Facts of the Case
The appellant was designated driver of the Union of Milk Producer Co-operative Limited of Midnapore. While the complainant executing his responsibilities as a driver, the workers of the cooperative society filed two written complaints before the police accused the appellant of misappropriating their provisionary fund’s account. The investigating officers presented the charges based on the above-written allegations. After having received knowledge, the chief judicial magistrate sent the case to the judges concerned.
The person who is complying with the Indian Penal Code was registered concerning a complaint according to Section 467/468/471/420 of Kotawali PS. On 16 December 2008, the applicant was suspended and the cooperative company issued an indictment. It was alleged in the Memorandum of Charge sheet that employees of the society made false applications, falsifying the signature of the applicants and getting the checks incorrectly.
The appellant withdrew additional funds from the provident fund accounts of several employees in this company; This shows that the appellant performed a felony in the eye of law. The applicant responded correctly to the indictment. Further, the appellant retired at his superannuation age. The appeal of the West Bengal Death Cum Retirement Benefits Rules 1971 and Rule 10, in particular, allowed the parties to exchange affidavits in such limited cases in a co-operative society and invoked no. 5 and 6 of the affirms to file an affidavit in answer to such an affidavit in the opposition.
Arguments by Appellant
Learned Counsel stated that in criminal cases if the appellant has been acquitted, the departmental procedures are unable to continue. He argued that while the appellant withdrew from his employment in connection with his pension plan, the departmental investigation could not proceed since the retired employee could not be punished. He further said that neither the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act 2006 nor its provisions for disciplinary provision exist following the withdrawal of a company’s employee on the surrender of pension rights.
The co-operative company unanimously decided to implement Rule 10 of the DCRB Rules of 1971 at its 205th Board meeting of 24 November 2020. He argued that Rule 10 of the 1971 Rules of the DCRB stipulated that a departmental proceeding may be maintained by the DCRB after the official’s withdrawal if established during his employment.
He argued that while a superannuation process was begun before the appellant’s retirement, such a departmental case may be maintained and finalized, even though the appellant had subsequently withdrawn. The petition for the immediate writ petition may be denied based on a delay and a laugh alone, because the writ petitioner only referred his withdrawal from the superannuation service with effect from 31 January 2009 in December 2020, for dismissal of his retirement benefits.
Arguments by the Respondent
The Learned Counsel stated that it cautiously decided that the appellant had to commit the murder of the dead considering all the information in records. He also submitted that the findings and conclusion of the learned court could not be found to be incorrect, especially since Prosecution Witness s.3, 5, and 12 were not eyewitnesses, their testimony was acceptable under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872.
In this case, the inquiry proceedings against the appellants began on 16 March 2009 and the Resolution about the adoption of Rule 10 of the DCRB Rules, 1971, only commenced on 24 November 2020. He thus submitted that the stated resolution of 24 November 2020 had no retroactive effect. He also submitted that the stated resolution was only taken to victimise the appellant, as such regulations were created to apply the same solely to the appellant’s case in this regard.
As per the court’s observations, there is no doubt that in the course of a criminal proceeding the appellant was arrested and extended on bail. Furthermore, it is not at issue that the appellant has been suspended and an interim procedure was opened when he was in service. a charge sheet was issued.
On 31 January 2009, the appellant withdrew from duty. The competent Judicial Magistrates subsequently acquitted the applicant. In the second criminal case GR court Case No. 871 of 2005, the decision of October 27, 2017, revealed that not one witness was examined to support his case. Although calls have been served frequently on the indictment sheet, they have not appeared before the Court yet. Therefore, the learned magistrate noticed no evidence and the appellants were acquitted accordingly. This Court now has to assess whether the appellant’s acquittal might be declared an honest one.
From the all heard proceedings, The Learned Court concluded that the appeal was allowed and the respondent no. 5 and 6 were instructed to provide all the retiral dues within four (4) weeks from the date of judgement.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.