Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. - (1.) The instant appeal has been preferred challenging a judgment dated 27th March, 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in Matter No.778 of 1992.
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details the facts are that the writ petitioner/respondent herein joined the services of the appellant in the month of October, 1978 as a Trade Apprentice and on and from 2nd September, 1988 he was promoted to the post of Assistant Cashier and was confirmed in the said post on and from 1st April, 1990. In the midst thereof, by a letter dated 15th March, 1990 certain allegations were levelled against him regarding late deposit of money to which he immediately replied on 20th March, 1990 giving all details and thereafter on 27th March, 1990 he was issued a caution letter by the Assistant Manager (Cargo) on 27th March, 1990. Surprisingly thereafter a charge sheet was issued against the respondent on 13th December, 1990 and by the said memorandum itself he was placed under suspension. He replied to the charge sheet on 31st December, 1990 denying all the charges and thereafter an enquiry was held and completed on 27th March, 1991 but no enquiry report was furnished to him. Instead by a memorandum dated 3rd July, 1991 the Executive Director (D) dismissed him from service finding him guilty of all the charges. Thereafter on 8th August, 1991 the respondent filed an application for review but the same was also dismissed on 14th November, 1991 and the respondent's date of dismissal was recorded to be 14th November, 1991. Thereafter by a cheque dated 11th December, 1991 the withheld amount of subsistence allowance from July, 1991 to 14th November, 1991 was paid to the respondent. Challenging the entire disciplinary proceeding including the charge sheet and the order of dismissal, the respondent preferred the writ petition which was disposed of by the judgment impugned in the present appeal observing, inter alia, that due to non-supply of the enquiry report, the proceeding has been vitiated and that the writ petitioner is entitled to have the order of the disciplinary authority set aside on the said ground alone and that the order of dismissal has been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice. In course of hearing of the writ petition a point was raised on behalf of the appellant regarding maintainability of the writ petition by placing reliance upon a judgment delivered by a coordinate bench. The learned Single Judge could not agree with the view of the coordinate bench and referred the matter to a larger bench to answer an issue as to whether Balmer Lawrie & Company Limited is a 'State' within the meaning of 12 of the Constitution of India. The matter was placed before a Division Bench and in view of a difference of opinion between the learned Judges on the said bench, the matter was referred to a third learned Judge, who ultimately decided that the appellant is an 'authority' by an order dated 24th December, 2002. Thereafter an appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the appellant company and initially an interim order was passed on 4th August, 2003 staying further proceedings consequent upon the judgment under challenge. The said appeal was decided by a judgment delivered on 20th February, 2013 holding, inter alia, that the appellant company is an 'authority' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Subsequent thereto, the respondent preferred an application for clarification and an application for contempt and by an order dated 28th April, 2014 the contempt application was dismissed observing that it shall be open to the respondent to agitate the issue before the High Court. The matter thereafter came up for hearing before this bench on 22nd August, 2016 and on 2nd November, 2016 a supplementary affidavit was filed by the respondent stating, inter alia, that the appellant illegally withheld a part of subsistence allowance and also did not disburse any amount in favour of the respondent towards provident fund and gratuity. The appellant filed an affidavit-in-opposition to the said supplementary affidavit stating, inter alia, that a cheque dated 22nd July, 2005 of an amount of Rs.88,677/- was issued in favour of the respondent on account of his provident fund dues and that thereafter a residual amount of Rs.1884/- was also paid to the respondent. In paragraph 14 of the said opposition the appellant also indicated the dues payable to the respondent upon adjustment of the loan availed by him.
(3.) Mr. Vipul Kundalia, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the respondent's contempt application on 28th April, 2014 filed in connection with Civil Appeal No.421 of 2004 observed, inter alia, that by the judgment dated 27th March, 2001 the High Court had not finally adjudicated upon the rights of the parties. In view of the said order the respondent cannot claim any benefit of the observations made in the judgement impugned. However, the appellant is ready and willing to handover the enquiry report to the respondent and to complete the disciplinary proceeding within a time bound period.;