- (1.) The appellant bank has preferred the instant appeal assailing the judgement and order dated 21st September, 2010 passed by a learned Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge was pleased to dispose of the writ petition by quashing the charge-sheet issued to the respondent/writ petitioner, enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the order of punishment issued by the disciplinary authority in respect of the respondent/writ petitioner and also the subsequent order of the appellate authority affirming the decision of the disciplinary authority.
(2.) The necessary facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the appeal are briefly narrated hereinafter : The respondent/writ petitioner while working in the bank as staff clerk in Satgram Branch was served with a memorandum dated 7th August, 1980 issued by the Regional Manager, Eastern Region of the bank pursuant to a complaint received from one Sri P.K. Mukhopadhyay, an Officer of the Asansol Branch of the said bank. In the aforesaid memorandum it was alleged that the respondent/writ petitioner assaulted said Sri Mukhopadhyay and also hurled filthy languages towards him. The Regional Manager, Eastern Region was the disciplinary authority of the respondent/writ petitioner at the relevant time. After receiving the aforesaid memorandum, respondent/ writ petitioner submitted his reply refuting the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, another memorandum dated 23rd December, 1980 was served upon the respondent/writ petitioner with a direction to submit his explanation within seven days. The respondent/writ petitioner also submitted his reply to the aforesaid memorandum denying the charges levelled against him. Respondent/writ petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition before this Court being Matter No. 840 of 1981 challenging the legality and validity of the aforesaid memorandums dated August 7, 1980 and December 23, 1980. After final disposal of the aforesaid writ petition an appeal was also preferred by the respondent/writ petitioner being Appeal No. 252 of 1982. In the said appeal an order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court on September 7, 1982 granting liberty to the appellant bank to proceed with the departmental proceeding against the respondent/writ petitioner. The bank was however, restrained from passing the final order in relation to the said disciplinary proceeding till the disposal of the appeal. Thereafter, the appellant bank issued a charge-sheet on September 10, 1982 to the respondent/writ petitioner. In the aforesaid charge-sheet the disciplinary authority specifically mentioned the name of the Enquiry Officer for conducting the enquiry proceeding and also directed the respondent/writ petitioner to report to the said Enquiry Officer on 20th September, 1982 at 11 A.M.
(3.) The enquiry proceeding was started at the Burdwan Regional Office of the respondent bank on the aforesaid 20th September, 1982 and was abruptly concluded on 11th March, 1983. As a matter of fact, the said enquiry officer on March 7, 1983 fixed the next date of the enquiry on March 11, 1983 for production of first defence witness as per the list submitted by the writ petitioner. The said defence witness namely Sri Amitava Roy was an employee of the Asansol Branch of the appellant bank. The said first defence witness could not be produced on March 11, 1983 since the Manager of the Asansol Branch of the appellant bank did not release the said witness Sri Amitava Roy from the duty in order to enable him to appear before the enquiry officer at the place of enquiry at Calcutta. A prayer was made on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner for adjournment of the enquiry proceeding. The enquiry officer asked the presenting officer of the appellant bank to ascertain the actual position from the Asansol Branch of the bank over telephone and adjourned the enquiry proceeding for some time on the same date. The enquiry was thereafter resumed at about 1-45 P.M. when the presenting officer of the bank could not appraise the enquiry officer about the actual state of affairs at Asansol since the telephone lines of the Asansol Branch of the bank were out of order. The enquiry officer however, did not adjourn the enquiry proceeding and abruptly closed the enquiry proceeding even without granting opportunity to the other witnesses to adduce evidence. Ultimately the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority on 16th September.;