside the scope of his duties and indulging in acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank which was likely to cause serious loss to the Bank. Consequently the Petitioner was put under suspension with a direction that during the said period, he would refrain from entering into the Banks premises unless specifically instructed/permitted to do so by the Bank in connection with the enquiry. The Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the said letter and Order as contained in Annexure-P/2 and P/10 respectively. Other consequential prayers have been made including an Order directing the Respondents to allow him to join his duties as Senior Assistant in the Burrabazar Branch of the State Bank of INdia, Kolkata.
(2.) THE short facts of this case are that the Petitioner was working as a Senior Assistant in the Burrabazar Branch of the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the said SBI) and there were no allegations against him in the discharge of his duties. His wife, Sukanya Banerjee is carrying on a trading business of foreign liquor under the name and style of M/s. B.S. Enterprise as a Partner and, as a Proprietress of M/s. Shivam Enterprise. According to the Petitioner, he is however, in no way connected with the said business of his wife. On or about 22.10.2005, the Petitioners wife Sukanya Banerjee, had entered as a partner of M/s. B. S. Enterprise. In the year 2006, the Respondent No. 4 (Branch Manager, SBI, Mankundu Branch) granted credit facilities to the wife of the Petitioner for her business in respect of her proprietorship concern. The said credit facility is still continuing. According to the Petitioner, the said credit facility is fully secured by creation of mortgage on several immovable properties in favour of the Respondent No. 4 (Branch Manager, SBI, Mankundu Branch). The Petitioner has stated that for purposes of granting of such credit facility, he had stood as a Guarantor thereof after informing the appropriate authority. Several documents and papers were therefore signed and excluded by and between the wife of the Petitioner as borrower, the Petitioner as guarantor and, the Respondent No. 4.
(3.) ON 10.6.2008, Sukanya Banerjee again applied before the Respondent No. 4 for credit facilities for her business in respect of the proprietorship concern namely M/s. Shivam Enterprises and the Respondent No. 4, after considering all aspects of the matter including the earlier credit facilities granted to her, duly sanctioned the same on 29.5.2009. The Petitioner was again a Guarantor to the said application for credit facility and like the other transactions, several documents were again signed by the three parties mentioned above. The Petitioner has submitted and relied on his letter dated 9.7.2009 in order to say that he had sought permission from the Regional Manager, Region-III for standing as a Guarantor. The second credit facility is still continuing and is also secured. In Para-13, the Petitioner has stated that he had stood Guarantor in respect of the credit facilities because the mortgaged immovable properties are joint ownership properties belonging both to the Petitioner as well as to his wife.;