B.C. BASAK Vs. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated May 2, 1983 passed by a learned Judge of this Court rejecting the petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as under.

(2.) AT all material times the appellant was the Deputy Manager (Technical) of the Industrial Development Bank of India, Calcutta, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'), the respondent no I herein. By a letter dated February 14, 1976 the General Manager of the Bank called upon the appellant to show cause why disciplinary proceeding should not be instituted against him for having availed of pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs. 1,375/ - in April, 1974 from M/s. Traco Carbide Limited, Calcutta ('the Company' for short) with whom the appellant was having official dealings in connection with processing of their application for financial assistance. As the cause shown by the appellant in reply thereto was not found satisfactory he was served with a charge sheet dated April 12,1976. The answer given by the appellant to the charges did not satisfy the Bank and therefore a departmental enquiry was ordered. Earlier, a criminal case was also registered (R.C. 48 of 1974) against the appellant at the instance of the Bank and investigation thereof was taken up by the Central Bureau of Investigation. In the enquiry that followed five witnesses were produced on behalf of the Bank and a number of documents, including some which were seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) during investigation, were exhibited. Besides, statements recorded during investigation by the CBI under Section 161 Cr. P C and by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr. P C were also exhibited. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer reported that the charge levelled against the appellant could not be conclusively proved. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the view expressed by the Enquiry Officer and served a second notice upon the appellant asking him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service as the charge levelled against him stood proved. In showing cause appellant reiterated that the allegations made against him were baseless and frivolous and that they could not be proved in the enquiry. The reply did not find favour with the disciplinary authority and, as such, the appellant was dismissed from the Bank's service by an order dated November 28,1979. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal the appellant preferred an appeal to the Board of Directors of the Bank which was disposed by its Executive Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate authority'). While upholding the finding of the disciplinary authority that the appellant was guilty of the charge levelled against him the appellate authority reduced the penalty of dismissal to stoppage of promotion till July 31,1981. Order was accordingly passed directing appellant's reinstatement and treating the period between the dates of his dismissal and reinstatement as spent on duty. Against the order of the appellate authority, the appellant moved a writ petition in this Court and obtained a Rule which was registered as Civil Rule No. 8725 (W) of 1980. The Rule was disposed of on November2, 1981 with a finding that the appellate authority did not dispose of the appeal properly and from the cryptic order passed it did not appear that it had adverted to the contentions raised by the appellant in his memorandum of appeal. On such findings the Court, while disposing of the Rule, directed that the appellate authority would rehear the appeal in accordance with law and give reasons for its decision. In complying with the above directions the appellate authority reheard the appeal and in upholding its earlier order gave detailed reasons. Against the said decision the appellant filed another writ petition, which culminated in the impugned order.

(3.) IN his reply the appellant denied that he availed of any pecuniary advantage from the Company, as alleged. He asserted that he had arranged to pay a sum of Rs. 1,402.53 to Sri Niladri Chatterjee of the Company for remitting payment in advance to M/s. Himalayan Hotel, Kalimpong through Sri M.C. Parikh, the then Manager (Technical) of the Bank: and in support of his contention he relied upon a letter dated April 5, 1974 which was received from Sri Chatterjee, a copy of which was enclosed with his earlier explanation. In his reply he asked for a personal hearing and requested the Bank to ensure presence of Sri Parikh at the hearing to support his contention. Along with the reply he enclosed a copy of a production slip issued by Sri A.B. Mukherjee, Inspector of CBI, whereby he took charge of the letter dated April 5, 1974 addressed to the appellant by Sri Chatterjee and two M.O. receipts bearing Nos. 1326 and 1327 dated April 3, 1974 for Rs. 800/ - and Rs. 375/ - respectively.