A suit for damages lies against a State employer for wrongful disciplinary action resulting in the complete discharge of the employee, where the enquiry is shown to have been initiated and conducted without any just or reasonable cause and is an abuse of power.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from a decree preferred by the only defendant against whom the decree was passed. The other defendants being its officers and newspapers were exonerated.

( 2 ) THE case raises an important, interesting and a fresh point of law. The point is this. If a disciplinary enquiry against an officer of the State or other authority is pursued and pressed, but ultimately results in a complete discharge of the employee charge sheeted, and further, the enquiry is shown to have been initiated and conducted without any just or reasonable cause, and it is even shown to be an abuse of power, can the employee, after the conclusion of the departmental proceedings in his favour, file a civil suit for recovery of damages?

( 3 ) THE facts in this case, as are material for the determination of the above legal points are short and simple. The respondent/plaintiff had an unblemished service career in the West Bengal State Electrity Board untill 1985. He had about four years then left of his service. He was put in supervision of a certain Gas Burbine Project which was then undertaken by the Board in Calcutta. The project was completed in time. There was a certain appreciation of such timely completion even in the Governmental circles.

( 4 ) ALTHOUGH the respondent was expecting promotion, he after some preliminaries, received a charge-sheet under several counts in 1985. Although an order of suspension was initially issued, the charge-sheet not being forwarded within the stipulated period of one month, the respondent moved Court in a writ, and after an order was passed, the charge-sheet was issued.

( 5 ) DURING the proceedings in the department also, a second writ had to be filed, inter alia, for the purposes of inspection and expedition.

( 6 ) THE disciplinary authority found against the plaintiff. A second show cause was issued, inviting comments on the proposed penalties. Thereafter, three penalties were imposed.

( 7 ) NO serious charge of defalcation or dishonesty was proved against the plaintiff. Hardly any charge of moral turpitude or serious financial irregularity was levelled against the respondent either.

( 8 ) THE three penalties were ultimately imposed.

( 9 ) THE respondent filed a third writ this time, On the 9th February, 1989 in a long and reasoned judgment the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar sengupta (as His Lordship then was) upheld almost all the contentions of the writ petitioner/plaintiff and quashed the entirety of the disciplinary proceedings from the show cause to the imposition of penalty.

( 10 ) THE respondent was due to retire on 28. 2. 1989. He re-joined service as per the Court's decision for two days prior thereto. All arrear pay during the period of suspension was released to him and all retiral benefits.

( 11 ) THE judgment and order of Justice Sengupta was accepted by both (he parties and has thus become binding.

( 12 ) HIS Lordship held, inter alia, to the following effect. The disciplinary proceeding affected the livelihood of the petitioner and cast a stigma; the proposed punishment in the second show cause notice was unwarranted, uncalled for and no punishment could be inflicted upon the petitioner. The disciplinary authority while issuing the charge-sheet had pre-judged the matter, had a closed mind and a biased attitude towards the petitioner. The findings arrived at were contrary to all canons of justice and fair play. The findings not only affected the reputation of the petitioner but also visited him with serious civil and pecuniary consequences. The case did not at all warrant the suspension or the issuance of the charge-sheet. The findings of the enquiry officer were vitiated as being perverse. The disciplinary authority agreed with the perverse findings of the enquiry officer and did not apply his own mind independently.

( 13 ) THE said judgment was no doubt relied upon by the learned Judge decreeing the suit. He held that it was highly probable that the plaintiff was