Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Charge No. 3: That while employed as Inspector, F. & S. Ranaghat, you gave loan of a big amount of Rs. 57,000 to your relative in 1968 without having any prior sanction of the Government and that you thus violated the provision of Rule No. 14 of the West Bengal Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1959.

3. The petitioner was directed to submit his written statement of defence to one Mr. T.C. Guha, District Controller of Food and Supplies, Nadia who was appointed as enquiry officer for holding enquiry into the said charges against the petitioner by the respondent No. 2, the Director, District Distribution Procurement and Supply. This charge-sheet has been annexed as Annexure "A" to the petition. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence denying all those charges and praying for the assistance of a lawyer to represent him in the disciplinary proceeding. The petitioner sent a letter dated August 17, 1970 to the enquiring officer praying for examination of his mother who was a vital witness as she was keeping indifferent health. He also requested the enquiring officer for expediting the enquiry. This prayer was rejected and the petitioner was informed of the same by the enquiring officer by his letter dated 11th December, 1971. The petitioner again after a lapse of more than one year requested the enquiring officer by his letter dated 21st December, 1971 to examine his mother who was material defence witness at her residence in Calcutta as she was bedridden owing to various ailments. No reply was received to the said letter by the petitioner. The petitioner was informed by the enquiry officer that he would not be permitted to engage a lawyer by letter dt. February 23, 1972. Witnesses were examined and cross-examined and the petitioner was eagerly waiting for the report of the enquiring officer. But on March 31, 1973, another charge-sheet containing identical charges was served on the petitioner by the respondent No. 2. The charges are:

4. A copy of the charge-sheet has been annexed as Annexure "I" to the petition. The respondent No. 2 by a letter dated 31st March, 1973, appointed Sri Coari, Vigilance Commission, West Bengal as Enquiring Authority. One Sri T.K. Mitra, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Vigilance Commission was authorised to represent the case before the Enquiring Authority on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority.

5. The first charge-sheet was withdrawn by the disciplinary authority by letter dated April 14, 1973. The petitioner on April 12, 1973, submitted his explanation to the second charge-sheet refuting all the charges. It was also submitted that the initiation of the de novo enquiry proceeding on the basis of the second charge-sheet was unjust and opposed to the principles of natural justice. It was also submitted that the report of the previous enquiry might go in favour of the petitioner and as such the said proceeding was dropped and fresh proceeding was initiated on the basis of the second charge-sheet in order to have the charges against the petitioner established and to have him punished. The petitioner also prayed for being represented by a lawyer which was rejected. The petitioner again requested him to allow him to have the assistance of Sri C.B. Chakraborty, District Controller, Food and Supplies, Howrah as defence helper in the departmental proceeding by a letter dated April 28, 1973 which was marked as annexure "O" to the petition. He also intimated the enquiring officer by letter dated 16th April, 1973 that all the relevant documents in support of his defence have been filed already in the earlier proceeding and as such submission of any document in the second proceeding does not arise. After the close of the evidence the petitioner filed a written argument in support of the defence case to the enquiring officer on August 10, 1973. It was submitted that no reason has been assigned for dropping the earlier proceeding and initiating the second proceeding on identical charges. The initiation of the second proceeding was challenged as not bona fide but it was made with a motive to have the petitioner punished and for that purpose the Disciplinary Authority appointed Mr. Coari, an officer of the Vigilance Commission, West Bengal as enquiring officer in the departmental proceedings to have the charges against the petitioner proved.

8. Feeling aggrieved by this determination the instant appeal has been preferred by the petitioner.

9. Mr. Noni Coomer Chakravarti, learned advocate for the appellant submitted inter alia that the charge-sheet was issued with a closed mind by the Disciplinary Authority, that there has been violation of the Rules of natural justice in proceeding with the enquiry into the charges as the petitioner's prayer for assistance of the lawyer was rejected though the case was a complicated one, the petitioner's prayer for examination of his mother who was a very vital witness to prove the defence case was rejected by the enquiring authority. Mr. Chakravarti has also submitted that the initiation of the second proceeding without dropping the first proceeding and without recording any reason why the first proceeding initiated on identical charges and enquiry into those charges though completed after a protracted hearing was withdrawn. It has been submitted that the initiation of the second proceeding was not made bona fide and the same was initiated with a motive to have the charges against the petitioner proved and to have him punished as in the first proceeding the charges probably might not have been proved against him. Mr. Chakravarti further submitted that the second show cause notice against which the writ petition on the above grounds had been moved is maintainable and the decision of the learned single Judge is not in accordance with law in discharging the Rule as not maintainable Mr. Chakravarti had cited a large number of decisions in support of his contention.