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

1963 Supreme(Cal) 184

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
H. K. Bose, G. K. Mitter
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Appellant
Versus
SALLENDRA NATH BOSE - Respondent
A. F. O. O.  6  Of  1963
Decided On : AUGUST 23, 1963

Advocates Appeared:
B.DAS, Basu Deo, NEPAL CHANDRA SEN, Noni kumar Chakravarti, S.BOSE, S.M.BOSE

The principles of natural justice require that a delinquent officer be provided with copies of relevant documents, be given adequate opportunity to inspect the documents, be granted adjournments to prepare his defense, and be allowed to participate in the local inspection.

Headnote:

NATURAL JUSTICE - Disciplinary proceedings - Dismissal from service - Violation of principles of natural justice - Failure to supply copies of relevant documents - Inadequate opportunity for inspection of documents - Refusal of adjournments - Improper holding of local inspection - Prejudice to the delinquent officer - Order of dismissal quashed.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a police officer, was dismissed from service following disciplinary proceedings initiated against him on charges of corruption. The charges were based on a statement by a sergeant alleging that the respondent had demanded and accepted illegal gratification. The respondent challenged the dismissal order on the ground that the principles of natural justice were violated during the disciplinary proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent was not provided with copies of relevant documents, was not given adequate opportunity to inspect the documents, and was denied adjournments to prepare his defense. The court also found that the local inspection was improperly held after the conclusion of the arguments, and that the respondent was prejudiced by these irregularities.

Issues: 1. Whether the respondent was provided with copies of relevant documents? 2. Whether the respondent was given adequate opportunity to inspect the documents? 3. Whether the respondent was denied adjournments to prepare his defense? 4. Whether the local inspection was improperly held after the conclusion of the arguments? 5. Whether the respondent was prejudiced by the irregularities in the disciplinary proceedings?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the failure to provide the respondent with copies of relevant documents, the inadequate opportunity for inspection of documents, the refusal of adjournments, and the improper holding of the local inspection violated the principles of natural justice. The court further held that these irregularities prejudiced the respondent and rendered the disciplinary proceedings unfair.

Final Decision: The court quashed the order of dismissal and directed the reinstatement of the respondent.

MITTER, J.

( 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 respondent 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 for the taking of these proceeding 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 of which the numbers were taken down on the morning of the 15th October, 1955 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 respondent 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. K. Roy Chowdhury of the West Bengal Transport Directorate and Sub-Inspector A. Bhattacharjee of the Enforcement Branch. The party travelled 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 yeards to the south of the mam 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 sergeant Dhar made over the envelope containing 20 currency notes to the respondent who after counting them put 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 tne 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 Dhar 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 me 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 p
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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