The dismissal of a Police Officer for misconduct unbecoming of a Police Officer, namely, living in adultery with another woman during the subsistence of his marriage, is justified under Rule 4 of the West Bengal Servant Conduct Rules, 1959.

The Court: By the present Writ Application the petitioner who was an Inspector of the State Armed Police, 8th Battalion, Barrackpore, challenges the order dated 25.9.1998 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) rejecting the Petitioner's Application before the Tribunal for quashing the Petitioner's order of dismissal dated December 2, 1997.

2. When the petitioner was posted in the North 24-Paraganas as a police constable he was charged with misconduct unbecoming of a Police Officer. The allegation against him was that he married one Renuka Roy and was living with her in a rented quarter although his first wife Smt. Mamata Rani Roy was alive. The charge against him was violation of Service Conduct Rules 4 and 30 of the West Bengal Servant Conduct Rules. 1959 ("the 1959 Rules" for short). He was found guilty of the charge and S.P. North 24-Parganas, accepting the findings of the Enquiring Officer, passed the final order of dismissal on 25.8.1992.

3. The petitioner challenged that above Order of dismissal dated 25.8.1992 by filing a Writ Petition in this Court which was later transferred to the Tribunal and registered as TA 269 of 1996.

4. The Tribunal was of the view that before imposing the penalty of dismissal from service the disciplinary authority should have given the petitioner an opportunity of showing cause against the proposed penalty and that the petitioner should have been supplied with a copy of the Report of the Enquiring Officer and that he should have been asked to show-cause within a reasonable time against the proposed penalty to be imposed.

5. With these observations the Tribunal by the Order dated 15.9.1997 set aside the impugned Order of dismissal dated 25.8.1992 passed by the respondent No.3, S.P., North 24-Parganas and directed him to proceed afresh in accordance with law particularly regulation 861 of the PRB (Police Regulations of Bengal) on due consideration of the Report submitted by the Enquiring Officer. The Tribunal. also directed continuance of payment of the petitioner's subsistence allowance and other allowances as admissible under the Rules during the period of suspension and till the disposal of the departmental proceeding by a final order.

6. The petitioner was served with a provisional dismissal order dated 23.7.1997 whereby he was asked to show cause within a period of 15 days why the provisional punishment should not be imposed for gross misconduct of moral turpitude as he was guilty of adulterous relationship with one Smt. Renuka Roy during the subsistence of his first marriage. By this Order it was also communicated to the petitioner that the payment of subsistence allowance and other allowances as per rules would continue till the final order was passed in the matter.

7. The petitioner filed a Second Application being OA 85 of 1998 before the• Tribunal on the ground that the respondent issued the dismissal order dated December 2, 1997 and there was no fresh hearing. Therefore the said order of dismissal is violative of the principles of natural justice and not in conformity with Rule 861 of P.R.B.

8. In appears from the order of the Tribunal which is under challenge in the present Writ Application that on 7.11.1997 the second show-cause notice that is, the Provisional Order passed by the Authority on 22.10.1997 was received by the petitioner and a reply thereto denying the allegations of his illicit relations with Smt. Renuka Roy was sent to the Authority. The Order of dismissal was given effect from 19.12.1997.

9. The Tribunal held that the question of de novo proceeding as mentioned in the petitioner's application in the Tribunal does not arise as in the Order dated 15.9.1997 it was made explicit that the matter should be considered afresh by the respondents on the basis of Reports submitted by the Enquiring Officer. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. The reply relating to receipt of second show cause notice remains uncontroverted. The Tr