A.K. Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) On the allegation of embezzlement of fund the Respondent No. 1 while working as clerk of UCO Bank posted at Raurkella Branch in the State of Orissa, was implicated in a criminal case by Central Bureau of Investigation (in short CBI). He was proceeded with in the Criminal Court and ultimately he suffered a conviction in 1983. Although, the incident happened in 1973 onwards and the CBI initiated proceeding as against him in 1979, the Bank did not contemporaneously start any disciplinary proceeding against the Respondent No. 1, perhaps on the assumption that the criminal proceeding would come to a logical conclusion at an early date. The Bank, however, changed their decision and on January 25, 1980 issued a charge sheet followed by an order of suspension on December 16, 1980 and started a disciplinary proceeding as against the Respondent No. 1. While the disciplinary proceeding was pending, the Respondent No 1 suffered the conviction from the Criminal Court vide judgment and order dated July 22, 1983. The Bank without waiting for a logical conclusion in the disciplinary proceeding got rid of the Respondent No. 1 by issuing an order of dismissal on the basis of the judgment of the Criminal Court on October 3, 1983 applying paragraph 19.3 (b) of the Bipartite Settlement read with 10 of the Bank Regulation Act. By virtue of the said order, the disciplinary proceeding also became infructuous, and as such, was not proceeded with.
(2.) The Respondent preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court gave him acquittal by judgment and order dated December 3, 1986 on the benefit of doubt. The Respondent immediately approached the Bank for his reinstatement. The Bank issued the order of reinstatement on May 20, 1987 and simultaneously issued an order of suspension as well as communicated their decision to proceed with the earlier disciplinary proceedings initiated on the basis of the charge sheet dated January 25, 1980. The disciplinary proceeding started and enquiry report was submitted holding the Respondent No. 1 guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority issued a second show cause notice on February 9, 1989 proposing a punishment of dismissal from service.
(3.) Challenging the second show cause notice the Respondent No 1 filed the above writ petition before this Court. The learned single Jude dispose of the writ petition by judgment and order dated March 9, 1998 by setting aside the second show cause notice coupled with liberty to the Bank to proceed against the Respondent/writ Petitioner in accordance with law. Pertinent to note, the Respondent/writ Petitioner did not appear before His Lordship when this writ petition was disposed of.;