Back
High Court of Calcutta
Mitra, S.K. Datta, JJ.
Sudhir Chandra Chakraborty – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
F.M.A. 166 of 1972.
Decided On : March 09, 1976
DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - PUBLIC SERVANT - CHARGES OF DISPROPORTIONATE ASSETS AND FALSE DECLARATION - WITHDRAWAL OF FIRST CHARGE SHEET AND ISSUANCE OF SECOND CHARGE SHEET - VALIDITY - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND - PROPOSAL OF PENALTY IN CHARGE SHEET - BIAS AND PREJUDICE - SECOND INQUIRY - COMPETENCY - LEGAL ASSISTANCE - PROVISIONAL FINDING OF GUILT - SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a permanent Government servant, was served with a charge sheet alleging possession of disproportionate assets and false declaration of assets. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defense denying the charges. Later, the Government withdrew the charge sheet and issued a second charge sheet with similar allegations. The petitioner filed a written statement of defense and an inquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of all the charges. The appointing authority agreed with the findings and proposed to dismiss the petitioner from service. The petitioner filed a show-cause notice and was eventually dismissed from service.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the withdrawal of the first charge sheet and issuance of the second charge sheet was not improper as no trial was held on the basis of the first charge sheet and there was no exoneration of the petitioner. The court also held that the petitioner was not denied the opportunity to defend himself as he was allowed to file a written statement of defense, cross-examine witnesses, and produce his own evidence. The court further held that the proposal of penalty in the charge sheet did not indicate bias and prejudice on the part of the appointing authority as the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The court also held that the second inquiry was competent as there was no specific provision in the service rules or in law for reviewing an order of exoneration.
Issues: 1. Whether the withdrawal of the first charge sheet and issuance of the second charge sheet was improper? 2. Whether the petitioner was denied the opportunity to defend himself? 3. Whether the proposal of penalty in the charge sheet indicated bias and prejudice on the part of the appointing authority? 4. Whether the second inquiry was competent?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The withdrawal of the first charge sheet and issuance of the second charge sheet was not improper as no trial was held on the basis of the first charge sheet and there was no exoneration of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was not denied the opportunity to defend himself as he was allowed to file a written statement of defense, cross-examine witnesses, and produce his own evidence. 3. The proposal of penalty in the charge sheet did not indicate bias and prejudice on the part of the appointing authority as the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 4. The second inquiry was competent as there was no specific provision in the service rules or in law for reviewing an order of exoneration.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and there was no order as to costs in the circumstances.
1. ON December 8, 1964 the petitioner appellant who was a permanent Government servant in the State Government, was served with the following charge sheet: "whereas it has been made to appear to the Governor that you, Sri Sudhir Chandra Chakraborty, have, while employed as Forest Ranger, canning under the 24-Parganas forest Division, been guilty of the following charges namely:-
(1) That you are found to be in possession of a property to wit a two stride building on a plot of land measuring about 4.25 kottahs situated at 15b, N.N, Ghosh Lane, Tollygunge, valued according to you, at Rs.30000/- which is utterly disproportionate to the known sources of your income and the acquisition of which property has not been satisfactorily accounted for by you with the result that there is warrant for reasonable inference that the said property was acquired by you in criminal misconduct in the discharge of your duties.
(2) That the declaration of assets submitted by you on. . . . . . are materially incomplete, misleading and false in regard to several items. "
2. THE petitioner was asked to put in his written statement of defence 1c the Enquiring Officer, appointed for the purpose of holding the inquiry, stating whether he desire to be heard in person or to call any witness or to produce any document in his defence and showing cause Why the penalty of dismissal or other penalty as would be deemed fit should not be imposed on him. The petitioner on January 15, 1965 filed his written statement of defence deny the charges. Thereafter on behalf of the Government a letter was written to the Enquiring Officer on March 3, 1965 which is as follows:
"I have to state that the charges framed against Shri S. C. Chakraborty are not in keeping with facts incorporated in our enquiry report. As a matter of fact, we have not at our disposal the evidence necessary for charge No. 1 and as such we do not press for this charge in our report. Regarding Charge No. 2 the charge and the statement of allegations are not clear and unambiguous as some vital information is lacking. Our evidence Warrants charges of different kind on the basis of information at our disposal. I, therefore, pray that I may be permitted not to proceed with the charges framed. We are writing to the forest departments for taking further and necessary action in the matter."
3. THEREAFTER again it appears that on July 17, 1965 the petitioner was served with the following charge sheet. "whereas it has been made to appear to the Governor that you, Shri sudhir Chandra Chakraborty, has, while employed as Forest Ranger, canning under the 24-Parganas Forest Division, been guilty of the following charges namely:-
(1) That you are found to be in possession of a property to wit a two storied building on a plot of land measuring about 4. 25 kottahs situated at 15 (subsequently numbered 15b), N. N. Ghosh Lane, Tollygunge, valued, according to you, at Rs. 30,000/- which is utterly disproportionate to the known sources of your income and the acquisition of which property has not been satisfactorily accounted for by you with the result that there is warrant for the reasonable inference that the said property was acquired by you in criminal misconduct in the discharge of your official duties.
(2) That the declaration of assets as they stood on different dates. . . . . . . . are materially incomplete and or misleading and or false inasmuch as the of sum of Rs. 5,000/-slated to have been spent by you after August, 1961 in constructing three living bed-rooms and one verandah on the first floor of the building situated at 15 (subsequently numbered 15b) N. N. Ghosh lane, Tollygunge was not mentioned by you in the aforesaid declaration of assets.
(3) That the declaration of assets on. . . . . . . . are materially incomplete, misleading and or false.
(4) That you are guilty of contravention of Rule 15 (2) of the West Bengal Government Servants' Con duct Rule, 1959 inasmuch as the leasehold land in Siliguri held in
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
