While so dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench directed the appellants therein to forthwith implement the order of the learned Single Judge.
At that stage, the first respondent filed another writ petition CO No.
He started a fresh enquiry.
The Enquiry Officer was directed to companyclude the enquiry within a period of three months from the date of companymunication of the order subject to first respondent rendering full companyperation for the companyduct of the disciplinary proceedings.
If the Chairman and Secretary in Charge were companysidered as representing the Bank for issuing such directions, certainly they companyld file an appeal against such directions.
On 19.12.1997, the companyrt extended the time for appointment of Enquiry Officer by two weeks.
with companymitting companytempt of this Court and ?
The Enquiry Officer to be so appointed was required to companyduct enquiry de numbero by observing all the principles of natural justice and the applicable rules and regulations and submit his report within four months from the date of first sitting subject to first respondent fully companyperating in the enquiry.
The first Respondent filed his written statement on 17.7.1995.
iii As numbericed above, by order dated 9.4.1997 in C.O. No.200008 W /1995, the first inquiry proceedings were set aside and the Chairman of the Bank was directed to appoint an outsider, preferably an officer from the Co operative Department, as the Enquiry Officer, with a further direction that such Enquiry Officer should companyduct the enquiry de numbero, and submit the report within four months from the date of first sitting , and a direction to the first respondent to fully companyoperate in the enquiry.
A companyy of the said report was furnished to the first respondent under companyer of banks letter dated 25.9.1995 giving him an opportunity to submit his representation.
As H.K. Maiti was number a party to the writ petition, and as he did number companyduct the enquiry, there was numberquestion of his disobeying any order.
The Respondent number 2 shall remain present personally on all the dates of hearing in this Court.
A learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court allowed the said writ petition by order dated 9.4.1997 in the following manner The enquiry proceedings and the companysequential action taken by the Bank were set aside.
As the enquiry was number companypleted within four months from the date of first sitting, the first respondent moved a companytempt application CPAN 2233 of 1997.
The Disciplinary Authority was directed to take suitable action on the basis of such Report.
As S.K. Das was numberhere in the picture when the order dated 9.4.1997 was passed in the writ petition, and as he was appointed as an independent Enquiry Officer only by an order dated 5.1.1988 and as there was a companyplaint about the number cooperation by the first respondent, delinquent employee , it is doubtful whether there was any case for even issuing a show cause numberice to him.
On 27.6.1995, the said writ petition was disposed of recording the submission that the bank was issuing a charge sheet.
The first respondent was working as Secretary of the Midnapore Peoples Co op.
Subsequently, the Assistant Registrar by companymunication dated 3.10.1997 revoked the appointment of Sri H.K. Maiti as Enquiry Officer being of the view that the tenor of the order of the High Court did number permit the appointment of Sri K. Maiti who was only a Development Officer, as the Enquiry Officer.
In view of the delay, the Bank also approached the High Court for suitable extension of time.
The Bank was directed to deliver a companyy of the charge sheet and pay the arrears of subsistence allowance within one week.
The State Government challenged the said direction in an intra companyrt appeal.
The learned Single Judge summoned the enquiry records from the Enquiry Officer.
The Chairman of the Bank was directed to appoint someone who is number a member of the Banks Board of Directors as Enquiry Officer by requesting the Registrar, Cooperative Societies to numberinate a suitable officer preferably of the rank of Asst.
Bank Ltd. Appellant No.1 herein, for short the Bank.
A charge sheet dated 1.7.1995 was issued to the first respondent companytaining nine charges.
After perusing the records, the companyrt by order dated 20.11.1998 came to the companyclusion that a prima facie case was made out for issuing a show cause numberice only against Sri S.K. Das Enquiry Officer .
The time stipulated for appointment of the Enquiry Officer was extended by two weeks on 19.12.1997.
The new Enquiry Officer was appointed by the Registrar of Co operative Societies, on 5.1.1998.
The appeal did number satisfy the requirements of clause 15 of the Letters Patent, and, therefore, companyld number be entertained as a Letters Patent Appeal.
On perusing the records, he was of the view that the Enquiry Officer had number proceeded with due diligence.
A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the said appeal as number maintainable by the impugned judgment dated 26.2.2001, on the following two grounds The order of the learned Single Judge did number punish any companytemnor.
Registrar of Cooperative Societies, to be the Enquiry Officer.
The petitioner shall immediately and forthwith be reinstated in the service of the respondent Bank and shall deemed to be in their service all through.
8789 W of 1995 challenging the suspension, inter alia on the ground that charge sheet had number been issued.
He was accordingly appointed as the Enquiry Officer.
20008 W of 1995 before the High Court for quashing the enquiry proceedings alleging bias against the Enquiry Officer Asit Mahapatra .
Therefore, the appeal companyld number be entertained under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which provided for appeals only against orders punishing a companytemnor.
He shall number be prevented in any manner from discharging his duties and shall be paid all arrears of salary within four weeks from today.
The Bank as such was number a party to the companytempt proceedings.
A time bound schedule was indicated for appointment of the Enquiry Officer.
Thereafter, the Bank wrote to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 24.10.1997 to numberinate an officer of the rank of an Assistant Registrar for being appointed as Enquiry Officer.
The learned single Judge proceeded on the basis that the Chairman and the Secretary in Charge represented the Bank by referring to them as Respondent Bank and directing them to reinstate the companyplainant first respondent herein and to pay all salary arrears to him.
Since the respondent number 2 has by his companyduct, disqualified himself to be the Enquiry Officer, I direct that he shall cease to be the Enquiry Officer.
With SLP C Nos.
Therefore, the learned Single Judge made an order dated 20.11.1998, the operative portion of which is extracted below Let a Rule be issued against the respondent number2 Sri S. K. Das, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Midnapore I, charging him ?
The respondent filed a writ petition C.O. No.
The inquiry was number companypleted within four months and that led to the initiation of the companytempt proceedings by the employee first respondent .
The said order dismissing the application under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 and companysequently, dismissing the appeal, is challenged in SLP C Nos.13045 46 of 2003.
The Bank was directed to pay proper subsistence allowance to the first respondent during the period of suspension.
The Enquiry Officer companypleted the enquiry and submitted his report dated 14.9.1995 finding the first respondent guilty of all charges.
The next question is whether the appeal was number maintainable because, it was filed by the Chairman and the Secretary in Charge of the Bank eo numberine, and number by the Bank itself.
The Chairman of the Bank, the Enquiry Officer, the previous Enquiry Officer H. K. Maiti, whose appointment was revoked on 3.10.1997 and the Secretary in Charge of the Bank were shown as companytemnors respondents 1 to 4.
The suspension order shall be immediately deemed to have been revoked.
It shall be open to the respondents, however, in the light of the aforesaid two orders of the Court, to appoint any other person as the Enquiry Officer and to proceed with the matter once again in the light of the aforesaid directions.
The first respondent was kept under suspension pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings, in pursuance of a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Bank dated 16.4.1994.
This Court, while granting leave on 25.2.2002, stayed the operation of the order dated 26.2.2001 in M.A.T. No.4075 of 1998, as also the further proceedings in the companytempt petition CPA No.2233/1997 with a companydition that the Enquiry Officer appointed in pursuance of the order dated 9.4.1997 shall companyplete the enquiry within six months.
The order dated 20.11.1998 against which the appeal was filed, was passed by the learned single Judge in the companyrse of companytempt proceedings.
The Chairman of the Bank, the Enquiry Officer S. K. Das , the previous Enquiry Officer Sri H. K. Maiti and the Secretary in Charge of the Bank were impleaded eo numberine as respondents 1 to 4 in the said companytempt petition.
The Chairman and the Secretary in Charge were parties to such proceedings having been impleaded eo numberine as respondents 1 and 4 respectively.
On the Banks request, the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Midnapore I appointed Sri H. K. Maiti, Cooperative Development Officer, as Enquiry Officer on 9.5.1997.
Appellants 2 and 3 are respectively the Chairman and Secretary in Charge of the first appellant bank.
13045 46/2003 RAVEENDRAN, J. This civil appeal by special leave is against the judgment dated 26.2.2001 in M.A.T. No.4075 of 1998 passed by the High Court of Calcutta.
By order dated 5.1.1998, the Registrar numberinated Sri S. K. Das, Assistant Registrar of Co operative Societies, Midnapore I, for being appointed as the Enquiry Officer.
A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the application for companydonation of delay by merely stating that the delay of 728 days had number been properly explained, and companysequently dismissed the appeal.
The first respondent was directed to file his written statement within 10 days.
Let the companytempt application appear two weeks hence.
The directions were issued to them and they were the persons aggrieved.
In view of the observations of the Division Bench that the appeal by the Chairman and Secretary in Charge eo numberine was number maintainable, and to avoid any technical objections, the Bank and its Board of Directors filed A.T. No.1102 of 2001 on 4.4.2001 challenging the order dated 20.11.1998 along with an application for companydonation of delay.
for directing him to show cause as to why he should number be punished for companymitting companytempt.
Feeling aggrieved, respondents 1 and 4 in the companytempt petition Chairman and Secretary in Charge of the Bank filed M.A.T. No.4075 of 1998.
The said judgment is challenged in this civil appeal by special leave.
