Smti Anitha John v. Andaman And Nicobar State Cooperative Bank Limited And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ******** PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAI CHATTOPADHYAY WPA/581/2025 Smti. Anitha John ... Petitioner
Versus
Andaman and Nicobar State Cooperative Bank Limited and another ... Respondents For the petitioner : Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar For the respondents : Ms. A. S. Zinu Heard on : 01.12.2025 Judgment on : 01.12.2025 RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.
1.
The writ petitioner is aggrieved that inspite of the inquiry officer having already submitted his report before the Disciplinary Authority in a departmental inquiry instituted against the petitioner earlier, the Disciplinary Authority for no justifiable reason has been sitting tight over the same, without consideration of the same and passing an order. 2.
The brief background fact of the case is that the petitioner worked as a Branch Manager with respondent No. 1 at Dollygunj Branch from March, 2015. Vide a memorandum dated 06.03.2018 the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against her, followed by another disciplinary proceeding vide a separate memo dated 19.09.2022.
3.
On 13.07.2018 suspension of the petitioner was revoked and subsequently, on 1st August, 2024 the petitioner was promoted as the Senior Manager under respondent No.1. 4.
The inquiry officer has submitted his report on 24.11.2023, before the Disciplinary Authority. Till date the Disciplinary Authority however, has not passed any order in consideration of the said report.
5.
The petitioner is aggrieved that inspite of submission of the inquiry report, inaction on part of the Disciplinary Authority to keep the same pending for a long period of time, for about 2 years is prejudicial to the petitioner's interest so far as her arrears of bonus, increments, promotions etc. are concerned, is bad in law, arbitrarily and illegally. Hence, this writ petition is filed to seek an appropriate relief.
6.
Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioner and insists that an order be passed upon the respondents to immediately take necessary step and pass order pursuant to the inquiry report submitted in the respective inquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 7.
Ms. A. S. Zinu, learned Advocate has represented the respondent authority. She has submitted upon instructions that a time bound direction may be passed upon the respondent authority to issue orders.
8.
Having perused the documents on record and heard the learned lawyers for the respective parties, the Court finds that a settled proposition of law is that a disciplinary proceeding initiated against an employee, is required to be concluded within a reasonable period of time and it cannot be kept pending indefinitely. Excessive delay without justification, amounts to violation of procedural fairness, in accordance with law. Also, that impact of delay must be considered in the context with prejudice as a key factor (as per P.D. Agrawal-vsState Bank of India and Ors reported in (2006) 8 SCC 776). The petitioner's prejudice as stated above, is evident, which is worth consideration, as jeopardizing her legal rights. 9.
Therefore, this Court finds it proper to dispose of the instant writ petition with the direction upon the respondents to immediately consider the inquiry report, in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide a memo dated 06.03.2018 and 19.09.2022 respectively and pass appropriate orders thereupon.
10.
Let the exercise as above be concluded by the respondent authority within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of copy of this judgment. Any order passed by the respondents in this regard shall be communicated to the present petitioner within one week from its date.
11.
With the direction as above, the writ petition being WPA/581/2025 is disposed of.
12.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, may be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)