RANABIR SENGUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)
LAWS(CAL)-1995-4-33
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on April 18,1995

Ranabir Sengupta Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Basudev Panigrahi, J. - (1.)This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Regional Manager, United Bank of India, Calcutta South Region where -under he refused to grant salary to the Petitioner apart from the subsistence allowance given to him during the period of suspension.
(2.)The Petitioner had alleged, inter alia, in the application that he was posted at Jodhpur Park Branch of the United Bank of India or about December 22, 1983 as Head Cashier in which post he was subsequently confirmed in the year 1984. The main function of the Petitioner was to remain incharge of the Cash Department. The principal duty of the Petitioner was to take out cash from the Strong Room, carry the same to the Head Cashier's cubicle and disburse the same to customers of the Bank and also to receive cash from them. On September 24, 1990 the Petitioner reported for duty and had withdrawn a large amount of cash from the Strong Room and had kept the same in his cubicles and locked himself in. When he noticed that the armed guard was absent at the relevant time and a huge crowd gathered at the cash counter he felt insecure and left a message to the Branch Manager for immediate deputation of an armed guard. The Teller Cashier was allegedly absent from duty. Therefore, he made a request to the Branch Manager for deputing a substitute of the Teller Cashier enabling him to disburse the cash. The Teller Cashier was, eventually, deputed to assist the Petitioner but after an inordinate delay. Thus, the customers naturally were impatient and pressurized the Branch Manager for immediate disbursement of cash. These all happened in quick succession and finally at 10.45 A.M. the Branch Manager passed an order asking the Petitioner to explain why he suspended the disbursement of cash. Such an order is allegedly made with mischievous and evil design only to put the writ Petitioner in an inconvenient position. So, he received the order under protest. Following the said order another order No. 76/90 was communicated to him at 10.55 A.M. Whereunder he was asked to hand over the charge of cash to one Sri Sukamal Pal, Deputy Manager. This also he received under protest. He had no other option but to hand over the cash to Sri Sukamal Pal under the Branch Manager 's order. The activities of the Petitioner was taken as insubordination and accordingly the authorities had placed the Petitioner under suspension and a disciplinary, proceeding was ordered to be drawn up against him. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding the Petitioner was allowed subsistence allowance as per the provision of West Bengal Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1969.
(3.)The said order is attached to the writ petition as Annexure 'D'. The Petitioner was communicated the charges framed by the disciplinary authority which is Ext. 'FT and was asked for submitting his written statement of defence. Pursuant to the communication of the charges it is stated that the Petitioner had already submitted his written statement of defence.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.