Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Ashok Kumar Panda vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.) on 26 November, 2013
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
-: 1 : -
14
26.11. 2013 rrc W. P. 33784 (W) of 2013 (Ashok Kumar Panda Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) Mr. B. R. Neogi Mr. Angshumoy Guha ......For the petitioner Mr. Saugata Bhattacharya ......For the State Ms. Sampa Sarkar ......For the Distribution Company The petitioner is an employee of the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (hereafter the 'Company').
He is aggrieved because a charge-sheet has been issued against him by the Director (HR) of the Company, being his Disciplinary Authority, dated 28th June, 2013. It appears from the articles of charge that the petitioner has been charged with misconduct arising out of acquisition of assets disproportionate to his known source of income.
According to the petitioner, the incidents forming part of the charges relate to periods between 1990-94, 1998-2000, 1993-95 and 1999-2001 and it is, therefore, clear that the disciplinary proceeding is unduly delayed. This is the primary ground on which the petitioner seeks interference of this Court with the impugned charge-sheet.
Mr. Neogi, learned advocate representing the petitioner has relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in 2005 (5) SLR 384 (P. V. Mahadevan Vs. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board), (2012) 11 SCC 565 (Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others Vs. Prabhash
-: 2 : -
Chandra Mirdha) and (2013) 6 SCC 515 (Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y. P. Education Society & Ors.) to contend that the delay in initiation of the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner must be held to be a vitiating factor for which judicial interdiction is warranted.
Mr. Neogi has also contended that should the disciplinary proceeding be allowed to continue, the petitioner would be immensely prejudiced inasmuch as he may not have access to the evidence to defend the charges of acquisition of assets disproportionate to his known source of income.
Finally, Mr. Neogi submits that the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity of filing his written statement of defence. He was asked to show cause, which he did by raising an objection in relation to delayed initiation of disciplinary proceeding. The disciplinary authority only considered the objection raised by him and overruled it with a direction regarding appointment of the enquiry officer. It is urged that the petitioner having raised the point of delay, the disciplinary authority ought to have applied his mind to the facts and circumstances and decide independently as to whether it would be worthwhile to proceed with the charges at this distant point of time or not. Not having done so, the Court ought to intervene to set things right.
None of the contentions urged by Mr. Neogi have impressed me. In the decisions cited by him, law has been laid down that
-: 3 : -
ordinarily disciplinary proceedings should not be allowed to continue if the same have been initiated belatedly without sufficient explanation and that each and every case has to be decided keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances involved therein. It is worthy of notice that none of the cited decisions was rendered in respect of disciplinary proceedings where the delinquent employee was charged with acquisition of assets disproportionate to his known source of income.
I am of the view that the cited decisions are clearly distinguishable and that it is the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 (B. C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Ors.) that provides a complete answer to the contention urged by Mr. Neogi. It would be profitable to extract paragraph - 11 of the said decision, reading as follows: -
"The next question is whether the delay in initiating disciplinary proceeding is an unfair procedure depriving the livelihood of a public servant offending Article 14 or 21 of the Constitution. Each case depends upon its own facts. In a case of the type on hand, it is difficult to have evidence of disproportionate pecuniary resources or assets of property. The public servant, during his tenure, may not be known to be in possession of disproportionate assets or pecuniary resources. He may hold either himself or through somebody on his behalf, property or pecuniary resources. To connect the officer with the resources or assets is a tardy journey, as the Government has to do a lot to collect necessary material in this regard. In normal circumstances, an investigation would be undertaken by the police under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to collect and collate the entire evidence establishing the essential links between the public servant and the property or pecuniary resources. Snap of any link may prove fatal to the whole exercise. Care and
-: 4 : -
dexterity are necessary. Delay thereby necessarily entails. Therefore, delay by itself is not fatal in these type of cases ...."
I, therefore, find no reason to nip the disciplinary proceeding in the bud and hold that the charge-sheet does not merit interference on the ground of delay, as contended by Mr. Neogi. The same is, accordingly, upheld.
Insofar as the contention regarding non-extension of opportunity to the petitioner to file written statement of defence is concerned, I find from the chapter on Conduct, Discipline, Punishment and Appeal forming part of the West Bengal State Electricity Board Employees' Service Regulations that the delinquent employee would be given opportunity to show cause on a date specified in the charge-sheet regarding the charges that have been framed against him and after receiving such written statement, it is open to the competent authority to hold a proper enquiry into the charges or to appoint an enquiry officer or enquiry committee to conduct the enquiry. There was no reason whatsoever for the petitioner not to reply to the charges on merit, while raising objection in regard to delayed initiation of the disciplinary proceeding. I am of the view that the contention that the petitioner was not given opportunity to file his written statement of defence is thoroughly misconceived.
-: 5 : -
However, for the ends of justice, I am inclined to grant the petitioner one final opportunity to file his written statement of defence. The petitioner shall be at liberty to file written statement of defence to the charge-sheet dated 28th June, 2013 within a fortnight from date. Upon receipt thereof, the enquiry shall proceed in accordance with law.
With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of, without costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.
( Dipankar Datta, J. )