A charge-sheet is bad and void if it is issued with a closed mind, meaning that the disciplinary authority has already come to a conclusion regarding the guilt of the delinquent officer.

This writ petition is directed against the issuance of a charge-sheet as also the order of suspension. The petitioner was appointed as a trainee in Bird & Co Ltd in the year, 1967 and thereafter promoted to the post of Staff Supervisor and continued to remain in such post upto the year, 1969 when he was further promoted to the post of Assistant. During the period of service as Assistant, the petitioner was in receipt of increment from year to year and said to have an unblemish conduct. On and since 25th October, 1980 M/s Bird & Company turned out to be a Government of India Undertaking through under the name and style of "Bharat Process & Mechanical Engineers Ltd.". The petitioner however was continued in service on the same terms and conditions as were had with M/s. Bird & Co Ltd.

2. The petitioner's case is that in the month of July, 1983 the petitioner was asked to visit and visited on official work the State of Bombay. The petitioner stayed there till 7th August, 1983. Subsequently the petitioner was again asked to visit Bombay for official business on 10th October, 1983 and stayed there till 6th November, 1963. In accordance with the usual procedure the petitioner obtained the advance and said to have duly accounted for the same on his return to Calcutta.

3. On 14th May, 1984 the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet being Memorandum No. GH(W) CS/84/HKC dated 14.5.84 issued by the Central Manager (Works) on behalf of the respondent no. 1. It would be pertinent to set out the extract of the charge-sheet:

"You have submitted two bills for reimbursement of Traveling expenses for the period of journey of 25/5/83 to 7/9/83 and 10/10/83 to 6/11/83. In your bill for 25/7/83 to 7/9/83 you have falsely claimed air fare from Bombay to Calcutta amounting to Rs.1135/- though the same has been paid by Bombay office vide their Debit Note No. CV/l082 dated 5/9/83 towards cost of Air Ticket No. 0581/6780644 from Bombay to Calcutta for journey on 7/9/83 and the said air ticket was received by you on 7/9/83 from our Bombay office.

In your bill for 10/10/83 you have falsely claimed lodging charges for; Rs.1025.45 against Bill No. 19897 dated 19/10/84 of Y.W.C.A. International Guest House Bombay for the period from 15.10.83 to 21.10.83, though the same was paid by Bombay office of our Company vide Bill No. 002 dated 19.10.83 for Rs.1025.45 of Y.W.C.A. International Guest House your staying from 15.10.83 to 21.10.83. The Bill No....................... dated 19.10.83 bears your endorsement dated 24.10.83 for payment.

By your above mentioned acts and commission you have committed fraud, dishonesty, cheating, breach of trust and misappropriation of Company's money."

4. The principal contention raised by Mr. Ajit Kumar Panja appearing for the petitioner is that the charge-sheet was issued with a closed mind Mr. Panja contended that the concerned authority have already decided the matter and the charge-sheet duly recorded the same. The conclusion in regard to the commission of fraud, dishonesty cheating, breach of trust and misappropriation of Company's money have already been arrived at by the authority. Mr. Biswaroop Gupta appearing for the respondents however contended that considering the charge sheet as a whole, the question of having a closed mind does not and cannot arise. Mr. Gupta contended that the charge-sheet itself shows that delinquent officer was asked to explain the conduct, which negates the plea of closed mind as raised by Mr. Panja, Mr. Gupta referred to the affidavit-in-opposition by the selfsame gentleman, who has issued the charge-sheet. In the said affidavit, the deponent has stated...............""I know of nobody in the respondent no. 1 interested in spoiling career of the writ petitioner. If the time given to show cause appeared to be too short to the petitioner, he could ask for time which would have been readily granted by me and I am still ready and willing to grant such reasonable extensions of time to which the pe