- (1.) In this application the petitioner prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing an order of punishment in the light of Division Bench decision of this Court. The fact of the matter is as follows.
(2.) The petitioner was working as Junior Inspector of Jute under the respondent No. 5, Haradhan Dey. On 10.10.79, upon instruction of his senior he signed on certain papers which were prepared by Ruhidas Kirtonia, respondent No. 6, being memo of purchase of 232.68 quintals of Jute from Natherthat and bills for transportation of the said jute to Dhupguri Purchase Centre. The said documents were prepared under the direction and supervision of senior/superior office. However, it transpires that the same was false and fabricated. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, his senior officer as also the respondent No. 6. It appears that both the petitioner and his senior officer blamed each other for the aforesaid misconduct. The said Sri Haradhan Dey filed a writ application in this court which ultimately came up before a Division Bench. The Division Bench of the court set aside the punishment meted out to the said Haradhan Dey holding the same unfair, arbitrary and perverse. It was further noticed : "These facts should have been taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority and if properly taken into consideration such a major punishment would not and should not have been imposed on him. In our opinion he had acted bonafide in the matter and had he not acted in the manner as he did there would have been serious repercussion and serious situation might have developed. For the aforesaid reason we allow this appeal. The writ petition is allowed. The order of punishment is set aside. having regard to the fact that for five years he has been out of service and in discharge, we consider that would be the sufficient punishment and no other punishment be passed. We direct that he be reinstated in service with immediate effect." The matter went up to Supreme Court of India. By an order dated 7th January, 1997, the appeal preferred by the Jute Corporation of India was dismissed by the Apex Court stating : "In view of this court's order dated 9.3.1988 declining stay of the High Court's direction for reinstatement, the respondent No. 1 Haradhan Dey has been reinstated pursuant to the High Court's direction. Learned Additional Solicitor General submits that in addition to the reinstatement of the respondent No. 1, he has also been paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in terms of this Court's order dated 9.3.1988 towards the back wages. In our opinion, reinstatement of the respondent No. 1 and payment of Rs. 10,000/- in all towards his claim for back wages, is the appropriate relief to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, we modify the impugned order of the High Court to this extent, namely, that the respondent No. 1 is entitled to reinstatement as directed by the High Court in full settlements of his claim herein. The Appeal is disposed of in the above terms."
(3.) Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the petitioner having been jointly tried in the disciplinary proceedings, the aforementioned judgment of the Division Bench as also the Apex Court should enure to the petitioner's benefit.;