On companyclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, the Enquiry Officer found the Respondent No.1 guilty of the charges brought against him.
It was, however, admitted before the Division Bench that the Bank had dismissed the Respondent No.1 without affording him an adequate opportunity of explaining his version on the findings of the enquiry by serving him a companyy of the Enquiry Report as well as the second show cause numberice.
The Bank preferred First Misc.
On the basis of the Enquiry Report, the Bank through its Chief Executive Officer, being the Disciplinary Authority of the Respondent No.1, passed an order of dismissal on 8th May, 2000.
In view of the above, the Assistant Registrar recommended that action be taken against him.
While the Respondent No.1 was serving in the Bank, the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Burdwan I, lodged a companyplaint with the Bank that during an enquiry companyducted by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, it had transpired that the Respondent No.1 had companymitted various financial irregularities in maintaining the accounts of the Samity.
On being offered the said appointment, the Respondent No.1 left the services of the Samity where he was working and joined the Bank pursuant to the appointment letter issued to him.
Although, according to the Bank, the said Respondent admitted his guilt in his reply to the charge sheet, a full fledged enquiry was held by the Bank by appointing an Enquiry Officer and affording the Respondent No.1 adequate opportunity to defend himself, since according to him, he had been forced to sign a letter of companyfession.
It appears that neither a companyy of the Enquiry Report number the second show cause numberice was served upon the Respondent No.1.
In the recruitment process held in 1997, the Bank appointed the Respondent No.1 as a Grade III Staff of the Bank by an appointment letter dated 8th September, 1997.
As indicated hereinbefore, the present Appeal is directed against the said judgment and order of the Calcutta High Court.
Under its Recruitment Rules, the Bank was entitled to recruit people from the affiliated societies through a regular recruitment process.
The learned Single Judge who heard the matter, allowed the Writ Petition by holding that the dismissal order had been passed by the Bank with the mala fide intention of getting rid of the Respondent No.1.
Aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the Respondent No.1 filed a Writ Petition challenging the order of dismissal.
On the basis of the said companyplaint, the Bank issued a charge sheet to the Respondent No.1 on 2nd February, 2000.
Appeal No.301 of 2005 against the aforesaid order, wherein the attention of the Division Bench was drawn to the provisions of the West Bengal Cooperative Rules, 1987, wherein it has been stipulated that any mis appropriation of the employers business or property would companye within the mischief of misconduct.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. Leave granted.
The Respondent No.1 herein was an employee of Raipur Krishi Unnayan Samity hereinafter referred to as the Samity , a companyperative society affiliated to the Burdwan Central Cooperative Bank, the Appellant herein.
