Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee, J. - (1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Judge dated 7th April, 1989 in Civil Rule No. 10875 (W) of 1988. By the said order the learned Trial Judge-allowed the writ application filed by the respondent/opposite party which was filed challenging the order of dismissal dated 25th March, 1986 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 8th June, 1986.
(2.) In the writ application there was a prayer for a direction upon the appellant, Central Bank to make payment of the retire mental benefits payable to the respondent. The writ petitioner/opposite party joined in the service of the appellant Bank in December 1947 and he was promoted to the post of Junior Officer in October 1971 and on 14th May, 1982 he was transferred to Tufangunj as Deputy Chief Manager (Branch Manager of the Central Bank of India, Tufangunj Branch). The Chief Manager of the appellant Bank by the memo dated 29th September, 1984 directed the writ petitioner/opposite party to explain certain irregularities regarding the functions of Tufangunj Branch, with reference to his visit as Tufangun on September 27, 1984. After receipt of the said memo the writ petitioner/opposite party submitted a reply explaining the facts and circumstances in support of the action taken. Thereafter the writ petitioner/opposite party was transferred as Assistant Branch Manager to Jalpaiguri. While the writ petitioner was posted at Jalpaiguri a memorandum dated 11th June, 1984 was issued by Shri J.J. Bhjittacharjce. Regional Manager of the appellant Bank who was the Disciplinary Authority at the relevant time. In the said letter dated 11th June, 1985 it was alleged that by the said memo the writ petitioner opposite party was collect upon to explain certain acts of omission ami commission committed by him as Branch Manager, Tufangunj. The allegation was that he had incurred Rs. 5,181.90 p. for the year 1984 towards entertainment exercises which was not in conformity with the Bank's rules and that for such expenses, he had not taken confirmation from the higher authority. The said Regional Manager issued another memo dated 12th June, 1985. The writ petitioner duly replied to the said memo by a letter dated 22nd June, 1986. By the letter dated 2nd of July 1985 the writ petitioner/opposite party was informed that the reply given by him was unsatisfactory and in the said letter it was further stated that after receiving the Audit Report another memo indicating some specific irregularity committed by the writ petitioner/opposite party was going to be issued. On or about 3/8th October, 1985 the Regional Manager who issued the memorandum containing Articles of charges against the writ petitioner/opposite party. By the said memo the writ petitioner/opposite party was directed to submit point-wise written explanation in respect of all charges specified in the said memo. The writ petitioner/opposite party was further directed to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken for his misconduct. It was further provided that in case no written reply was submitted disclosing point-wise explanation within seven days of receipt of the said memo matter would be decided ex-parte. The said memorandum dated 3/8th October, 1985 was sent by the Regional Manager who were earlier appointed himself as a Disciplinary Authority and also issued a memo dated 11th June, 1985 and the memo dated 12th February, 1985 and on October 29, 1985 the Regional Manager also wrote to the petitioner informing that he would have to submit his written explanation latest by November 15, 1985 failing which it would be presumed that he had no explanation to Officer. By the letter dated 12th November, 1985 the writ petitioner prayed for inspection of the records lying at Tufangunj Branch which were maintained during his tenure as Branch Manager in the said Bank in order to enable him to prepare his reply to the said memorandum Despite the said prayer for inspection of the records same was not given for inspection and without inspection of the records the writ petitioner had to submit his reply dated 28th November, 1985 While denying the allegations as made against the said articles of charges the writ petitioner stated in the said reply that he had not sanctioned any irregular advances during the period between 1983 and 1984 by misrepresenting facts in sanction proposal and that the advance was made according to the minimum requirement of the borrower for development of Retail Trade Business and it was within the notice of the Central Office, Cooch Behar for which regular proposals were made and that he had submitted pre and post inspection Report prepared in terms of the procedure after obtaining reports from local market about business integrity and good-will of the applicants. Thereafter by an order dated 19th February, 1986 the writ petitioner/opposite party was suspended from service with effect from 19th February, 1986. By the said letter he was informed that it was decided by the Bank to hold department; I- enquiry into this conduct, By the said order of suspension it appears that Shri J. Bhattacharjee, Regional Manager charged the writ petitioner/opposite party by abusing his official position as Branch Manager of the said Branch by making advances in violation the norms and procedures. A fresh charge-sheet was also served upon the respondent/opposite party containing charges which were identical to the articles charges framed by the earlier memo dated 3rd August, 1985 issued by the Regional Manager, Mr. J. Bhattacharjee who was the same officer who had issued the memorandum dated 11th June, 1985 as Disciplinary Authority. The second charge-sheet dated 21st February, 1986 was however issued by Mr. K. K. Mukhcrjee, Deputy General Manager of the Bank. Subsequently by a letter dated 4th of March 1986 the said Mr. K. K. Mukherjee. Deputy General Manager appointed the said Mr. J. Bhattacharjee Regional Manager as the Enquiry officer who was the same officer who had signed the first memorandum of charges dated 11th June, 1985 in the capacity of Disciplinary Authority and also issued the charge-sheet dated 3/8th October, 1985. The said Mr. J. Bhattacharjee, Regional Manager had also issued a suspension order in which it was stated that the writ petitioner/opposite party had flouted the norms and procedures of lending policy of the Bank with mala fide intention. Thereafter on 8th of March 1986 a notice was issued to the writ petitioner/opposite party by the said Enquiry Officer which was received by the writ petitioner on 10th March, 1986 stating that the preliminary hearing would be held at the Regional Office at Cooch Behar on 13th of March 1986 at 12.00 noon. At the said meeting the writ petitioner attended and it was decided that the next hearing of the enquiry would be held from the 20th March, 1986 at the Regional office at Cooch Behar. The writ petitioner defence representative Mr. Amitava Bhattacharjee made a written prayer on 13th March. 1986 for extension of time for 15 days in order to prepare his defence on behalf of the writ petitioner which was summarily rejected by the said Shri J. J. Bhattacharjee, Enquiry officer. The writ petitioner by a letter dated 13th March, 1986 addressed to the Disciplinary Authority Shri K. K. Mukherjee challenged the impartiality of Shri J. J. Bhattacharjee, the Enquiry officer and prayed for the appointment of a impartial and independent person as an Enquiry Officer and it was stated that the writ petitioner/opposite party reasonably apprehended that the Disciplinary Authority could not be conducted impartially by the said Enquiry Officer. The said request for changing the Enquiry Officer was also turned down Thereafter the enquiry proceeding commenced from 20th March. 1986 During the course of the enquiry proceedings the writ petitioners defence representative submitted a list of witnesses whose presence were necessary to pro ye and establish the innocence of the writ petitioner. The said request was also; turned down by a letter dated 22nd March, 1986. Finally by the order dated 25th March, 1986 issued by the Disciplinary Authority which was communicated to him by the memo issued by the Regional Manager. Shri J. J. Bhattacharjee dated 27th March, 1986 the writ petitioner was dismissed from the service. The dismissal order was served upon the writ petitioner only 5 days prior to his retirement from the service of the Bank which was due on 31st March, 1986 The Enquiry Officer held enquiry on 21st and 22nd March, 1986 and on 25th March, 1986 he was dismissed from service on 2nd May, 1986. The writ petitioner/opposite party preferred an appeal and that the said appeal was dismissed by the order dated 8th July, 1986. The said order of dismissal and the said order of the Appellate Authority was the subject matter of challenge before the learned Trial Judge.
(3.) After considering the rival contention of the parties the learned Trial Judge took up the following questions for consideration : "(a) Whether the bias of the Regional Manager vitiated and invalidated the proceedings (b) Whether entire proceedings including the enquiry report, the order of the disciplinary Authority and the order of the Appellate Authority are violative of the said Regulations (c) Whether the entire disciplinary proceedings and the order of the appellate authority are wholly illegal on the ground of non-observance of fairness and violation of the rules of natural justice (d) Whether the findings of the Inquiring officer and the Appellate Authority travelled for beyond the charges or in other words, whether the findings of the enquiry officer and the appellate order stood at variance with the charges.";