Back
1984 Supreme(Cal) 363
High Court of Calcutta
Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J.
Ram Gopal Bhattacharyya – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
Decided On : Nov 14, 1984
Arup Kumar Lahiri, Kashi Kanta Maitra, R.N. Kandari
Departmental proceedings cannot be continued after the retirement of the employee unless specifically provided for in the relevant rules. Charges framed against an employee must constitute misconduct within the meaning of the relevant rules. The framing of charges with a closed and biased mind violates the principles of natural justice. A rule prohibiting the acquisition of property by family members without permission is violative of the fundamental right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.
Headnote:
DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDING - Continuance after retirement - Validity - Charges framed against petitioner - Whether misconduct - Maintainability - Interpretation of relevant rules - Principles of natural justice - Violation - Fundamental rights - Applicability.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police, faced departmental proceedings for alleged misconduct during his service. After retirement, the proceedings continued, and new charges were framed. The petitioner challenged the validity of the proceedings, arguing that they could not be continued after retirement and that the charges did not constitute misconduct.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the departmental proceedings could not be continued after the petitioner's retirement, as there was no specific provision in the relevant rules allowing for such continuation. The court also found that the charges framed against the petitioner did not constitute misconduct and were therefore not maintainable. Additionally, the court held that the framing of the charges with a closed and biased mind violated the principles of natural justice and that the impugned rule prohibiting the acquisition of property by family members without permission was violative of the petitioner's fundamental right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether departmental proceedings can be continued after the retirement of the employee? 2. Whether the charges framed against the petitioner constitute misconduct? 3. Whether the framing of charges with a closed and biased mind violates the principles of natural justice? 4. Whether the impugned rule prohibiting the acquisition of property by family members without permission is violative of the petitioner's fundamental right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971, which provides for the continuation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement only in cases where the proceedings were initiated before retirement. Since the proceedings against the petitioner were not initiated before his retirement, the court held that they could not be continued. 2. The court analyzed the charges framed against the petitioner and found that they did not constitute misconduct within the meaning of the relevant rules. The court held that the acquisition of assets disproportionate to known sources of income, without more, did not amount to misconduct, and that the prohibition on family members acquiring property without permission was violative of the petitioner's fundamental right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property. 3. The court held that the framing of charges with a closed and biased mind violated the principles of natural justice. The court found that the disciplinary authority had made up its mind in advance of the enquiry and that the enquiry was nothing but an idle formality. 4. The court held that the impugned rule prohibiting the acquisition of property by family members without permission was violative of the petitioner's fundamental right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The court quashed the departmental proceedings against the petitioner, including the charge sheet, the finding of the enquiring officer, and any final order passed in the matter. The court also issued a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to cancel and withdraw the charges and the entire departmental proceeding, to forbear from proceeding with the enquiry or giving any effect to the proceedings, and to pay the petitioner his retirement benefits forthwith.
1. IN the writ application, the petitioner challenged the validity of the continuance of a departmental proceeding after retirement of the petitioner from the service on attaining the age of superannuation and also challenged the validity of the departmental proceeding inter alia on the ground that on these self-same charges the petitioner was exonerated earlier and a fresh proceeding was drawn up after a lapse of a few years.
2. THE fact of the case is that the petitioner joined the Calcutta police as a Constable in the yean 1946 and in the year 1953 the petitioner was promoted to the post of assistant Sub Inspector of Police and thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. While the petitioner was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police brigade Ancillary Armed Police, Calcutta, the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta drew up a departmental proceeding against the petitioner which was registered as Proceeding No. 39 dated 11th April 1978. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet in which the petitioner was served with gross misconduct unbecoming of an officer of the Calcutta Police Force. The charges against the petitioner were as follows : -
"1) Being a public servant and being legally bound not to engage yourself or any member of your family in business, you, without obtaining permission from the competent authority as per Rule 16 of the West Bengal Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1959, permitted your wife Sm. Arati Bhattacharjee to be a partner el M/s. R. K. Traders of 77, Desha Pran Sasmal Road, Calcutta and to be one of the Directors of M/s. Bengal Tools and Engineering co. . Pvt. Ltd. of 74/1a, Gold Club Road, Calcutta, specially when m/s, R. K. Traders dealt in musturd of and Vansapati and you when posted in the Enforcement Branch for a long period, had to deal with finding out demand, supply and prices of various essential commodities including musturd oil and Vanaspati.
2) You took active interest in the management of the said M/s. R. K. Traders and were found present at the godown of the said firm at 74/1a, Golf Club Road when the officers of the Enforcement Branch, west Bengal searched the said godown while making an enquiry on or about 2. 10. 77 and also to help the said business in contravention of Rule 17 of the West Bengal Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1959.
3) You did not obtain permission from the competent authority before permitting your wife to acquire the landed property at 40, Golf Club Rod, Calcutta 33 jointly with your brother Nanda gopal Bhattacharjee in contravention of Rule 18 of West Bengal government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1959".
Shri T. Chattapadhyay, D. C. (ii) D. D., Calcutta Police was appointed an enquiring Officer. It was alleged that the said Enquiring officer Shri T. Chattapadhya who started the enquiry with the charges, but could not conclude the same as the enquiring Officer was transferred from the said post and thereafter Shri D. C. Biswas, deputy Commissioner of Police (II), Special Branch, Calcutta POlice was appointed afresh as the Enquiring Officer to enquire into the charges. It was further alleged that Shri D. C. Biswas, Enquiring Officer held the enquiry and after conclusion of the enquiry submitted a report on 4th June, 1979 and that in the said enquiry report, the said Enquiring officer, Shri D. C. Biswas found that the petitioner was not guilty of the charges, inter alia, observing that "the charges leveled against the delinquent were very serious but these were not framed after collection of necessary material evidence. During enquiry the prosecution also could not place sufficient evidence to substantiate any one of the charges. Under the circumstances, the delinquent automatically stands exonerated of all the charges brought against" Thereafter it appears that on 7th July, 1981, the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta passed an order quashing the enquiry conducted by Shri D. C. Biswas, deputy Commissioner of Police (II), Special Br
