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

1962 Supreme(Cal) 108

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
B. N. Banerjee
PRAFULLA KUMAR SEN - Appellant
Versus
CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Respondent
Matter 262  Of  1961
Decided On : MAY 03, 1962

Employees of statutory corporations are not entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution, as they do not hold civil posts under the Union or the State.

Headnote:

ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ACT 1950 - SECTION 3, 4, 14, 15, 34, 44, 45, 47B - EMPLOYEES OF STATUTORY CORPORATION - WHETHER HOLDING CIVIL POST UNDER THE STATE - PROTECTION OF ARTICLE 311 OF THE CONSTITUTION - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - VALIDITY.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a temporary store-keeper in the Hastings Street Garage, was promoted as a temporary store-keeper in the Lake Depot and later became a store-keeper, on a temporary basis, in the central Workshop. On August 16, 1960, the petitioner was charged with several heads of misconduct, including loss of bearings, concealing the loss, and attempting to cheat the Corporation by replacing the missing bearings with unserviceable ones. An enquiry was held, and the petitioner was found guilty of the charges. He was subsequently dismissed from service.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution, as he was not a member of the Civil Service of the Union or of an all-India Service or of the Civil Service of a State or holding a Civil post under the Union or the State. The court further held that the provisions of the Road Transport Corporation Act 1950 and the Regulations thereunder framed were not violated in dismissing the petitioner.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. 2. Whether the provisions of the Road Transport Corporation Act 1950 and the Regulations thereunder framed were violated in dismissing the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution, as he was not a member of the Civil Service of the Union or of an all-India Service or of the Civil Service of a State or holding a Civil post under the Union or the State. The court relied on several case laws to support its decision, including Bibhuti Bhusan Ghosh v. Damodar Valley Corporation, Nagendra Kumar Roy v. Commissioner for the Port of Calcutta, and Damodar Valley Corporation v. Provat Roy. 2. The court held that the provisions of the Road Transport Corporation Act 1950 and the Regulations thereunder framed were not violated in dismissing the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend himself in the departmental proceedings and that the order of dismissal was passed by a competent authority.

Final Decision: The court discharged the Rule and dismissed the petition.

B. N. BANERJEE, J.

( 1 ) AT a time when road transportation was a department of the Government of West Bengal, the petitioner was appointed, in the year 1949, as a temporary store clerk in the Hastings Street Garage. He was thereafter promoted as a temporary store-keeper in the Lake Depot. On and from August 16, 1954, the petitioner became a store-keeper, on a temporary basis, in the central Workshop. At all times material for the purposes of this Rule, the petitioner was receiving a substantive pay of Rs. 172/- per month.

( 2 ) WITH effect from June 15, 1960, the Government of West Bengal established a Road Transport Corporation, known as the Calcutta State Transport Corporation, in exercise of its power under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act 1950. The services of the petitioner stood transferred to the Calcutta State Transport Corporation which took over the local transport business of the State Government.

( 3 ) ON August 16, 1960, the petitioner was charged with several heads of misconduct, as hereinafter stated:--"1. On 16-6-60 it was reported to you by Shri Gabinda Banerjee, Stores Assistant (Senior), that 15 pieces of Dodge bearings were missing from a section of the Central Stores under your control. You thereafter instructed him to hold a search for them and submit a report. Shri Banerjee submitted a report as late as on 22-6-60, stating the loss of 85 pieces of bearings, and you passed on the said report to the Chief Store-keeper on 27-7-60. You did not yourself enquire into the loss though it was of a serious nature, nor take steps to have an enquiry held with such expedition as would be justified in a case of the kind. The delay was designed to conceal the loss from the notice of the authorities as long as possible. Your failure to report the loss to the Stores Superintendent, in spite of the directions of the Chief Store-keeper to do so, showed the same purpose, besides grave lack of a sense of responsibility on your part. 2. When the loss of 85 pieces of Dodge and Studabaker bearings was finally reported to you by Shri G. Banerjee in writing, you told Shri G. Banerjee and Shri D. Muknerjee, Assistants, that such a huge loss should not be brought to the notice of the authorities. You advised them to conceal the loss by finding out bearings of a suitable type from the unserviceable stock and putting them in the empty cartons. You further told them that, if enough bearings could not be secured from the unserviceable stock, he would procure as many as were necessary from Messrs, central Trading Co. at a nominal cost, to be contributed by all of you. Your proposal was not agreed to by the aforesaid subordinates. You were also told that bearings, suitable for Dodge and Studebaker vehicles, could not be procured from the unserviceable stock and also that such bearings had not been issued from the Stores for a long time. You then asked Shri G. Banerjee to find out bearings of suitable size from Dodge Weapon Carriers and Jeep Cars and eventually succeeded in getting him to secure some such bearings and to keep them apart. Your action, in this regard amounted to cheating the Corporation and compelling two of your subordinates to be your accomplices in such cheating. 3. In your report, dated 29-6-60, to the Stores Superintendent you falsely stated, to avert suspicion from yoursen and your subordinates, that no loss or theft of bearings had occurred previously in the stores though two bearings had been found missing on 13-5-60.

( 4 ) YOU did not care to have the stock of spares under your charge verified with accuracy and were negligent, particularly in the matter of stock-taking. No bearing was issued after 3-2-60 and the balance of Studebaker bearings (Pt. No. 665, 170) was shown as 51 pieces at the stock taking held on 20-3-59. There was one issue of the article thereafter on 19-10-59. No stock was received in between but even then the balance was shown to be 51 at the stock-taking held on 19-1-60. Agai





























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