B.P. Banerjee, J. - (1.) This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is against the order dated July 9, 1992, passed by Ruma Pal J. in C.O. No. 4842 (W) of 1989.
(2.) The subject -matter of challenge in the writ application was ordered on May 2, 1989, passed by the State Government Under Sec. 32(2) of the West Bengal Co -operative Societies Act, 1983, rescinding the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Nadia District Central Co -operative Bank Ltd. passed on June 27, 1988, whereby the said Co -operative Bank resolved that the said Bank would not proceed any further regarding all cases pending in different law Courts in the matter of writ Petitioner, Deba Prasad Banerjee and that all the charges and allegations and proceedings were resolved and the charges allegations and proceedings against him were dropped and withdrawn considering the same to be baseless and without foundation. The suspension order was also revoked and withdrawn. By the said resolution the writ Petitioner was reinstated in service after revoking the order of suspension. The learned trial Judge on consideration of the entire mattes allowed the writ petition and quashed the decision and the resolution of the State Government dated January 27, 1992, and the second show -cause notice. The fact of this case in short is this that the writ Petitioner was an employee of the said Bank and was employed since 1961 and at the relevant time he was the Branch Manager of Santipur Branch of the said Bank. A show -cause notice was issued to the writ Petitioner alleging negligence of duty, indiscipline, insubordination etc. On March 19, 1984, the writ Petitioner was placed under suspension. Six months thereafter the Executive Officer of the Bank lodged an F.I.R. on the basis of which a Police case was started on the same allegations. Ultimately, the Police authority after investigation submitted report staling that there was no case against the writ Petitioner for framing charges under Ss. 409 and 418, Indian Penal Code. The Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate was not satisfied with the final report of the Police authorities and ordered for fresh investigation. The said investigation resulted in a final report in favour of the writ Petitioner. The Police authorities recommended for discharge of the writ Petitioner in the said case. In the meantime, the Petitioner challenged the notice of suspension and other consequential order made by the Departmental Officer initiating departmental proceeding against the writ Petitioner by an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court, and this Court in or about November 1984 passed an interim order to the effect that the Appellants Bank authorities could proceed with departmental proceeding, but no final order would be communicated without the leave of the Court to the writ Petitioner. Thereafter for the purpose of appeal it is not necessary to go into the fact in detail inasmuch as the Board of Directors of the Appellant Bank passed a resolution on June 27, 1988. The said resolution was as follows: Considering the acts of Vice -Chairman (ref. proceedings of the Board meetings dt. 16.1.1988, and 3.2.88). The Final Reports submitted twice by D.D.B. Police Books of Accounts, Records, Audit Report etc. demands of the Employees' Union, the sum total interest of the Bank, this meeting resolved that the Bank will not proceed further regarding all cases pending in different Law Courts in the matter of Sri. Deba Prasad Banerjee now under suspension and that the Inquiry Authority or Authorities or any other authority of similar nature so constituted before, for the purpose of enquiry into the charges and allegations, proceedings etc. against Sri Banerjee are dissolved and terminated and all charges, allegations or proceedings as alleged against him are dropped and withdrawn considering them as baseless and without foundation. Suspension order is hereby revoked and withdrawn. Sri Banerjee is now entitled to join his duty at present in the Head Office of the Bank and to report accordingly. Further it is resolved that Sri. Banerjee will be entitled to get all privileges including financial dues, arrears, and current in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules, by laws concerned according to his service status. C.E.O. will act according to the contents of this resolution.
(3.) In exercise of the power conferred under Sec. 32(2) of the West Bengal Co -operative Societies Act, 1983, the State Government passed the following order on April 10, 1989: Whereas the Board of Directors of Nadia District Central Co -operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the said Bank) in the meeting held on 27.6.88 adopted a resolution on agenda No. 4 to withdraw all charges, allegations and proceedings and to drop all departmental proceedings drawn up by the Chief Executive Officer of the said Bank against Sri. Deba Prasad Banerjee, Officer Gr. IIA of the said Bank for his gross misconduct and wilful delinquent activities and to approve his reinstatement without taking leave of the Hon'ble High Court before which the matter was sub judice. And whereas the Governor is satisfied that aforesaid resolution shall adversely affected the interest of the said Bank and shall be clearly violative of the Hon'ble Court's order. Now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by Sub -section (2) of Sec. 32 of the Bengal Co -operative Societies Act, 1983, the Governor is hereby pleased, in the interest of the aforesaid Bank, to rescind the resolution of the Board under agenda No. 4 adopted on 27.6.88 by which the said Sri. Deba Prasad Banerjee was allowed to join his duty at the head office of the Bank and all disciplinary charges directed against him dropped and withdrawn. This order of the State Government dated April 10, 1989, was the subject -matter of challenge in an application filed by the writ Petitioner which was allowed by the learned trial Judge. The learned trial Judge on consideration of the scope and power under Sec. 32(2) of the said Act held that it is well -settled that even when there is no specific provision in the statute on the rules made thereunder for showing cause against action proposed to be taken against an individual, which affects the rights of the individual. The duty to give reasonable opportunity to be heard should be implied from the nature of the function to be performed by the authority which had power to take some damaging action and held that as no opportunity of being heard was given to the Board before the impugned order was passed by the State Government the said order was a nullity. It was further held by the learned trial Judge that satisfaction of the Government in issuing the order was based on two reasons, namely, the resolution would adversely affect the Bank and, secondly, the resolution was in violation of the High Court's order mentioned above. So far as the ground of violation of the order the Court, of the learned trial Judge has held that the second ground could not be sustained inasmuch as by the order of the Court, the Appellants were restrained from passing any final order in the disciplinary proceeding, this order could not be entertained as preventing the Bank from dropping disciplinary proceeding altogether against the writ Petitioner. The interim order was passed by this Court as directive measure intended to protect the interest of the writ Petitioner and cannot be construed to his disadvantage. Second reason for passing the order by the State Government under Sec. 32(2) of the said Act was clearly not tenable.;