Calcutta High Court
Canara Bank And Others vs Shri Arun Kumar Ghosh on 17 April, 2015
1
ORDER SHEET
GA No. 1102 of 2015
APO NO. 142 of 2015
WP No. 401 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
CANARA BANK AND OTHERS
Versus
SHRI ARUN KUMAR GHOSH
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHIVAKANT PRASAD
Date : 17th April, 2015.
Appearance:
Mr. Aryak Dutta with Mr. Dipankar Das,
Ld. Advocates for the appellant.
Mr. Anindya Lahiri, ld. Advocate
For the respondent.
The Court :- The appellant Canara
Bank initiated a disciplinary proceeding against its
Manager, the respondent abovenamed. The disciplinary
proceeding culminated in the order of compulsory
retirement with all retrial benefits. The authority,
however, withheld the employer's share of contribution in the provident fund and the gratuity that becomes the subject matter of the writ petition pending before His Lordship, along with the order of compulsory retirement.
The learned Judge initially did not grant any interim order in favour of the employee and kept the writ petition pending. During pendency of the writ petition the 2 concerned employee filed an application before the learned Judge for release of the gratuity and provident fund on the ground of hardship. The learned Judge directed the bank to keep in deposit the withheld amount, however granted liberty to the concerned employee to enjoy the benefit of interest that the bank was asked to credit his account.
Being aggrieved, Mr. Dutta appearing for the Bank would submit, the Bank is within its power to withhold the gratuity and employer's provident fund contribution as the respondent was guilty of defalcation of fund that Mr. Anindya Lahiri, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would strongly dispute. According to Mr. Lahiri, there was no such finding, in effect, he was found responsible for sanction of an irregular loan. He was imposed punishment of compulsory retirement.
We have considered the rival contentions. In our view, the learned Judge should dispose of the writ petition itself at the earliest subject to His Lordship's pre-occupation and convenience. Mr. Dutta would make grievance with regard to credit of interest that may wait for 3 months hoping, the writ petition would be disposed of in the meantime. We earnestly request the learned Judge to give some precedence, of course subject to His 3 Lordship's pre-occupation and convenience and other schedule. In case the writ petition is not disposed of within 3 months, His Lordship may consider disbursement of 50% of the interest amount instead of entire interest so directed by the judgment and order impugned.
With these modifications this appeal is disposed of without any order as to costs.
(BANERJEE, J.) (SHIVAKANT PRASAD, J.) dg/