The scope of judicial review in a departmental enquiry is limited, but the court can interfere if the enquiry officer's report is perverse and not based on the evidence on record, or if the principles of natural justice have been violated.

Nishita Mhatre, J.

1. BY this writ application the petitioner has impugned the judgment and order of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal dated 27th January, 2010. The Tribunal has rejected the original application filed by the petitioner by concluding that the action taken by the respondent against the petitioner of dismissing him from service was justified and commensurate with the misconduct proved against him.

2. THE facts in the present case fall within a narrow compass. THE petitioner was issued a charge-sheet on 19th July 2002 alleging that while he was working as a Sub-Inspector and an Officer-In-Charge of the Joynagar Police Station he had extorted 10,000/-, through his agent, from one Ashok Biswas, by threatening to implicate him in a criminal case. While the departmental enquiry in respect of this charge sheet was pending, a second charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. THE allegation was that he had permitted his wife to accept a gift of landed property worth 3,25,000/-from her father without obtaining permission from the competent authority. THE third charge sheet issued against the petitioner on 13th of November 2002 described several other charges against him, namely, that he had extorted money from the owners of the local nursing homes while he was working as the Officer In Charge of the Joynagar Police Station to cover up certain illegalities and the suspicious deaths of certain patients in those nursing homes. Besides this the allegation was that he extorted money from them on every festival.

3. AFTER a preliminary investigation was carried out and a report was submitted, a departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. Evidence of several witnesses on behalf of the respondent was led before the inquiry officer. The petitioner was given an opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses. The inquiry officer submitted her findings on 16th June 2003. It was held that all the charges contained in the three charge sheets issued to the petitioner had been proved beyond doubt. By an order dated 17th July 2003 the Disciplinary Authority accepted the report of the inquiry officer and held that the petitioner was guilty of gross dereliction of duty and misconduct. He was, therefore, dismissed from service with effect from 18th July 2003.

4. THE petitioner preferred a departmental appeal that was decided by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Presidency Range, confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority.

5. THE petitioner then preferred original Application No. 179 of 2005 before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. THE contentions raised by the petitioner in his application were, inter alia, that the inquiry officer was biased; that the Disciplinary Authority had acted with a close mind and with preconceived notions while imposing the punishment; that the inquiry officer had not evaluated the evidence laid before her in the proper perspective and that none of the charges levelled against him had been proved.

6. THE State filed its reply supporting the action taken by it in dismissing the petitioner.

7. AS Stated earlier the Tribunal dismissed the original application on the ground that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings before the inquiry officer and had been permitted to cross-examine the witness. Therefore, according to the Tribunal, there was no illegality or infirmity in the conduct of the departmental proceedings. The Tribunal was not impressed with the petitioner’s contention that the inquiry officer was biased. It was of the view that there was sufficient evidence from Government Officials and private individuals to corroborate the charges levelled against the petitioner. The Tribunal then observed the judicial review of a departmental enquiry was permissible only when there were procedural lapses in the conduct of the enquiry or the inquiry officer had passed an order without any supporting evidence showing perversity and vindictiveness.

8. MR. Gupta, the l