D.P.KUNDU, J. - (1.) The writ petitioner was an employee of the West Bengal State Co- operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). While the petitioner was working as supervisor in the Baduria Branch of the Bank, by virtue of a charge-sheet dated January 6, 1989 certain charges were levelled against the petitioner. By another charge-sheet dated October 21, 1989 some additional charges were also levelled against the writ petitioner. The charges against the writ petitioner were grave in nature and they include falsification of accounts, breach of trust, misappropriation of Bank's money, dishonesty in connection with the Bank's business and property, negligence, dereliction of duty and defalcation. It is not necessary to quote the charges levelled against the writ petitioner. An employee may be very bad and dishonest person and may deserve penalty of dismissal from service. But no penalty can be imposed even upon a very bad and dishonest employee without following principles of natural justice or procedures prescribed by law.
(2.) In the instant case a purported enquiry was held and in the said enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and the enquiry report was furnished to the General Manager who was disciplinary authority of the writ petitioner. The disciplinary authority recommended dismissal of service of the writ petitioner and Board of Directors of the Bank in its meeting held on February 21, 1990 resolved unanimously that the punishment of dismissal from service should be imposed on the writ petitioner with immediate effect. Therefore, the General Manager by an order dated February 23, 1990 dismissed the petitioner from the service of the Bank with immediate effect without prejudice to the Bank's right to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of just and lawful dues to the Bank from the writ petitioner. In the writ petition, the petitioner challenged the order of dismissal dated February 23, 1990 passed by the General Manager of the Bank.
(3.) The learned Advocate for the petitioner argued many points in favour of the petitioner. One of the grounds of attack was that the enquiry proceeding was held behind his back. The petitioner was not intimated when the enquiry proceedings would be held. As a result, the petitioner was deprived to cross-examine the witnesses produced during the enquiry proceeding and the witnesses were examined behind his back and he could not get opportunity to examine himself and his witnesses to prove his innocence.;