Calcutta High Court
Santosh Kumar Ghosh vs West Bengal State Electricity Board And ... on 11 March, 1988
Equivalent citations: (1988)2CALLT363(HC)
JUDGMENT K.M. Yusuf, J.
1. In this Rule the order of dismissal passed in the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner is under challenge. The facts of the case, inter alia, are as under : The petitioner was an employee under the West Bengal State Electricity Board as a Store-Keeper, Grade II, Chanchal (0 & M) Sub-division in the district of Malda. As the Store-Keeper, the petitioner's functions included to keep accounts of the goods kept in the store and also to keep a register regarding delivery of goods from the store on the basis of order or slip issued by the authority. In April, 1979 there was a severe storm in various parts of Malda district including Chanchal Sub-division and as a result a large number of electric poles were broken and electric lines were damaged. Immediate action was taken and the contractors went at work for the restoration of supply and for this work the contractors were supplied materials on the basis of "Loan Slip" on the instruction of the Assistant Engineer, Chanchal. The Accountant of Internal Audit raised objection, for the irregular procedure and the Assistant Engineer by a letter, dated 31st July, 1979 requested the Divisional Engineer, Malda to regularise the matter.
2. On 11th April, 1980 the petitioner was served with a Charge-sheet, dated 24th March, 1930 directing him to show cause within a specified period of the charges made against him. The charges levelled against him included alleged misappropriation of the Board's property amounting to Rs. 64,786.14; manipulation of the records of various accounts, gross misconduct, violation of discipline, etc., but no imputation or particulars of the charges were provided. The petitioner by a letter, dated 18th April, 1980 addressed to the Chief Engineer (T & D) asked for several particulars and documents and the names of persons to be examined so that he could make out a defence otherwise the charges would be vague and indefinite. But neither particulars nor inspection nor any particulars of documents of the charges or the names of witnesses were supplied to the petitioner and he was intimated by a letter, dated 19th May, 1980 that the petitioner would be given an opportunity by the Enquiry Officer to inspect the documents and take extracts thereof. In the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner could not take an)' effective defence and by a letter, dated 24th December, 1981 the respondent No. 3 fixed the date of the disciplinary proceeding. By a second Show Cause Notice, dated 1st July, 1982 the Secretary of the West Bengal State Electricity Board forwarded the findings of the Enquiry Officer stating that the charges have been established at the enquiry which are of grave nature and the punishment called for is the dismissal of the petitioner from the service of the Board. As such the petitioner was given 15 days time for further opportunity of defence as regards the proposed punishment of dismissal. The petitioner challenges this dismissal Order as totally illegal and mala fide.
3. The respondents Nos. 1 and 3 filed an Affidavit-in-Opposition wherein, the allegations of the petitioner were refuted and main instances! of manipulation were recorded as under :
(i) Original figures under column "quantity required" and "quantity supplied" were tampered.
(ii) New items were inserted in the Store Requisition Notes subsequently to the delivery of materials.
(iii) Fictitious issues were made through blank Store Requisition Notes and a
(iv) Issues were recorded in excess of actual supply.
The respondents stated that the petitioner participated in the enquiry throughout from 24th April, 1981 to 16th December, 1981 and was given full opportunity to defend himself. He submitted his explanation against the Charge-sheet, all opportunities for obtaining the copies of the documents on the basis of charges were provided by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner's representative cross-examined the prosecution witnesses and examined the documents. The petitioner did not examine himself or any other witnesses but produced documents which were marked Exhibits. When the charges were established as of grave nature and the punishment called for was dismissal from service the petitioner was given an opportunity of defence before the final Order was passed and the second Show Cause Notice was found unsatisfactory and the dismissal Order, dated 1st December, 1982 was sent to the petitioner by Registered post which returned back with the remark "refused". The respondents denied that the allegations made in the charge-sheets are indefinite, vague or without particulars. As such according to the respondents the disciplinary proceedings were properly conducted, full opportunity was given to the petitioner for defence and there is not irregularity. The Rule must accordingly be discharged.
4. In his reply to the opposition the petitioner reiterated his case and further stated that to ascertain the goods deliver to the Store Keeper the Requisition Slips, the ledger and the Store Issue Vouchers are to be compared at the same time and after the delivery of goods if a person returns a portion of the same, those are entered into special Account Books named Special Adjustment File commonly known as File No. 32. The charges of manipulating the figures and changing the store records have been made but no particulars or imputation of charges were supplied. It is also contended by the petitioner that at the time of hearing neither the ledger nor the store issue voucher nor any other document was produced but only a bunch of Requisition Slips were produced and three witnesses were examined. The two Special Superintendents stated in the evidence that without the connected papers they were not in the position to say anything only on the basis of the Requisition Slips. The store issue vouchers containing the signature could not be produced as they had been sent for audit. It is further stated in the Affidavit-in-Reply that the petitioner did submit a reply to the second show cause notice on 5th July, 1982. It is once again repeated that no opportunity was given to him for proper defence and the entire disciplinary proceeding was mala fide as natural justice and reasonable opportunity were denied to the petitioner to defend himself.
5. Mr. Banerji, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the Charge-sheet is vague and indefinite and issued with a closed mind. It also does not disclose the list of witnesses and the documents to be relied upon by the prosecution. There is no imputation of the charges given in the Chargesheet and the absence of the particulars keeps the petitioner in dark as to the extent and nature of the charges. He further submitted that the ledger was not produced at any stage before the Enquiry Officer nor the adjustment file which is known as File No. 32. The Internal Audit Report also did not see the light of the day during the hearing of the disciplinary proceedings. The vouchers and papers were at random selected and produced during the proceedings. Mr. Banerji further submitted that the entire proceedings is ab initio void because the petitioner was not given any opportunity to defend himself properly. The denial of handing over the copies of the documents to the petitioner or even their inspection before the proceeding commenced debarred the petitioner from taking any effective defence which is absolutely contrary to the principle of natural justice. The charges were broadly divided under three heads : (i) gross mis-conduct/fraud ; (ii) misappropriation of the West Bengal State Electricity Board's property; and (iii) violation of the Board's discipline, order and procedure. But no details of those charges in form of imputation was supplied. By his letter, dated 18th April, 1980 addressed to the Chief Engineer (T & D) the petitioner dealt with in details the particulars he required for his defence. Again on 11th May, 1981 he wrote to the concerned respondent for the supply of the copies of the papers as discussed on 24th April, 1981 in the presence of the Enquiry Officer at.Chanchal (0 & M) Sub-division. But all his efforts went in vain. He was then assured by a letter, dated 24th September, 1981 by the Enquiry Officer that when on 16th October, 1981 the enquiry proceeding would take place, all reasonable opportunity would be afforded to him for defence and he would also be at liberty to adduce documents, evidence and witnesses for the purpose. But in spite of the assurances the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to properly defend himself and the respondents did not forward to him the copies of the relevant documents and virtually the enquiry was a walk over so far the petitioner is concerned.
6. Mr. Banerji in his argument has vehemently made emphasis on the vagueness of the charges and denial of opportunity to inspect the documents which virtually means that no opportunity was given for defence to the petitioner. He further submitted that the charges were issued with a closed mind and from the proceedings of the enquiry it appeared that the Enquiry Officer was not in a, position to come to a definite conclusion about the guilt of the petitioner on the basis of the evidence before him. He admitted that the petitioner participated throughout during the proceedings but mere physical participation was not enough when the copies of the papers which were essential to put up an effective defence were not supplied. Mr. Banerji referred to a number of decisions in support of his contentions to justify that the proceedings are bad, illegal and vitiated by denial of natural justice and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The following decisions were cited by the learned Counsel which I shall discuss afterwards :
(1) (State of U.P. v. Md. Sharif) (2) 1985(2) S.L.R. 576 (Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel) (3) (Khemchand v. Union of India) (4) 1983 L.I.C. 624 (Anandram J. Baswani v. Union of (5) 19.79(2) C.L.J. 1.27 (Manindra Nath Ghosh v. State of W.B.) (6) (Surat Chandra Chakraborty v. State of W.B.) (7) AIR 1961-S.C. 1623 (State of M.P. v. Chintamoni Sadashiba Waishampaycm)
7. The very purpose of citation of above decisions is to bring home the point that natural justice and reasonable opportunity were totally denied and the petitioner was not given any opportunity to defend himself in accordance with the well laid principles of law.
8. Mr. Roy, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, ' submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were properly conducted in the presence of the petitioner who was given all opportunities during the hearing, of cross-examining the prosecution witnesses and examining the documents proved against him. There was no denial of natural justice to him at all and the petitioner' was throughout present during such proceedings and actively participated. He submitted that by a letter dated 2nd/ 4th April, 1981 the Enquiry Officer intimated to the petitioner that full opportunity would be provided to him for obtaining the copies of the documents asked for so that he could put up a proper defence and for this purpose he fixed Chanchal (0 & M) Subdivision office as the venue on 24th August, 1981 at 11 a.m. But by a subsequent letter, dated 13th April, 1981 the Enquiry Officer corrected the date as 24th April, 1981 instead of 24th August, 1981. Mr. Roy placed before this Court the entire memorandum of evidence containing the disciplinary proceedings and pointed out that the petitioner refused to obtain the copies of the initial records on the basis of the charges brought up against him. As such, he submitted that the petitioner throughout non-cooperation in inspecting the documents and taking the notes therefrom in spite of all opportunities and facilities offered to him and his plea that no opportunity was given to him to study the documents upon which the prosecution relied was not at all tenable. He further submitted that the Charge-sheet was neither vague nor indefinite and the petitioner got from the charges full idea of his misdeeds and for that purpose the imputation of charges were not at all necessary. In the circumstances Mr. Ray submitted that there is no denial of natural justice and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and, as such, this very plea which is the arch-defence of the petitioner must fall.
9. Having heard both the sides I have given due consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and intricacies involved therein. It appears from the report of enquiry that four charges were brought against the petitioner, namely, (A) & (B) without consent of the related employees/persons the original figures in the Store Requisition Notes, S.I.V. and Store Ledger; have been changed by inserting extra figures and original figures under column "quantity required" and "quantity supplied" in the Store Requisition Notes have been tampered through overwriting and inserting fresh digits at the left and right of the original figures. (C) Fictitious issues have been made through blank Store Requisition Notes. (D) Issues have been recorded in the Store Ledger in excess of the actual supply.
10. On the above charges the accused was held responsible, as aforesaid, for : (a) mis-appropriation of Board's property, (b) gross misconduct/fraud, and (c) violation of Board's discipline, order and procedure. It appears that on 24th April, 1981 in response to the Enquiry Officer's letter, dated 2nd April, 1981 the enquiry started in the presence of the petitioner and Sri S. K. Sarkar, D.EL, Malda (0 & M) Division and the prosecution officer. The Enquiry Officer pointed out that the purpose of this meeting was mainly to provide the petitioner with all information and details of the transactions on the basis of which the: charges have been drawn. He asked the prosecution to place before the petitioner all such initial records in support of the transaction and the prosecution agreed. But before the prosecution could produce the records the petitioner left the room and returned after 45, minutes with a petition for allowing one Shri Manoj Kumar Singha. an employee of the Board, to be present during the enquiry for assisting him. This was allowed. Again the Enquiry Officer asked the prosecution to produce the records. The petitioner wanted to compare the copies of the Charge-sheet with him with that which was in the custody of the Enquiry Officer and this was allowed. Then the petitioner wanted the copies of enquiry reports placed by the prosecution instead of perusing the same. To this the Enquiry Officer told the petitioner that he might take notes of his own efforts of whichever records he liked. The Enquiry Officer made it clear that he was at liberty to take any copy or copies of the records he was interested with but the petitioner expressed his unwillingness and demanded copies of all of them. According to the Enquiry Officer the purpose for which the meeting was arranged could not be achieved and the meeting was dissolved.
11. From the enquiry proceedings it further appears that instead of producing the entire bunch of Store Requisition Notes wherein the original figures for quantities have been changed byinserting extra figures, only ten such requisition Notes initiated by the Enquiry Officer as exhibits were produced which the petitioner inspected. At this the defence counsel on behalf of the petitioner wanted that the entire S. R. Ns. should be produced along with Internal Audit Report, to which the Enquiry Officer held that such large volume of records could not be produced and should be done piecemeal. Those ten exhibits are mentioned in the enquiry proceedings. From the enquiry proceedings held on 26th August, 1981 it transpires that the Enquiry Officer wanted to know how the alleged misappropriation for Rs. 64,786.14 had been arrived at and asked for details. The prosecution produced three statements for alleged misappropriation of stores totalled to the aforesaid amount. The statements were shown to the petitioner for. inspection and taking copies thereof which he did. It further appears that on 16th October, 1981 the Enquiry Officer gave opportunity to the petitioner for producing documents in defence and the petitioner did produce some documents which the Enquiry Officer examined that the documents produced were irrelevant to the charges. The petitioner accepted the contention of the E.O. and withdrew the documents. On the following day when the enquiry resumed the E.O. asked the delinquent to state the detailed procedure which was actually followed by him during the year 1978-79 and 1979-80 for issuing materials on the store to which he reopined "I used to follow the instruction of the Assistant Engineer in this regard". When the E.O. asked the petitioner to submit documentary evidence for his defence for the second time, his reply was that all documentary evidences were in the office and none in his possession at present. When the E.O. failed to receive any positive reply from the petitioner as to the procedure of supply of materials then he turned towards the prosecution for the detailed procedure followed in store depot during the aforesaid period. One of the witnesses Shri Sudhir Kumar Adhikari, Chargeman, has proved Ext. No. 17 and confirmed that he had received 200 mts. A.C.S.R. 0.05 sq. mm', under item No. 1 of relevant Store Receipts Notes and not 2000 mts. as had been over- written in both copies thereof. He was cross-examined by the defence counsel and one of the questions and answers thereof is quoted below :
Q.-It is fact what you had received A.C.S.R. 0.05 sq. mm. without proper requisition from the Store Keeper earlier and the Store Keeper had adjusted the same in the S.R.N. des- cribed in Ext. 17 ? A.-No, I had not received any material from the Store Keeper without S.R.N. and no adjustment in this regard is therefore called for.
12. I need not dwell at length with the" enquiry proceedings to being home the points which are limited but the enquiry proceedings suffer from defects. It was not possible for the E.O. to scrutinise the huge bulk of papers containing transactions and only ten Requisition Notes were scrutinised which went against the petitioner. Two important pieces of evidence, namely, File No. 32 and the Internal Audit Report were never produced before the E.O. during the hearing which lasted for several days for reasons best known to the prosecution. The Internal Audit Report is the crux of the disciplinary proceeding as the entire charge-sheet is based on this report. Anyhow, the E.O. held the petitioner responsible for the offence so far Items A and B are concerned and exonerated him of Items C and D which, in fact, were repetition of charges under A and B. Let it be stated here that the prosecution produced some original records for inspection in this Court and it was apparently clear that the papers were tampered with through overwriting and by inserting fresh digits. But the question is : By whom ? It has not been established beyond doubt that the mischief was done by the petitioner.
13. Now I deal with a number of decisions cited by Mr. Benerji in support of his contentions.
14. The decision (Khemchand v. Union of India) is based on Article 311(2) of the Constitution prior to the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976. In this case Their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down three criteria of reasonable opportunity as envisaged by the Constitution vis-a-vis to a government employee, namely, (a) an opportunity to deny his guilt and established his innocence, which he can only do if he is told what the charges levelled against him are and the allegations on which such charges are based ; (b) an opportunity to defend himself by cross-examining the witnesses produced against him and by examining himself or any other witnesses in support of his defence; and finally (c) an opportunity to make his representation as to why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted on him. Of the three criteria the last two have been fulfilled in this case but not the first one as the delinquent was not given an opportunity to deny his guilt on the basis of a truncated Charge-sheet served upon him.
15. In the decision reported in AIR 1961 S.C. 1623 {State of M.P. v. Chkitamon Sadashiva Waishampayan) the Supreme Court laid down that the principle whether or not the delinquent has had a reasonable opportunity must always depend on the facts in each case. The Supreme Court elucidate it further as follows : "The only general statement that can be safely made in this connection is that the departmental enquiries should observe rules of natural justice, and that if they are fairly and properly conducted the decision reached by the Enquiry Officer on the merits are not opened to be challenged on the ground that the procedure followed was not exactly in accordance with that which is observed in the Courts of Law.... The rules of natural justice require that a party should have the opportunity of adducing all relevant evidence on which he relies, that the evidence of the opponent, should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of crossexamining the witnesses examined by that party, and that no materials should be relied on against him without his being given an opportunity of explaining them. The right to cross-examine the witnesses who give evidence against him is a very valuable right, and if it appears that effective exercise of this right has been prevented by the Enquiry Officer by not giving to the officer documents to which he is entitled, that inevitably would mean that the enquiry had not been held in accordance with the rules of natural justice."
16. The aforesaid elucidation has been complied with in the instant case because all opportunities were given to the petitioner during the disciplinary proceedings for the inspection of documents and to make notes or copies of the same save and except the first criterion of natural justice by not furnishing the imputation of the charges.
17. The case of Surat Chandra Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal deals with vague and indefinite charges and failure to supply statement of allegations amounting to denial of natural justice. This case very much helps Mr. Banerji's client.
18. In the Calcutta case of Manindra Nath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in 1979(2) C.L.J. 127 the second Show Cause Notice was under challenge, mter alia, on the ground that the Charge-sheet was issued with a closed mind and that the principle of natural justice had been violated. The Decision Bench upheld the Appellant's contention. In the instant case the plea of issuing the charge-sheet with a closed mind in my opinion has substantial merit.
19. In (State of U.P. v. Md. Sharif ) one head constable against whom the departmental enquiry started was not furnished the charge with necessary particulars, i.e., the date and time of the alleged misconduct was not mentioned; and secondly, the copies of the statements of the witnesses recorded were not furnished to the delinquent at the time of enquiry. In the circumstances he was naturally prejudiced in the matter of defence as reasonable opportunity was denied to him. But in the present case under consideration the period of alleged acts was vaguely described as to render the delinquent unable to properly answer the allegations. This decision goes in favour of the petitioner to great extent.
20. In the case of Anandram Jiandrai Vaswani v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1983 Lab. I.C. 624 a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court held that refusal to supply documents to delinquent resulted in violation of rules of natural justice. Here the Disciplinary Authority or the Enquiry Officer did not give any reason for withholding the documents asked for by. the delinquent except stating that they were irrelevant. But in the instant case not only all the documents were produced before the delinquent during the hearing but he was also given opportunities at every stage to take extracts or copies thereof, as such this decision does not support the contention of the petitioner.
21. I do not find any justification to refer to the case reported in 1985(2) S.L.R. 576 (Union of India and Ors. v. Tulsiram Patel) which relates to totally different facts wherein the holding of the departmental enquiry under Article 311(2) of the Constitution was dispensed with and, as such, fairplay and natural justice was denied. This particular case also has no bearing to the case under consideration.
22. Article 311(2) of the Constitution runs as under: "No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges......" The expression 'reasonable opportunity' has not been defined in the Constitution but there can be little doubt that the expression means opportunity to present all the evidence and arguments which the delinquent deems important for the purpose of his case. It may safely be said that the requirements of reasonable opportunity are satisfied (i) when the person affected is being given personal notice of the charges he is called upon to answer; (ii) when he is informed of the place where and time when he shall so answer ; (iii) when he is afforded an opportunity, if he so chooses, to cross-examine the witnesses produced against him, when he is afforded an opportunity after all the evidence is produced and known to him to produce evidence and witnesses to refute it; (iv) when the decision is governed by and based upon the evidence at the hearing ; and (v) when the hearing is heard before unbiased and unprejudiced officer. When the inquiry is conducted in the presence of the government employee himself and he is fully conversant of what transpired in the course of the enquiry and there is nothing which is kept secret from him, 'in that event he cannot complain that there was violation of the principle of natural justice. What is reasonable opportunity will depend entirely on the facts and circumstances of each case (vide AIR 1976 3.C. 1089, M.L.Shende v. State of Mysore). In this case we find that though the person affected is given personal notice of the charges he is called upon to answer but the principle of natural justice was given a go bye by not supplying him the imputation or details of the charges and he, in fact, could not understand the true intent and import of the charges.
23. It has been rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the charges framed are vague and indefinite and did not contain imputation and particulars of the charges. So far charges is concerned, disciplinary proceeding is not conducted with the rigidity of the judicial trial but the charges must not be so vague or so general as to make them impossible of being traversed. In this case the Charge-sheet being Annexure 'B' to the writ petition, was issued to the petitioner containing particulars of the offences committed by him without being accompanied with imputation or particulars in detail. There is substantial force in the argument of Mr. Banerji that the petitioner was given Charge-sheet which was at once vague and indefinite and issued with a closed mind, appears that four allegations were made in the Chargesheet without giving details thereof and without enabling the petitioner to effectively show cause against the charges. The allegation was made that without the consent of the related employees/persons the original figures in the Store Requisition Notes, S.I.V. and Stock Ledger have been changed by inserting extra figures but no particular of such alleged "changes were given with the Charge-sheet. It is alleged that the original figures under columns' quantity required' and 'quantity supplied' in the Store Requisition Notes have been tampered through overwriting and by inserting fresh digits but no particulars have been given thereof. It is alleged that fictitious issues have been made through blank Requisition Token but no details thereof were provided. It, is alleged that issues have been recorded in the Stock Ledger in excess of the actual supply but no particulars or data is thereof have been given. It is also specifically stated in the Charge-sheet that the petitioner did misappropriate the Board's property and. he could not deny his responsibility in this regard. This pre-conceived notion was spelt out in the Charge-sheet before the enquiry proceeding started and on the basis of the aforesaid allegations three charges of gross misconduct/fraud, misappropriation and violation of Board's discipline were framed and all of them are totally vague and apparent to be the outcome of a biased and closed mind. How the petitioner is to defend himself against the charges of gross and culpable nature unless he is provided with all the particular which he asked for in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of his reply, dated 14th April, 1980 ? How it can be said that a delinquent is treated with natural justice to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him if he is not told in clearest possible terms and with full particularity as to what his alleged faults are ? It is imperative on the part of disciplinary authority to frame specific charges with full particularity, intimate those charges to the delinquent concerned, giving opportunity to answer those charges and then take a decision. This basic principle is laid down in the case of Tribhuwan Nath Pandey v. Union of India (AIR 1953 Nag. 138) and Bhugiram Hazarika v. Superintendent of Police, Sibsagar (AIR 1954 Assam 18) with clarity. Applying this principle it can safely be said that the charges framed against the petitioner were totally defective and suffered from vagueness and indefiniteness.
24. In view of the discussion made hereinbefore it can safely be concluded that the contention of Mr. Banerji that the Chargesheet suffers with vagueness and indefiniteness and was issued with a closed mind have substantial force and I am inclined to accept the contention. Mr. Roy has failed to provide any answer to this particular submission to Mr. Banerji. Though the petitioner was provided with reasonable opportunity to defend himself through out the enquiry proceedings but at the very outset the charges supplied to the petitioner was, in fact, the denial of natural justice and, as such, the entire Disciplinary Proceedings against the petitioner must be held bad and illegal. There is no sense in giving opportunity to a delinquent in defending himself by providing him with all the documents at the time of the hearing when the Chargesheet does not disclose the particulars which he would be required to face in the proceedings. By denying natural justice at the very outset, reasonable opportunity given afterwards during trial is rather to put the cart before the horse. 'Give a dog a bad name and hang him' is what the respondents did in this case. The entire act of the respondents in issuing a vague Charge-sheet with closed mind smells foul and appears mala fide. The demonstration of fairness on the part of the E.O. during the hearing of the disciplinary proceedings in no way cures the injury already done at the initial stage. In fact it appears a trap to enrope the petitioner without providing him even a semblance of natural justice and make him suffer for eight long years.
25. In that view of the matter I set aside the order of dismissal, dated 1st December, 1982 passed against the petitioner and quash at the entire Disciplinary Proceedings. The petitioner will be treated on suspension with effect from the date of dismissal, i.e., from 1st December, 1982 and liberty is given to the respondents to start a fresh Disciplinary Proceeding against him including the issuance of a Charge-sheet in accordance with law and to complete such Disciplinary Proceedings strictly within a period of four months from date. The petitioner should be given suspension allowances and other benefits as admissible in law with effect from 1st December, 1982 till date within a period of six weeks. If the respondents issue a charge-sheet within thirty days from date the petitioner will continue to receive the suspension allowance as stated above during the proceedings but if no Charge-sheet is served upon the petitioner within the aforesaid period then the suspension will automatically cease and the petitioner will be allowed by the respondents to join his duties and will be given all the service benefits including salary, seniority, promotion, etc., in accordance with law with effect from 1st December, 1982.
26. The writ application succeeds and the Rule is disposed of on the aforesaid terms. The Respondents shall pay costs assessed at Rs. 1,000 to the petitioner.