- (1.) This appeal at the instance of the appellant/writ petitioner arises out of judgment and order dated 13th and 22nd August, 2012 passed in W.P. 21359 (W) of 2008, by which Learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition.
(2.) The appellant was a supervisor in the Hooghly Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the respondent bank). One Shyamal Kanti Mondal alias Shyamal Mondal applied for sanction of loan from Haripal Branch of the respondent bank for establishment of his business for the purpose of manufacturing and repairing body of motor vehicles. The Bank Authority did not sanction the loan and as such the said Shyamal Kanti Mondal moved the High Court for direction to the Bank Authority for sanction of his loan. On 17.11.1998 the High Court passed order in a writ petition for consideration of the prayer of Shyamal Kanti Mondal for sanction of loan. On 25.06.1999 the Bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.8,00,000/- for the said business of Shyamal Kanti Mondal. The appellant joined the Haripal Branch of the respondent bank in the year 2000 by way of transfer as Supervisor. The appellant made an inspection of the proposed business site of Shyamal Kanti Mondal and submitted report on the basis of which the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent bank disbursed second instalment of loan of Rs.2,07,000/- for block capital and third instalment of loan of Rs.50,000/- for working capital on 15.12.2000 and also disbursed loan of Rs.1,10,000/- on 07.07.2001 by issuing cheque in favour of the loanee instead of the supplier. It was subsequently detected by the respondent bank that the appellant violated the procedure for disbursement of loan and thereby committed misconduct for which he was dismissed from service along with two other employees of the respondent bank. The penalty imposed on the appellant by the respondent bank was quashed by the High Court on 05.07.2005 in W.P. 8483 (W) of 2005. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority of the appellant started de novo disciplinary proceeding from the stage of charge sheet and imposed penalty of dismissal from service after conducting departmental enquiry. The appellant preferred appeal against the order of dismissal from service, but the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
(3.) The order of the Appellate Authority passed on 29.04.2008 against the appellant was challenged by filing W.P.21359 (W) of 2008 and the said writ petition was dismissed by Learned Single Judge. The appellant has challenged the said order of dismissal of the writ petition in this appeal. Before considering the elaborate rival submissions made by Learned Counsels of both the parties, it is necessary to decide whether de novo disciplinary proceeding started against the appellant is sustainable in law. It is pertinent to quote the relevant portion of the order passed on 05.07.2005 in W.P.8483 (W) of 2005 by Learned Single Judge of this Court: "In view of the submissions made, I direct the Disciplinary Authorities to proceed with the proceedings de novo from the charge sheet stage. Such proceedings shall be concluded within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. Since I have directed the Disciplinary Authorities to proceed de novo, the consequential orders passed after the stage of show cause are hereby quashed. The order of dismissal is also set aside and quashed.";