- (1.) The petitioner at the material time was the Branch Manager of Tangra Branch of the respondent bank. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him vide charge sheet dated 5.12.98. Enquiry followed and ultimately the petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated 1.2.2000 issued by his disciplinary authority, viz. the Deputy General Manager. Legality of the disciplinary proceeding culminating in the order dismissing the petitioner from service is the subject matter of challenge in this petition.
(2.) Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the charge sheet does not disclose any offence and any action pursuant thereto ought to be declared inoperative. He next submitted that the entire disciplinary proceeding commencing with issuance of charge sheet and culminating in the order of dismissal stands vitiated for gross violation of principles of natural justice. According to him, the petitioner was never served with (i) the charge sheet dated 5.12.1998; (ii) the order of the disciplinary authority appointing an Inquiring Authority; (iii) the report of enquiry finding him guilty of the charges; and (iv) the final order of dismissal and, therefore, he was deprived of reasonable opportunity to participate in the proceedings and to raise his defence. Arbitrariness and malafide being writ large, he prayed for setting aside of the entire disciplinary proceeding including the order of dismissal and for a direction on the respondent Bank to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages.
(3.) The writ petition was taken up for consideration on 14.9.2007. None appeared for the respondent bank on that date. Having heard Mr. Bandopadhayay, the Court directed service of notice on the learned Advocate for the respondent bank informing him that the writ petition would be taken up for further consideration on 28.9.2007. Notice was duly served and an Affidavit-ofservice filed in Court. It was directed to be retained with the records. However, the bank was again not represented on 28.9.2007. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard finally and judgment was reserved. Affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition has not been filed by the respondent Bank in Court, although copy thereof was served on the petitioner's learned Advocate. Since the Court did not have the benefit of hearing arguments on behalf of the respondent bank, its affidavit-in-opposition (copy furnished to learned Advocate for the petitioner) has been taken into consideration for deciding the issue(s) raised herein.;