Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. - (1.) Respondent No. 1 was working as a staff of Krishnagar City Co-operative Bank, the appellant above named. His father was a founder member of the said Bank. His brother was also working therein. His initial appointment was as a sub-staff in the year 1977. He was ultimately promoted to the post of clerk-cum-cashier with effect from May 2, 1984. In 2004 his father became seriously ill and it was delected that he was suffering from cancer. The respondent No. 1 took leave for treatment of his ailing father. His father subsequently died. He originally took seven days leave and came to Calcutta for his father's treatment, however, overstayed due to his father's treatment. When he went back to join Bank in the last week of April, 2004 he was not allowed to join and ultimately on May 7, 2004 he was issued an order of suspension. It further transpired that the Bank earlier issued a show cause notice dated April, 6, 2004 which was received by his sister-in-law (brother's wife) while he was away from Krishnagar for his father's treatment at Calcutta. It further transpired that Board of Directors in their meeting held on April 28, 2004 decided to put him under suspension. He was served with the show cause notice on the allegation that he obtained loan by pledging bronze ornaments by misdeclaring them as gold. Earlier, preliminary enquiry committee was appointed which investigated upon such charges. Such preliminary enquiry committee gave their report holding the petitioner guilty of charge and recommending punishment of removal from service. On the basis of such recommendation of the enquiry committee the petitioner was issued charge sheet and ultimately dismissed from service,
(2.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of termination of service with effect from August 26, 2004 the respondent No. 1 filed the instant writ petition. The Bank filed affidavit-in-opposition wherein they reiterated their stand as contended in the show cause notice and the order of termination. They disclosed the copy of the preliminary report of investigation conducted by the enquiry committee appearing at page 70-75 of the Paper Book.
(3.) The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by quashing the order of termination by judgment and order dated September 28, 2004. The relevant observations of His Lordship are quoted below :- "The show cause notice dated 6th April, 2004 was served upon one Smt. Sampa Ghosh, a family member of the writ petitioner at a time when the writ petitioner's father was lying in hospital. The writ petitioner could not give reply to that letter. Even if I assume that the writ petitioner did not deliberately give reply to the show cause notice that would not authorize the Bank to hold that all the charges have been proved and to pass an order of termination on that basis. This is precisely what has been done in this case. After issuance of the show cause notice dated 6" April, 2004 no enquiry was held. Straightway the letter of termination was handed down to the petitioner. This is the height of high handed behaviour to say the least. Whether the bank has suffered a loss or not is a fact which the bank has to prove. The bank has not obviously come up with the proof to show that the bank has suffered any loss. The bank could not do so because the bank has not as yet assessed the worth of the gold pledged by the petitioner. Until that is done and compared with the liability of the petitioner where is the basis to make any suck aspersion. I am also surprised that the bank in its letter of termination has referred to an alleged fraudulent activity of 1999 which has not even been charged against him. This only shows the mental make up of those who were at the helm of affairs who look the decision to terminate the petitioner's service. The alleged fraudulent activity of 1999 may also be reasonably deemed to have been condoned when no step on that basis was taken for such a long time. The way the bank has conducted itself is reprehensible to say the least.";