Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Khagen Chandra Das vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 February, 2017
Author: Nishita Mhatre
Bench: Nishita Mhatre
1
14.02.2017
Item No.6
ad
F.M.A 3011 of 2015
With
C.A.N 7827 of 2015
Khagen Chandra Das
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Kali,
Mr. Sudip Roy Choudhury,
Ms. Pooja Sett ...... For the Appellant
Mr. Aniket Mitra ...... For the Indian Bank
In re: F.M.A 3011 of 2015
The subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal is an order dated
21st July, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P 15192(W) of 2015.
The appellant was initially appointed to the post of a 'Clerk' in the
Indian Bank, Jalpaiguri Branch, in the year 1997. A charge sheet was issued
against him on 14th of April, 1999, an enquiry was conducted and the
disciplinary proceeding culminated in an order of discharge from service with
superannuation benefits. In the midst thereof, a criminal proceeding was also
initiated against him in respect of similar charges and under Sections
420/465/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code which culminated in an order of
acquittal on 18th May, 2011. The appellant thereafter made a representation for
reinstatement in service on 9th of August, 2011. As the said representation was
not considered, the appellant approached this Court by a writ petition being W.P.
2
No.21166 (W) of 2012 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 19th
December, 2012 directing the respondents to consider the appellant's
representation and to intimate the decision. Pursuant to the said order, a final order was passed on 21st of May, 2015 refusing the appellant's prayer for reinstatement. The said order was challenged by preferring a writ petition and the same was dismissed by the order impugned in the present appeal.
Mr. Kali, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellant submits that on identical facts and charges, a criminal proceeding as well as a disciplinary proceeding were initiated. The charges levelled against the appellant could not be proved in the criminal proceedings and accordingly, the appellant was acquitted. As the guilt of the appellant could not be proved, the very substratum of the charges against the appellant in the disciplinary proceeding did not survive and as such after acquittal, the appellant approached the authorities for reconsideration of the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings and for reinstatement.
He further submits that without taking into consideration such argument as advanced, the learned Single Judge hastily dismissed the writ petition penalizing the appellant for having filed successive writ petitions though fact remains that the respondent authorities were very much vindictive against the appellant and due to their inaction the appellant was constrained to prefer successive writ petitions.
Mr. Mitra, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent Bank submits that the charges levelled against the appellant in the disciplinary proceedings 3 were very grave and the appellant's conduct was reproachable and his understanding of responsibility and adherence to discipline was questionable. Upon conducting the disciplinary proceedings in strict consonance with the statutory provisions and upon granting a reasonable opportunity to defend the said proceedings, the final order of discharge from service with pensionary benefits was passed against the appellant.
He further submits that in the service rules, there is no provision towards reinstatement of an employee after his acquittal in the criminal proceeding. In the absence of such provision in the rules, the appellant's claim for reinstatement after acquittal in the criminal proceeding is not sustainable in law. In support of such contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments delivered in W.P.S.T 20 of 2016 (The State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Ratan Sarkar) and in M.A.T 147 of 2016 (Anjan Biswas vs. Central Bank of India & Ors.,).
In reply, Mr. Kali could not dispute the contention of Mr. Mitra to the effect that under the service rules there is no provision towards reinstatement of an employee after his acquittal in the criminal proceeding.
Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Indisputably, the initial order of punishment was passed on 22nd February, 2005 and the final order in the criminal proceeding was passed on 18th of May, 2011. In the midst thereof, the appellant did not prefer any statutory appeal as provided under the rules. In the service 4 rules, there is no provision towards reinstatement of an employee after his acquittal in the criminal proceeding.
In Ratan Sarkar (supra), the Division Bench, placing reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deputy Inspector General of Police & Anr. Vs. S. Samuthiram, reported in (2013)1 SCC 598 arrived at a finding that in the absence of any provision under the service rules, the employer cannot direct reinstatement on the prayer of the employee made after acquittal in the criminal proceedings.
Applying such proposition of law to the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the appellant's prayer for reinstatement is not sustainable in law. The learned Single Judge, upon dealing with all the factual issues has rightly refused to exercise discretion in favour of the appellant and we do not find any error in the order impugned.
For the reasons discussed above, the appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeal, the stay application has become infractuous and the same is also dismissed.
Needless to observe, in the event the dues, in terms of the final order passed in the disciplinary proceedings, have not been disbursed in favour of the appellant, the respondents shall disburse the same within a period of four weeks from date.
There will be no order as to costs.
5Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance with the necessary formalities in this regard.
(Nishita Mhatre, A.C.J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)