Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J.
Sridam Chatterjee - Petitioner
Versus
West Bengal State Electricity Board and others - Opposite Parties
W.P. No. 10109 (W) of 2002
Decided On : 15-05-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Achinta Banerjee, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties :Sumit Panja, Advocate
A confession of guilt made by a delinquent employee on multiple occasions and followed by a prayer for mercy is voluntary and genuine, and the employee cannot later claim that he lost his mental equilibrium at the time of the confession.
Headnote:
CHARGE-SHEET - GRIFICATION - REMOVAL FROM SERVICE - FAIR PROCEDURE - MENTAL EQUILIBRIUM - CONFESSION OF GUILT - ADMISSION - EVIDENCE ACT - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - NATURAL JUSTICE - PUNISHMENT - PROPORTIONALITY - WRIT JURISDICTION - WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD EMPLOYEES SERVICE REGULATION - REGULATION 38 - REGULATION 61(P) - REGULATION 63:
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, an employee of West Bengal State Electricity Board, was served with a charge-sheet containing 8 charges of gratification. An enquiry was conducted, and the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report and ordered the petitioner's removal from service. The petitioner appealed against the order, but the appellate authority affirmed the order of removal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that there was no violation of principles of natural justice or non-observance of relevant rules and regulations. The court also held that the delinquent employee was not denied a reasonable opportunity to defend his case and that the punishment was not totally disproportionate to the proof of misconduct. The court further held that the employee's confession of guilt on four occasions and his subsequent prayer for mercy were genuine and well thought of.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was denied a fair procedure in the disciplinary proceedings? 2. Whether the petitioner's mental equilibrium was affected at the time of the proceedings? 3. Whether the petitioner's confession of guilt was voluntary and genuine? 4. Whether the punishment of removal from service was proportionate to the proved misconduct?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was not denied a fair procedure in the disciplinary proceedings as he was given sufficient opportunities to defend himself and to cross-examine witnesses. 2. The court held that there was no evidence to support the petitioner's contention that his mental equilibrium was affected at the time of the proceedings. 3. The court held that the petitioner's confession of guilt on four occasions and his subsequent prayer for mercy were voluntary and genuine, and that the petitioner had sufficient time to consider the consequences of his confession. 4. The court held that the punishment of removal from service was not disproportionate to the proved misconduct, as the petitioner had accepted illegal gratification on multiple occasions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no merit in the petition.
Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J.
The writ petitioner has questioned the legality, validity and propriety of the charge-sheet, enquiry report, enquiry proceedings, order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority.
2. The writ petitioner was appointed as peon in West Bengal State Electricity Board in 1973 and was posted at Sonamukhi, District Bankura. Ultimately, he was designated as Record Supplier and was posted at Jaldhaka Hydel Project in the year 1999. In course of his employment, the petitioner was served with a memorandum of charge-sheet under Regulations 61 and 63 of the West Bengal State Electricity Board Employees Service Regulation vide Memo No. AS/V-1332/(GS)/1138 dated 26.06.1999 with as many as 8 charges of gratification which runs as follows :
The 1st charge-sheet is taking money for giving employment to one Kartik Roy, who is a neighbour of the relative of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner took the money amounting to Rs. 2,000/- in presence of wife and son of Kartik Roy with an assurance to give employment. Since, after taking money, the writ petitioner did nothing. The said Kartik Roy after waiting for a long time, requested the writ petitioner to refund the said gratification money of Rs. 2,000/-. Instead of refunding the money, the petitioner manhandled the said Kartik Roy and threatened him with dire consequences of life. Accordingly, he cheated Kartik Roy.
3. Charge No. II is again taking money from one Sri Santi Ranjan Roy Gupta to the tune of Rs. 3,000/-. The said sum was paid by two installments one by Rs. 2,000/- and the other is Rs. 1,000/-. After making payment, Sri Roy Gupta contacted the writ petitioner regarding his employment at Sonamukhi Construction 'D' Sub-Division Office. The petitioner handed over a letter written on Board's prescribed form bearing No. Cal-1944 BDN-1974 dated 29.03.1994 addressed to Sri Roygupta containing written, information regarding employment of Sri Roygupta under the Board. Being suspicious about the correctness of the letter, Sri Roygupta discussed with some other members of the Board and he came to know that the letter was false and contained wrong information. Later on, petitioner confessed that he typed the said letter privately in order to show Sri Roygupta that his case of employment was under consideration of the higher authority of the Board. The letters wrote by the writ petitioner bears his name as "Ghatterjee Da", "Chatterjee Babu". The writ petitioner also issued hand tics’ giving false assurance of providing employment under the Board was given to Sri Roygupta and the petitioner, thus, cheated the said Sri Roygupta.
4. Charge No : III - One Sri Sukhen Meta of Nutaneram, District Bankura submitted an application to Sonamukhi Constn. (Dist.) Sub-Division Office for having STW connection. After waiting for reasonable period, Sri Meta came to the Sonamukhi Sub-Division Office to know the position of his connection. During his visit, Sri Meta came in contact with the writ petitioner, Sri Sridam Chatterjee, Record Supplier of the Office. The writ petitioner introduced himself to Sri Meta as Surveyor as well as an Officer of that Office and he demanded illegal gratification from Sri Meta for early arranging of STW connection and consequently, Sri Meta gave a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the writ petitioner. After receipt of such gratification, he came to the village of Sri Meta and made a survey of the line of Sri Meta to establish that he had authority to allow the service line. On that date, the writ petitioner once again accepted gratification of Rs. 3,000/- from Sri Meta. As no arrangement for STW connection was made, Sri Meta visited Sonamukhi Construction 'D' Sub-Division Office and met the petitioner. The petitioner expressed his inability to arrange for STW connection. Sri Meta demanded refund of Rs. 4,000/- from the writ petitioner. On demand, the writ petitioner refunded Rs. 2,000/- but the balance Rs. 2,000/- is still to be refunded. Having knowled
