Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
7938W/2004 on 16 June, 2011
Author: Tapen Sen
Bench: Tapen Sen
1
16/6/2011
ARDR
WP 7938 (W) of 2004
with
CAN 8616 of 2010
Mr. Piuysh Chaturvedi,
..... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Raja Rao,
Mr. Soumya Majumder,
...For the Respondents.
Re : CAN 8616 of 2010 In this Application, the Petitioner prays for an order commanding upon the added Respondents (Indian Overseas Bank Ltd.) to review the impugned decision dated 7/5/1996 (as modified on 20th December, 1996), whereby and whereunder the Deputy General Manager of Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd., reduced the penalty of "Dismissal" from service to compulsory retirement in terms of Rule 37
(ii)(g) read with Rule 49 (ii) of Bharat Oversead Bank Ltd. Officers' Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1990. The said order is at Annexure P-12 to the Writ Petition.
By reason of this Application, the Petitioner has stated that on the self same incident a Criminal case being Case no. CBI/EOW/1/95 dated 21/7/1995 under Sections 419/420/467/471/477 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code was initiated but by a Judgment dated 26/4/2010 passed by the learned 14th Metropolitan 2 Magistrate, Kolkata, he has been acquitted. He submits that in view of such acquittal, this Court may direct the Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. to review their decision.
Let it be recorded that Bharat Oversead Bank Ltd. stood amalgamated with the Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. with effect from 1/4/2007 by reason of a Notification known as Bharat Overseas Bank Limited (Transfer of Undertaking to the Indian Overseas Bank) Amended Scheme, 2007, dated 30/3/2007 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs) (Banking Division), which was published in the Gazette on 30th March, 2007.
By reason of Section 14 of the said Scheme, all suits, actions and proceedings of whatsoever nature by or against the transferor banking company, which was pending or arising on or before the effective date (1.4.2007) will be deemed to continue and be enforced by or against the transferee Bank as effectually as if the same had been filed by, pending or arising against the transferee Bank.
It is under the aforementioned circumstances and subsequent events that the Petitioner prays for review/reconsideration of the decision taken on 20th December, 1996.
3
Mr. Soumya Majumder learned Counsel appearing for the Bank raises an objection pointing out that under the Rules/Regulations of Indian Overseas Bank Ltd., the Petitioner is not entitled to review because he was not an employee of the Bank. However, taking into consideration the provisions of Clause 14 of the aforesaid amended Scheme, it cannot be said that merely because the provision of Review are not applicable, the Bank cannot reconsider its decision in the light of subsequent developments.
Under the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the Bank to reconsider their decision and pass a reasoned Order in accordance with law within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
As a consequence of this Order, the Application being CAN 8616 of 2010 is also disposed of.
If urgent certified copy of this Order, duly photocopied, is applied for by the parties, the same should be given expeditiously.
(Tapen Sen, J.) 4