Back
2004 Supreme(Cal) 592
High Court Of Calcutta
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
BRINDABAN PATRA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
W. P. 3670 (W) Of 2001
Decided On : 09/07/2004
BRINDABAN PATRA, MILON BHATTACHARJI, RABI SANKAR CHATTOPADHYAY
The principles of natural justice require that a chargesheeted employee be provided with a copy of the enquiry report and an opportunity to submit his comments on the report before the disciplinary authority issues the order of dismissal.
Headnote:
BRINDABAN PATRA V. MAHESTALA MUNICIPALITY - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - WEST BENGAL MUNICIPAL ACT, 1993, SECTIONS 61(3) - SUMMARY OF THE COURT'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION ON THE ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES IN THE TERMINATION OF THE PETITIONER'S EMPLOYMENT BY THE MAHESTALA MUNICIPALITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Brindaban Patra, was appointed as a Job Assistant of Shyampur-II Gram Panchayat and subsequently as a Lower Division Clerk/Sub-Centre Person after the formation of Maheshtala Municipality. On 5th June, 1998, he received a show cause notice alleging failure to start and complete schematic work and refund the money despite reminders. He replied, and was suspended on 1st September, 1998. An enquiry committee was formed, and a second show cause notice was issued on 4th May, 1999. The petitioner replied, denying the charges and requesting quashing of the proceedings. The authorities directed him to appear before the enquiry committee for a fresh hearing on the charges. The petitioner informed the Chairman of the Municipality that no opportunity had been granted for submission of a written statement in answer to the chargesheet and prayed for an opportunity to do so after inspection of the original documents. However, no opportunity was granted. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 3rd February, 2000, and his appeal was rejected by the Board of Councillors on 12th January, 2001.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authorities of the Maheshtala Municipality had acted in a most illegal and irregular manner in the proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner was not provided with a copy of the enquiry report, and his comments on the report were not obtained before the disciplinary authority issued the order of dismissal. The court held that this was a gross miscarriage of justice and a violation of the principles of natural justice. The court also found that the Board of Councillors, which had passed the order of dismissal, could not decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner, as this would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Issues: 1. Whether the authorities of the Maheshtala Municipality acted in a legal and regular manner in the proceedings against the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner was provided with a copy of the enquiry report and an opportunity to submit his comments on the report before the disciplinary authority issued the order of dismissal? 3. Whether the Board of Councillors could decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner after having passed the order of dismissal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The authorities of the Maheshtala Municipality did not act in a legal and regular manner in the proceedings against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was not provided with a copy of the enquiry report and an opportunity to submit his comments on the report before the disciplinary authority issued the order of dismissal. 3. The Board of Councillors could not decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner after having passed the order of dismissal.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of dismissal dated 3rd February, 2000, and the subsequent order dated 12th January, 2001, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The court directed that the petitioner be reinstated in service immediately, his continuity of service and seniority be maintained, and that he be paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation in lieu of his claim for arrears of salary.
( 1 ) THE petitioner herein has challenged the order of termination from service issued by the Chairman, Maheshtala municipality and subsequent decision of the Board of Councillors of the said maheshtala Municipality rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order of termination.
( 2 ) THE authorities of the Maheshtala Municipality have proceeded in the instant case against the petitioner in a most illegal and irregular manner as would appear from various steps and the decisions taken by the authorities of the said Maheshtala Municipality time to time in respect of the petitioner.
( 3 ) INITIALLY, the petitioner was appointed as Job Assistant of Shyampur-II gram Panchayat and subsequently after formation of Maheshtala Municipality, he was appointed as Lower Division Clerk/sub-Centre Person.
( 4 ) ON 5th June, 1998, Executive Officer, Maheshtala Municipality issued the first show cause notice to the petitioner alleging that a large amount of money to the tune of Rs. 1,48,548/- was received by the said petitioner during the period 1995 to 31st March, 1997 for schematic work but he failed to start and complete the same and also failed to refund the money in spite of several reminders. The petitioner, however, duly replied to the said show cause notice narrating the steps taken by him regarding submissions of adjustments of accounts and execution of the works.
( 5 ) CONSIDERING the said reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner, authorities of the Maheshtala Municipality came to the conclusion that the said reply of the petitioner was totally unsatisfactory and untenable and accordingly, in exercise of the power conferred under section 61 (3) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 issued the order of suspension in respect of the petitioner and by virtue of the aforesaid order of suspension, petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 1" September, 1998.
( 6 ) THE competent authority of the Maheshtala Municipality formed an enquiry Committee to enquire into the affairs of the petitioner in the matter of receiving advance money from the Municipality and non-submission of adjustment of accounts by the said petitioner. The report submitted by the said enquiry Committee was ultimately placed in the meeting of the Board of councillors of the Maheshtala Municipality held on 10th February, 1999 wherein the Board of Councillors adopted a resolution in respect of the petitioner for issuance of the second show cause notice.
( 7 ) IN pursuance of the aforesaid decision of the Board of Councillors of the maheshtala Municipality, the then Chairman of the said Municipality issued the second show cause notice to the petitioner on 4th May, 1999 directing him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service.
( 8 ) THE petitioner also replied to the said second show cause notice explaining his conduct by denying all the charges levelled against him and requested the chairman to quash the entire proceedings and allow him to resume his duty.
( 9 ) CONSIDERING the aforesaid reply of the petitioner in answer to the second show cause notice, authorities of the Maheshtala Municipality directed the petitioner by the written communication dated 7th September, 1999 to appear before the same Enquiry Committee, already constituted, for fresh hearing in respect of the charges levelled against him and mentioned in the chargesheet which was annexed with the said written communication dated 7th September, 1999. Curiously enough, the articles of charges and the statement of imputation of misconduct were supplied to the petitioner by annexing copies thereof alongwith the aforesaid written communication dated 7th September, 1999 issued by the Chairman, Maheshtala Municipality.
( 10 ) THE said letter dated 7th September, 1999 written by the Chairman of the Maheshtala Municipality to the petitioner herein is set out hereunder: ref: 5397/1/mm/12-P Date: 07. 09. 1
