MANU/WB/0420/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

W.P. No. 12595(W) of 2016

Decided On: 16.06.2017

Appellants: Dipak Chatterjee Vs. Respondent: State of West Bengal and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Debi Prosad Dey

JUDGMENT

Debi Prosad Dey, J.

1. The petitioner has been working as Assistant Accountant of the Suri Friend's Union Co-operative Bank Limited at Suri, Birbhum, a registered cooperative society and his service has been terminated by resolution No. 19 passed by the General meeting of the Suri Friend's Union Co-operative Societies Bank Limited held on 21st day of February, 2016.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ application with the specific prayer that the resolution No. 19 passed in the 63rd Annual General meeting of the Suri Friend's Union Co-operative Bank Limited, Suri, Birbhum held on 21st February, 2016 be set aside and the Suri Friend's Union Co-operative bank Limited(herein after referred as bank only) be directed to rehear the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the decision of Board of Directors.

3. It is apparent from the averments made in the writ application that a proceeding was drawn up against the petitioner and the petitioner was found guilty by the enquiry officer. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Board of Directors of the said bank for consideration and ultimately the chairman of Board of Directors of the said bank as per resolution of the board dated 18th July, 2013 informed the petitioner that his service was terminated with effect from 20th July, 2013 for his misconduct.

4. The petitioner thereafter moved a writ application being WP No. 18343(W) of 2013 before this Court and the following order was passed by the High Court in the aforesaid writ application:

"Affidavit of service filed today be kept on record. As prayed for, leave granted to the petitioner to file supplementary affidavit. Let copies of the supplementary affidavit be served on the Learned advocates for the respondents.

It is submitted by Bandopadhyay, learned advocate for the petitioner on instruction that his client seeks leave to file an appeal under Clause 15(2) of Rule 106 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 2011 against the order of dismissal which may be directed to be considered sympathetically.

In view of the submission advanced, the petitioner is at liberty to file appeal before the General Body of Members and if filed, such appeal shall be considered by the General Body sympathetically.

It is made clear pendency of the writ petition shall not prevent the General Body of members to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner.

The point of maintainability of the writ application raised by the learned advocate for the respondents is kept open.

Liberty to mention upon notice.

(Soumitra Pal, J.)"

5. During the pendency of the said writ application another writ application being No. WP 18880(W) of 2014 was filed by the present petitioner and the said writ application was also disposed of on 20th August, 2014 by this Court holding inter alia that pursuant to the direction given by this Court in writ application No. 18343(W) of 2013 the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the appropriate authority and accordingly there was absolutely no scope to interfere with such order. Such writ application was also disposed of by this Court. Writ petition No. 18343(W) of 2013 has been finally disposed of on 16.12.2015 on the ground that the appellate authority would consider the appeal in accordance with law.

6. Another writ application being No. WP 15977(W) of 2014 was filed by the present petitioner and the said writ application was also disposed of with the observation that no effective order is required to be passed in the writ application since the matter has been dealt with in WP No. 18880(W) of 2014.

The petitioner has filed this writ application stating inter alia that

"i) Charge sheet is not sustainable,

ii) Order of dismissal dated 20th July, 2013 is disproportionate.

iii) Copy of Enquiry Report has not been supplied.

iv) Principles of Natural Justice violated.

v) No personal hearing in appeal was provided in the general meeting of the bank."

Respondent No. 5 namely the Chairman of the Bank has only contested this case by filing affidavit in opposition. Respondent No. 5 has sp........