Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
MANASH NATH ROY, J.
Samarendra Narayan Ghose - Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Rule No. 17829 (W) of 1975
Decided On: November 9, 1983
COMMON PROCEEDINGS - WEST BENGAL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1971 - INITIATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - DELAY - VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - SUSPENSION - TRANSFER - MALA FIDE - STALE AND REMOTE INCIDENT - NON-SUPPLY OF DOCUMENTS - CHARGESHEET - VAGUENESS - INQUIRY REPORT - VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - COMMON PROCEEDINGS - UNAUTHORIZED - WITHOUT JURISDICTION - ILLEGAL - IRREGULAR - VOID.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Inspector of Food and Supplies, was transferred from his posting in Siliguri to West Dinajpur in May 1974. He was suspended in November 1974 and served with a charge sheet in June 1975 alleging misconduct and misbehavior in relation to an incident in 1967. The petitioner challenged the transfer, suspension, and initiation of disciplinary proceedings as being mala fide, without jurisdiction, and in violation of principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
1. The transfer of the petitioner from Siliguri to West Dinajpur was not in public interest but was motivated by mala fide intent due to the petitioner's detection of irregularities in a modified ration shop. 2. The suspension of the petitioner was not in accordance with the rules and was also mala fide. 3. The initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner based on a stale and remote incident from 1967 was mala fide and violative of principles of natural justice. 4. The refusal to supply the petitioner with copies of documents relevant to the charges against him violated principles of natural justice. 5. The chargesheet was vague and did not provide the petitioner with sufficient information to prepare his defense. 6. The inquiry report was erroneous and violative of principles of natural justice as it relied on the evidence of a witness who was not cross-examined by the petitioner. 7. The initiation of common proceedings against the petitioner was unauthorized, without jurisdiction, illegal, irregular, and void as it was not in accordance with the relevant rules.
Issues: 1. Whether the transfer of the petitioner from Siliguri to West Dinajpur was mala fide and in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. Whether the suspension of the petitioner was in accordance with the rules and bona fide. 3. Whether the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner based on a stale and remote incident from 1967 was mala fide and violative of principles of natural justice. 4. Whether the refusal to supply the petitioner with copies of documents relevant to the charges against him violated principles of natural justice. 5. Whether the chargesheet was vague and did not provide the petitioner with sufficient information to prepare his defense. 6. Whether the inquiry report was erroneous and violative of principles of natural justice. 7. Whether the initiation of common proceedings against the petitioner was unauthorized, without jurisdiction, illegal, irregular, and void.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The transfer of a government servant must be in public interest and not motivated by mala fide intent. 2. The suspension of a government servant must be in accordance with the rules and bona fide. 3. Disciplinary proceedings against a government servant cannot be initiated based on a stale and remote incident, as this is mala fide and violative of principles of natural justice. 4. A government servant is entitled to be supplied with copies of documents relevant to the charges against him in order to prepare his defense. 5. A chargesheet must be clear and specific so as to provide the government servant with sufficient information to prepare his defense. 6. An inquiry report must be fair and impartial and must not rely on evidence that was not cross-examined by the government servant. 7. Common proceedings against multiple government servants can only be initiated in accordance with the relevant rules and must be authorized, within jurisdiction, legal, regular, and valid.
Final Decision: The Rule is made absolute to the extent that the transfer of the petitioner, the suspension of the petitioner, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner based on the 1967 incident, the refusal to supply the petitioner with copies of documents, the vagueness of the chargesheet, the erroneous inquiry report, and the initiation of common proceedings against the petitioner are all set aside as mala fide, without jurisdiction, and in violation of principles of natural justice. There will be no order as to costs.
1. The petitioner in this Rule as impeached (a) Memorandum dated 25th June, 1975, whereby a common enquiry proceeding has been proposed to be held under Rules 9 and 10 of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules), (b) an order under Rule 10(4) of the said Rules, appointing Shri R. Banerjee, Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries, Vigilance Commission, West Bengal as Enquiring Authority to enquire into the charges framed against him, (c) an order dated 25th June, 1975 whereby departmental proceedings were drawn up against the petitioner and (d) a communication dated 30th July, 1975 from the said Commissioner for departmental enquiries to the petitioner refusing inspection or copies of the documents as were asked for. It should be noted here that the Rule for non-compliance with the Court's order dated 28th April, 1981, has been discharged against respondent No.9, Shri Ghanashyam Prosad Gupta.
2. The petitioner has stated that in or about December, 1945, he duly entered into the services of the department of Food and Supplies, Government of West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as the said department)" as Inspector, Food and Supplies through a competitive examination. It was his case that throughout his career and tenure he has discharged his duties and obligations faithfully, diligently and to the satisfaction to all his superiors and in fact, his service career is free from any blemish whatsoever. He has stated that considering his commendable services as rendered and more particularly during the course of disasters which occurred in 1950, he was temporarily promoted to the post of Inspector of the said department but he was subsequently reverted from such posting without any charge of any allegation. He has stated to have proved himself worthy' of his appointment and has served the department in the satisfactory manner as indicated hereinbefore and as such, he has also claimed to have been, promoted to the post of Inspector of the said department in or about May, 1964. It has further been stated .that since such appointment, the petitioner has been posted to different districts and in or about April, 1973, he was transferred to Siliguri under the office of the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, respondent No.5. The petitioner has reiterated that at Siliguri also he had discharged his duties in the manner as indicated herein before and that two to the satisfaction of all concerned.
3. It was the case of the petitioner that in course of his duties as attached to the concerned office, he was required to check the modified ration shops, their registers, books, ledgers, vouchers, stocks of the foods grains etc. and was also competent to report against a modified ration dealer in case of irregularity or illegality if discovered or detected. Such report, according to the petitioner was required to be made to the said respondent No. 5 and he has further stated that as a result of such reports as made by him, many of the persons against whom he had reported were found to be guilty of the concerned illegalities and irregularities as pointed out by him. The petitioner has stated that his jurisdiction to report in the manner as indicated above, was in respect of Siliguri Police Station and so also Phansedeoa Police Station and on or about 2nd November, 1973, he had to go Khokagram within Ghosepukur Anchal under Phansedeoa Police Station in Siliguri Sub-Division for the purpose of checking the modified ration shops of one Shri D.N. Sikdar of Khokagram. It has been stated by the petitioner that during the course of checking the concerned shop had discovered abnormal shortage in rice, atta and stock of sugar. It was his further case that he also found that one Shri Parimal Ghose of Buragunj Anchal of Kharibari Police Station was managing that shop and incidentally the said Shri Ghose was himself a dealer of a modified shop at Buragunj Anchal under K
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
