SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1970 Supreme(SC) 493

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, K.S. HEGDE AND A.N. GROVER, JJ.
Surath Chandra Chakravarty Appellant
Versus
The State of W.B., Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 1258 of 1966, D/14-12-1970.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C B. Agarwala, Sr. Advocate. (M/s. P. K. Chakravarty, Prodyot Ku mar Chakravarty and Miss Uma Mehta, Advocates with him), for Appellant; Mr. B. Sen, Sr. Advocate, (M/s S. P. Mitra and S. N. Mukherji Advocates, and Mr. G. S. Chatterjee, Advocate for Mr. Sukumar Basu, Advocate, with him), for Respondent.

Advocates:
B.SEN, C.B.AGARWAL, G.S.CHATTERJEE, P.K.CHAKRAVARTI, PRODYOT CHAKRAVARTI, S.P.MITAL, S.V.MUKHERJEE, Sukumar Basu, UMA MEHTA

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Public Servants Enquiry Act 1850 - Post of Assistant Director Fire Service - Appointment - Appeal by certificate - Record of case is voluminous and apparently that led to very lengthy judgments both by Single Judge and Division Bench - A host of facts have been introduced out of which it is necessary to state only those which are relevant for purpose of disposal of the points before Court - Appellant was appointed Station Officer in Bengal Fire Service - He was appointed to act as Assistant Director of Fire Services and Regional Officer, Calcutta Industrial Area until further orders who was appointed Director of Fire Service on or about same date received some complaints against appellant - He made certain preliminary enquiries - Appellant that post of Assistant Director Fire Service would be treated as abolished with effect from date of appointment of, appellant as Assistant Director - This led to protests by appellant against abolition of that post – Held, appellant repeatedly and at every stage brought it to notice of authorities concerned that he had not been supplied statement of allegations and that charges were extremely vague and indefinite - Even if Enquiry Officer had made a report against him appellant could have been given a further opportunity at stage of second show cause notice to adduce any further evidence if he so desired after he had been given necessary particulars and material in form of a statement of allegations which had never been supplied to him before - A faint attempt was made by learned counsel for respondent to assail decision of trial Court on issue No. 1 - Both Single Judge and Division Bench had given concurrent findings against respondent on that point - Respondent cannot be permitted to reagitate matter before Court - Court accordingly allow this appeal, set aside judgment and decree of Division Bench and restore that of trial court - Appellant will further be granted a declaration that he is entitled to salary and allowances for period subsequent to date of the decree of learned Single Judge of High Court to date of his superannuation - Appeal allowed

Judgment

GROVER, J.: This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court reversing the judgment and decree of a learned Single Judge made in exercise of original jurisdiction in a suit filed by the appellant.

2. The record of the case is voluminous and apparently that led to very lengthy judgments both by the Single Judge and the Division Bench. A host of facts have been introduced out of which it is necessary to state only those which are relevant for the purpose of the disposal of the points before us. The appellant was appointed Station Officer in the Bengal Fire Service in 1943. In March 1949 he was appointed to act as Assistant Director of Fire Services and Regional Officer, Calcutta Industrial Area until further orders. S. Bose, who was appointed Director of Fire Service on or about the same date received some complaints against the appellant. He made certain preliminary enquiries. In the beginning of May 1949 Bose informed the appellant that the post of Assistant Director Fire Service would be treated as abolished with effect from the date of the appointment of, the appellant as Assistant Director. This led to protests by the appellant against the abolition of that post. A lot of acrimonious dialogue started between Bose and the appellant; the former made his final report to S. K Gupta, Secretary Local Self-Government as to the charges which were to be preferred against the appellant. On July 12, 1949 the appellant was suspended. On July 19, 1949 a communication containing the charges against the appellant was sent to him by S. K. Gupta, Secretary Local Self-Government. It is necessary to reproduce it in extenso:

"Charges.

Whereas it has been made to appear to the Government of West Bengal -

(1) that you, Sri S. C. Chakravarty, Regional Officer, Calcutta Industrial Area, West Bengal Fire Service incited the subordinate staff of the said service by circulating false rumours regarding the retrenchment policy of the Government, thereby spreading insubordination and discontent within the Force

(2) that you, Sri S. C. Chakravarty, Regional Officer, Calcutta Industrial Area, West Bengal Fire Service, took an active part in a conspiracy to implicate the present Director of Fire Service West Bengal in a false case by planting firearms in his office and to injure him by planting a time bomb in his car when he might be going on inspection

(3) that you. Sri S. C. Chakravarty, Regional Officer, Calcutta Industrial Area, West Bengal Fire Service, have been guilty of

(a) wilful disobedience of Government Order directing you to stay at your headquarters at Barrackpore and of the order of the Director Fire Service to produce the petrol log book of your inspection car;

(b) grave negligence of duty, failure to attend office on many days and irregular attendance even on the days when you came to office, resulting in accumulation of work

(c) fabricating false entries in the cash book by putting signatures on dates when you did not attend office

(d) taking illegal issue of petrol from the accounts of different fire stations in addition to the quota allotted to you for your use; and

(e) cooking up false complaint against some members of the staff of the West Bengal Fire Service whom you tried to rope in into the conspiracy but failed and refusing permission to them to see the Director, Fire Service, apprehending a disclosure.

And whereas these acts of indiscipline, conspiracy, negligence in the performance of your duties and other irregularities were committed by you while you were holding the responsible position of the Regional Officer, Calcutta Industrial Area, in a disciplined organisation like the West Bengal Fire Service and which, therefore, amounted to an abuse or misuse of the position so enjoyed by you.

Now, therefore, you are directed to show cause why you should not be dismissed from the service of the Government or otherwise suitably punished departmentally.

The enquiry will be conducted by the under

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top