HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
H. K. Bose, G. K. Mitter
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Appellant
Versus
SAILENDRA NATH BOSE - Respondent
. Of .
Decided On : August 23, 1963
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - NATURAL JUSTICE - RIGHT TO DEFEND - INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS - SUPPLY OF COPIES - ADJOURNMENT - LOCAL INSPECTION - BIAS OF ENQUIRING OFFICER - OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE AGAINST PUNISHMENT - APPEAL - JUDGMENT - IMPLEADING GOVERNOR AS PARTY - ARTICLE 361 (1) OF THE CONSTITUTION - SECOND PROVISO TO ARTICLE 361.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a police officer, was dismissed from service after a departmental enquiry found him guilty of accepting illegal gratification. He challenged the order of dismissal by filing a writ petition, alleging violation of the principles of natural justice in the enquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent was not given proper and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings taken against him. The court held that the respondent was not allowed proper inspection of documents, copies of documents were not supplied to him to enable him to cross-examine witnesses, and he was not given sufficient time to prepare his defence.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent was given proper and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings taken against him? 2. Whether the Governor should have been impleaded as a party in the writ petition?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the respondent was not given proper and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings taken against him. The court held that the respondent was not allowed proper inspection of documents, copies of documents were not supplied to him to enable him to cross-examine witnesses, and he was not given sufficient time to prepare his defence. 2. The court held that the Governor should not have been impleaded as a party in the writ petition. The court held that Article 361 (1) of the Constitution provides that the Governor shall not be answerable to any Court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done purported to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties. The court held that this goes to show that the Governor can not be made a party to any proceedings in Court, inter alia, in a case where his decision could have been questioned on grounds available to a citizen against other authorities justifying the quashing of the impugned order.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of dismissal passed against the respondent.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the State of West Bengal and others against the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of dismissal passed on the respondent and granting him incidental reliefs.
( 2 ) THE represent had joined Government service as a sub-inspector of police and had risen to the rank of Assistant Commissioner of police in 1958 when disciplinary proceedings were started against him. The immediate cause of the taking of these proceedings was the information given by one Jagadish Chandra Dhar, then employed as a sergeant in the Calcutta Police force to the Special Officer, Enforcement Branch of the State of West Bengal that the respondent had asked for illegal gratification in the sum of Rs. 200/ -. In return for which he had promised to help Dhar out of some disciplinary proceedings which were then pending against Dhar. According to the Government's case 20 ten rupee notes on which the numbers were taken down on the morning of the 15th October, 1958 were handed over to Dhar to be given to the respondent in the middle of the day outside the gate of the Port Police Office on Dumayune Avenue where the represent was working. The arrangement was that Dhar should go to the Port Police Office with an envelope containing the said notes and make over the same to the respondent at the time when the latter would be coming out of the office for his midday meal. The police party was to consist of S. N. Mukherjee, Deputy Commissioner, Enforcement Branch, N. N. Basu, Special Superintendent of said Branch, P. Ghosal, an assistant Commissioner, A. R. Roy Chowdhury of the West Bengal Transport Directorate and Sub-Inspector A. Bhattacharjee of the Enforcement Branch. The party traveled in two vehicles, one a private car belonging to A. K. Roy Chaudhuri and the other a closed delivery van belonging to the Arya Bakery which was requisitioned for the purpose. The vehicles were parked at Dumayune Avenue about 30 yards to south main gate of the Port Police Office. Sergeant Dhar, Sub-Inspector A Bhattacharjee were dropped at a point a little to the north of the main gate of the Port Police Office whereas the others were to remain in their respective vehicles. Shortly before 2 P. M. the respondent came out of the main gate of the Port Police Office in his jeep. According to the Government case Sergenat Dhar made over the envelope containing 20 currency notes to the respondent who after counting them pout the same in his pocket. The jeep was moving slowly all the time. After it had covered a distance of about 20 yards to the south the jeep stopped and the respondent jumped down therefrom and threw away the envelope containing the notes on the road having caught sight of Sub-Inspector Bhattacharjee of the Enforcement Branch. After some discussion the respondent was taken to Naba Gopal Das, Special Officer, Enforcement Branch, before whom he made a statement denying having demanded or accepted any bribe from Sergeant Dhar. According to the respondent while making over the envelope sergeant had told him that it contained a letter from one Chandi Charan Ghose, an officer of the West Bengal Agricultural Department who was known to the respondent on opening the envelope and finding that it contained no letter but currency notes he had got down from the jeep and thrown away the notes calling upon sergeant Dhar to stop as he wanted to take the latter to the Deputy Commissioner of Police for having offered bribe to him.
( 3 ) AN order of suspension was passed against the respondent on October 17, 1958 and a charge sheet was submitted to him several months thereafter, i. e. May 19, 1959 and disciplinary proceedings were started under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The charges were grouped under four main heads, the first being split up in six parts each part containing allegation of demand of illegal gratification and/or acceptance of the same from different police offic
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.