The disciplinary proceeding must adhere to the prescribed manner and not violate natural justice. The onus is on the employee to show prejudice due to the respondent's actions.

Judgment :

1. The petitioner is a bus conductor employed with the Calcutta State Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "the Company". On 4th October, 2018 the vehicle in which the petitioner was performing his duty was checked by the checking squad. The conductor cash bag of the petitioner was checked and an amount of Rs.398/- was detected as excess of the sale proceeds of the tickets. The petitioner failed to account for the said excess amount of cash in his cash bag.

2. By a communication dated 29th October, 2018 the Depot Manager, Thakurpukur Depot issued an order or suspension upon him. The petitioner was suspended with immediate effect and he was directed to deposit his identity card in the office.

3. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 4th December, 2018 and he was directed to submit his written statement either admitting or denying the charges leveled against him. Copy of the bag check report was forwarded to the petitioner along with the charge sheet.

4. The petitioner replied to the said charge sheet. Though the petitioner mentioned that the allegation levelled against him was false he however, admitted that an amount of Rs.400/- was with him when the checking squad checked his bag. According to the petitioner the said money was with him for purchasing medicines.

5. The Senior Discipline Officer of the Company vide a communication dated 2nd January, 2019 intimated the petitioner that the disciplinary authority appointed one Shri Animesh Kumar Saha, Discipline Officer of the Company as an Inquiry Officer and one Smt. Kakali Sinha, head clerk, Central Discipline Section as Presenting Officer in the disciplinary proceedings. A hearing notice was issued in favour of the petitioner intimating that the proceeding was fixed for hearing on 9th January, 2019.

6. Being aggrieved by the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding the petitioner filed the instant writ petition on the ground that the charge sheet served upon the petitioner was defective and vague. The said charge sheet did not disclose the service Rule by which the petitioner will be guided. The petitioner prayed for setting aside the suspension order as well as the charge sheet.

7. The petitioner however, participated in the disciplinary proceeding without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the pending writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition a final order of punishment was passed against him. The petitioner has filed an interlocutory application incorporating subsequent facts and documents on record.

8. By an order dated 27th May, 2019 passed by the Deputy Managing Director (1W/Bus), CSTC the punishment of reduction of pay of the petitioner to the initial stage in the timescale of pay of conductor with cumulative effect was imposed upon him. The petitioner was warned that in case of recurrence of such offence in future he may make himself liable for severe disciplinary action including termination of service.

9. The petitioner is aggrieved by the imposition of penalty against him. According to the petitioner the disciplinary proceeding was initiated on the basis of a defective charge sheet. The charges were neither definite nor specific. The charge sheet did not contain the Article of Charges. The name of the management witnesses were also not forwarded along with the charge sheet.

10. The petitioner relies upon the notification dated 8th September, 1961 containing the Calcutta State Transport Employees' Service Regulations published in the Calcutta Gazette on 11th September, 1961. Rule 39 of the said Regulations have been relied upon by the petitioner wherein it has been mentioned that no order of dismissal, removal or reduction shall be passed on an employee of the Corporation unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and has been offered an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of definite ch