Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 690 (CAL)

Narayan Chandra Das v. Sagar Gramin Bank

2002-11-11

MAHEMMAD HABEEB SHAMS ANSARI

body2002
JUDGMENT M.H.S. Ansari, J. Petitioner while working as Branch Manager of Chhotomollakhali Branch is said to have committed certain misconducts and in relation whereto petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated December 2, 1987 and a charge sheet dated March 8, 1988 was issued being Annuexure 'B' to the writ application. Petitioner filed a writ application which was disposed of by an order dated July 30, 1991 by his Lordship Mahitosh Majumdar. The ground of challenge was inter alia that the charge sheet suffers from vagueness and that the petitioner had not been supplied with document. The Court by its aforesaid order dated July 30, 1991 observed that the enquiry proceedings shall not be commenced without supplying the documents and it was further directed that the respondent authorities before commencing disciplinary proceedings shall redress the grievance of the petitioner as to vagueness of the charge. Pursuant to the said order a charge sheet dated November 26, 1991 was issued being Annexure 'D' and additionally another charge sheet dated June 19, 1993 was issued being Annexure 'E'. Pursuant to the said charge sheet disciplinary proceedings were conducted and the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice dated December 22, 1993 being Annexure 'J' proposing the imposition of punishment of degrading the petitioner from the post of Officer to the post of Field Supervisor. Petitioner filed a writ application and D.K. Basu, J. passed an interim order dated January 11, 1994 restraining the respondents from giving effect to the said show cause notice dated December 22, 1993. Aggrieved against the same, respondent-Bank preferred an appeal which was marked as F.M.A.T. 369 of 1994 and was disposed of by the Division Bench presided over by B.P. Banerjee, J. by order dated February 7, 1995 with directions as under : "The concerned authority of the appellant will be at liberty to proceed afresh after considering the respondent petitioner's reply to the second show cause notice. The appellant Bank will fix a date for reply to the second show cause notice and the reply will be considered by the appropriate authority in accordance with law. The respondent/ petitioner may make representation before the appropriate authority for payment of arrear salaries due and such representation, if made, will be, considered by the Bank in accordance with law. The appellant Bank will fix a date for reply to the second show cause notice and the reply will be considered by the appropriate authority in accordance with law. The respondent/ petitioner may make representation before the appropriate authority for payment of arrear salaries due and such representation, if made, will be, considered by the Bank in accordance with law. Such representation, if made, should be disposed of by the appellant Bank in accordance with law as early as possible preferably within eight weeks from the date of representation." 2. Pursuant to the said orders the disciplinary authority by its letter dated March 29, 1995 directed the petitioner to submit his written representation afresh against the proposed punishment order (second show cause notice dated December 22, 1993). 3. The disciplinary authority by its impugned order dated April 15, 1995 modified the punishment proposed in the show cause notice and passed the following order; "..... Sri Das again submitted an application on 17.4.95 to extend the date of submission of representation for seven days. I, the competent authority, extended the date of representation upto 20.4.95. Sri Das accordingly submitted the another representation dated 20.4.95. The competent authority after carefully going through the entire matter and considering all aspects feels to modify the proposed punishment order and make the following final order by virtue of power conferred upon him by the provisions of Sagar Graimin Bank (Staff) Service Regulation, 1980. 1. Sri Das is degraded in the initial stage of pay scale of officer of the Bank. 2. The period of suspension of Sri Das will be treated as period not spent on duty." 4. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was disposed of by impugned order dated October 20, 1995 which was communicated to the petitioner by office order dated August 4, 1995. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Appeal Board reads as under; "The members of the Board examined all records and documents and all their earlier findings against appeal of Sri Das. The Board after threadbare discussion unanimously decided to reduce the punishment and fixed the Basic Pay at the 3rd Stage of Pay Scale of Officer instead of initial stage with effect from the effective date of earlier order 5/95 dated 25.04.95. The matter, therefore, be communicated to Sri Narayan Chandra Das, Officer, now posted at Mallickpur Branch as 2nd Officer." 5. The matter, therefore, be communicated to Sri Narayan Chandra Das, Officer, now posted at Mallickpur Branch as 2nd Officer." 5. Though several contentions have been raised assailing the impugned order this Court after having heard learned Counsel for the respective parties, however, is of the view that the writ application needs to be disposed of with certain directions to the disciplinary authority. The reasons 'or the' same are as under; 6. As noticed supra, the Division Bench by its order dated February 7, 1995 passed in F.M.A.T. 369 of 1994 granted liberty to the Bank (appellant) "to proceed afresh" after considering the reply of the petitioner to the second show cause notice. The order of punishment impugned was set aside. The Division Bench had taken into account that the enquiry report had not been served upon the delinquent. 7. In view of the said order of the Division Bench dated February 7, 1995, the disciplinary authority was required to pass a speaking order after considering the representation made by the delinquent-petitioner herein. The order passed by the disciplinary authority dated April 25, 1995 has been extracted supra and perusal thereof would show that no reasons have been assigned in the said order for arriving at the conclusion which the disciplinary authority did. None of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner have either been stated much less dealt with. 8. The impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority cannot, therefore, be sustained. 9. The order passed by the appellate authority suffers from same infirmity. No doubt the appellate authority has reduced the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority but the order does not disclose that any of the contentions raised have been considered by the appellate authority. Appellate authority, it is well settled, need not assign reasons while affirming the conclusions arrived at by the disciplinary authority. But in the case on hand the disciplinary authority was required by order of Court to proceed afresh after considering the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice. There has been no fresh consideration as was required to be made by the disciplinary authority. Being final fact finding authorities the departmental authorities are required to pass reasoned speaking order. Had the disciplinary authority passed such reasoned speaking order no interference would have been warranted with the order passed by the appellate authority. Such, however, is not the case on hand. Being final fact finding authorities the departmental authorities are required to pass reasoned speaking order. Had the disciplinary authority passed such reasoned speaking order no interference would have been warranted with the order passed by the appellate authority. Such, however, is not the case on hand. Neither of the fact finding authorities has passed a reasoned order. 10. For the reasons afore stated, the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority be and are hereby quashed and set aside. Liberty is granted to the disciplinary authority to pass a reasoned speaking order after taking into consideration the representation already filed by the petitioner. Such order shall be passed by the respondent disciplinary authority within a period of two months from date of communication of a copy of this order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. It shall be open to the petitioner, if aggrieved by the order that may be passed by the disciplinary authority, to file appeal before the appellate authority. 11. There shall be a further direction to the effect that in so far as the service of the petitioner is concerned there shall be status quo as of this day and thereafter the same shall abide by the orders that may be passed by the disciplinary authority. 12. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 13. Let urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment and order be furnished to the appearing parties, if applied for, on priority basis. Appeal disposed of with directions.