Judgment : Petitioner, challenging the purported chargesheet being Ref. No. 71/Workmen/CS/94 dated 16th February, 1994, placing the petitioner under suspension, has prayed for a writ of Mandamus commanding respondents to withdraw and rescind their purported chargesheet and suspension order. 2. On 18th March, 1994, petitioner was directed to serve copy of the writ petition upon all the respondents and also to implede mother and wife as respondents. The mother and wife were also directed to appear in person. The respondents were however given liberty to pay the subsistence allowance in accordance with law. The respondents were also directed to release all arrear salaries. 3. Petitioner secured a job as unskilled casual labour at sand plant of foundry division of the Burn Standard Co. Ltd., respondent No. 1 on and from 13th July, 1990. Admittedly petitioner was appointed after his father death who died-in-harness and with the common consent of the family members, petitioner represented the heirs of deceased father and since 13th July, 1990, petitioner was in the pay-roll of the respondent No.1. 4. Petitioner married one Radhika Devi, daughter of Shew Prosad Gupta. Name of the petitioner's mother was also Radhika Devi and by family arrangement, petitioner changed his wife's name and she was being addressed by the Dame 'MILU' and in all places and records she was considered as 'Milu Prasad' instead of 'Radhika Prasad'. 5. Since 13th July, 1990, petitioner had maintained a good track record in his service but sometime on 13th December, 1993 petitioner was directed to submit a statement. It has been alleged that the Vigilence Officer of the Respondent No.1 approached the petitioner and secured a statement. As alleged, petitioner was forced to put his signature. On 19th January, 1994, petitioner was served with a show-cause notice under Re. No. 71, dated 16th January, 1994, issued by Deputy General Manager (Works) P & A which is Annexure 'D' to the Writ Petition. Petitioner was directed to show cause, inter alia, on the following allegation :- "On an application dated 28.1.90 of Smt. Radhika Devi your mother and wife of your father Late Prem Chand Prasad who died on an accident inside the Company while working in Company's Howrah Works, you were appointed in Howrah Works on 13.7.90 as unskilled labour on died- in-harness case. As per official records the nominee of Late Prem Chand Prasad for Provident Fund and Gratuity was Smt. Radhika Devi, your mother. An amount of Rs. 56,884.82 towards Provident Fund bearing Cheque No. 727516 dated 19.6.90 UBI, Howrah Branch and an amount of Rs. 29,430.93 towards Gratuity bearing Cheque No. 742482 dated 19.10.90, UBI, Howrah branch were drawn by your mother against cash voucher No. 388, dated 19.6.90 and also against cash voucher No. 4545, dated 21.12.90 respectively from the Company. Smt. Radhika Devi, your mother had an SB A/c with Central Bank, Howrah bearing No. 13007, whereas you had your own 5B A/c with UBI, N. S. Road branch Calcutta-1 bearing No. 32277. You inducted your mother's name such as Radhika Devi as your wife and Joint depositor and your wife put signature as Radhika Devi though as per official records your wife's name is Smt. Milu Prosad. However instead of depositing the Cheque for an amount of Rs. 29,430.93 in your mother's SB A/c No. 13007 at Central Bank, Howrah, you deposited in cash an amount of Rs. 15430/- only on 3.1.91 in your mother's said SB account. In view of your above act of deceiving your mother against the said Cheque for entire amount of Rs. 29,430.93, you are directed to Show Cause as to why suitable disciplinary action will not be taken against you." 6. Petitioner submitted a reply on 13th January, 1994 and explained the entire facts relating to alleged allegation disclosed therein. 7. Upon consideration of the aforesaid reply the petitioner was served with a chargesheet being Ref. No. 71/Workmen/CS/94, Annexure -F to the Writ petition which is the subject matter of challenge. 8. For the purpose of ready reference I set-out charaesheet as follows :- "This is to refer to the show-cause No. 71 dated 16.01.94 served on you and your written explanation dated 31.01.94. On perusal and scrutiny of your explanation to the said show cause it has been observed that you had adopted unfair means to get away with BSCL cheque bearing No. 742482 dated 19.10.90 for Rs. 29,430.93 towards Gratuity of our ex-workman Late Prem Chand Prosad, Ex. T/No. 5955 who died on 24.2.90. The said cheque was issued in favour of Smt. Radhika Devi, your mother and nominee of her deceased husband Late Prem Chand Prosad. 29,430.93 towards Gratuity of our ex-workman Late Prem Chand Prosad, Ex. T/No. 5955 who died on 24.2.90. The said cheque was issued in favour of Smt. Radhika Devi, your mother and nominee of her deceased husband Late Prem Chand Prosad. Your activities of deceiving your mother against the payment of Company's legal dues as stated in the said show cause are highly objectionable, undesirable and these sorts of activities Oft your part have affected discipline and reputation of the Company. Accordingly, your activities as stated above, constitute gross misconducts in accordance with the following sub-clause of clause 2 of Appendix 'C' of the Certified Standing Orders applicable to you. APPENDIX 'C' - CLAUSE 2 Item No. 5............fraud or dishonesty in connection with the Company's business, or property. " "11.........Commission of any act subversive of the discipline of the Company. In the circumstances you are directed to submit your written explanation, as alleged against you above, within three days (72 hours) from the date of receipt of this Charge-sheet, as to why appropriate disciplinary action shall not be taken against you failing which it would be presumed that you have no explanation to offer and the matter may be disposed without any further reference to you. Since the misconducts are of serious and grave nature, you are therefore suspended forthwith pending enquiry and final disposal of the case. This has the approval of the Competent Authority". 9. Admittedly on the basis of an application dated 28th January, 1990, at the instance of Smt. Radhika Devi, mother of the petitioner for absorption in place of petitioner's father Late Prom Chand Prosad who died while working in company's Howrah Works. The petitioner was appointed as unskilled labour under die-in-harness scheme. As per the official records, the nominee for the purpose of Provident Fund and Gratuity was Smt. Radhika Devi, mother of tile petitioner. On the basis of such official records. an amount of Rs. 56,884 82 towards Provident Fund bearing Cheque No. 727516 dated 19.10.90 on UBI Howrah Branch and an amount of Rs. 29,430.93/- towards Gratuity bearing Cheque No. 742482 dated 19.10.90 drawn on UBI Howrah Branch, were duly received by mother of the petitioner Radhika Devi against cash voucher No. 388 dated 19.6.90 and cash voucher No. 4545 dated 21.12.90 respectively. 56,884 82 towards Provident Fund bearing Cheque No. 727516 dated 19.10.90 on UBI Howrah Branch and an amount of Rs. 29,430.93/- towards Gratuity bearing Cheque No. 742482 dated 19.10.90 drawn on UBI Howrah Branch, were duly received by mother of the petitioner Radhika Devi against cash voucher No. 388 dated 19.6.90 and cash voucher No. 4545 dated 21.12.90 respectively. Smt. Radhika Devi, mother of the petitioner had an account in Central Bank, Howrah bearing No. 13007, and petitioner had an account with UBI, N. S. Road Branch, Calcutta, bearing SB A/c No. 32277. Admittedly the amount towards Provident Fund was credited with mother SB A/c in Central Bank of India and the amount Gratuity the amount of Rs. 29,430 93, was credited in the Joint Account of the petitioner and Radhika Devi. It has been allowed in the show cause that out of the Gratuity amount, sum of Rs. 15,430/- was withdrawn and credited with the mother's SB A/c No. 13007 at Central Bank, Howrah and balance amount of Rs. 14,000/- was not credited with the mother's account at Central Bank? 10. Possibly 13th July, 1990 when petitioner was appointed by the respondent company, a strain relation was developed amongst the brothers. During conciliation proceeding petitioner was asked to deposit the balance 14,000/- and to produce the Demand Draft for the aforesaid amount in favour of Mother Radhika Devi. And the parties initially agreed that on payment of Rs. 14,000/-, Radhika Devi would withdraw her complain against son Sri Puran Chand Prasad, petitioner in instant writ petition. 11. Pursuant to such order passed on 13th April, 1994 petitioner produced a money draft for Rs. 14,000/- drawn in favour of Smt. Radhika Devi and the said cheque was produced on 24th June, 1994. The petitioner offered the money draft of Rs. 14,000/- in favour of Smt. Radhika Devi on 28th April, 1994 but mother represented Mr. P. K. Singh, Advocate in place of Mr. Pulok Ranjan Das refused to accept the scheme of conciliation and wanted to oppose to Writ petition. Mr. P. R. Das, Advocate, appeared on respondent No.5, wanted to retire in this matter and accordingly Sri Das allowed to retire and Mr. P. K. Singh, Learned Advocate was given liberty to file affidavit-in-opposition. 12. Pulok Ranjan Das refused to accept the scheme of conciliation and wanted to oppose to Writ petition. Mr. P. R. Das, Advocate, appeared on respondent No.5, wanted to retire in this matter and accordingly Sri Das allowed to retire and Mr. P. K. Singh, Learned Advocate was given liberty to file affidavit-in-opposition. 12. Having heard the Learned Advocates appearing for the parties I think that the respondent company should not have any grievance against the petitioner for the overtacts, if any, done by the petitioner. In the matter of settlement of the amount, mother of the petitioner had received stipulated amount towards Provident Fund and Gratuity. The show cause notice was issued by the Company respondents alleging that petitioner had deprieved the company in respect of the amount paid to the mother by the Company. Admittedly petitioner deposited the amount in the joint A/c. instead of depositing the sum with mother's account. A sum of Rs. 15,430/- was withdraw and credited to mother's A/c. Unfortunately in the show cause notice, there was no indication whether a copy of the complaint was served upon the petitioner or not; there was no indication even whether petitioner's mother had received the aforesaid Rs. 15,430/- which was credited to mother account. From the show cause notice it transpires that both the cheques towards Provident Fund and Gratuity amount, issued by the respondent company was received by Smt. Radhika Devi, mother of the petitioner and not by the petitioner. There is allegation that petitioner had procured a cheque by false representation or otherwise. It is no body's case the petitioner bad received the cheque from the company. Admittedly, cheques were received by mother of the petitioner and encashment was some short of family arrangement amongst mother and sons. Possibly, after sometime, strain relationship was developed amongst the brother & mother and mother was pursuaded by other brothers to widen the zone of difference amongst the brothers. Unfortunately the settlement arrived at amongst the family members was not unacceptable to the mother and brothers. 13. Of course, this Court is called upon to consider the legality or otherwise of the chargesheet and consequential suspension order on merit. Upon receipt of the reply, chargesheet was issued and petitioner was suspended. It transpires from the chargesheet that factum of receipt of cheques by the mother and a part of the total amount of Rs. 13. Of course, this Court is called upon to consider the legality or otherwise of the chargesheet and consequential suspension order on merit. Upon receipt of the reply, chargesheet was issued and petitioner was suspended. It transpires from the chargesheet that factum of receipt of cheques by the mother and a part of the total amount of Rs. 29,430/-, credited to the mother's account, were not considered in the chargesheet. It has been stated in the chargesheet that petitioner had deceived his mother to the tune of Rs. 29,430/- and petitioner's activities constituted gross misconduct in accordance with such clause 2 of Appendix 'C'. Clause 2 of the Standing Order in Appendix 'C' reads as follows : "Item No.5 - fraud of dishonesty in connection with the company business or property. Item No. II Commission of any Act subversive of the discipline of the Company." 14. From the chargesheet it is crystal clear that there was no occasion to commit fraud or act of dishonesty in connection with any company business or property, inasmuch as. as soon as the cheque was issued by the company and the cheques were received by Puran Chand's mother, the Company respondent has bad no title to the cheques or property or in other words, company has had no right to the property in the cheque lying with mother or any of the family members. Commission of any evert act subsequent to delivery of cheques issued by the company bas no nexus with the show cause notice or chargesheet. It is clear that Appendix. 'C' Cl. 2 of the Standing Order has no application so far the show cause and chargesheet are concerned. It is true that the moment petitioner's mother received the cheque on 21st December, 1990, the title of the cheque/property was transferred to the mother and right was accrued to mother to take care of both the cheques. This court is not called upon to adjudicate a dispute between mother and son. The respondent of company bas got no business to interfere in the family arrangement. If there is any breach of agreement between the mother and the sons or otherwise, company respondent has nothing to do. This court is not called upon to adjudicate a dispute between mother and son. The respondent of company bas got no business to interfere in the family arrangement. If there is any breach of agreement between the mother and the sons or otherwise, company respondent has nothing to do. In the show-cause notice and chargesheet, it is nobody's case that petitioner committed fraud upon respondent/company nor it can be conceived that petitioner was a party to the fraud or deception committed upon the company respondent. 15. In such view of the matter I think and hold that the assumption of jurisdiction by the respondent in initiating disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner and consequential suspension order was illegal and without authority and suffers from non-application of mind. Accordingly the entire proceeding is set• aside and quashed. 16. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. Respondents are directed to release all the arrears salary to the petitioner subject to adjustment of the amount already paid towards subsistence allowance. 17. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No order to costs. All parties will act on the plain copy of the order duly signed by the Assistant Registrar (Court).