The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of a thorough investigation, the right to represent against the findings of the Enquiry Report, and the need for a forensic examination to uncover the truth.

JUDGMENT

The appellant has preferred the instant appeal against the Order passed in W.P.a. No. 19237 of 2021 dated 06.12.2021 wherein the Hon'ble Single Judge has passed the following order:-

'after hearing the submissions made by the parties and considering the materials on record, I find that there is no scope of passing any interim order. The Courts are loath in interfering with the disciplinary proceedings either at the stage of issuance of charge-sheet or even thereafter till the disciplinary proceedings is brought to a logical conclusion unless patent illegality is explicit on face of record. I, prima facie, do not find any such patent illegality at this stage to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings are required to be brought to a logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner, if ultimately succeeds, will get all his benefits and as such the contention of the petitioner on this count is also not acceptable.'

The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:

The appellant is a member of the West Bengal Judicial Service in the Cadre of District Judge (Entry Level) and posted as additional District and Sessions Judge, Third Court, Berhampore in the District of Murshidabad. The High Court, Calcutta initiated a departmental proceeding against the appellant vide Charge Memorandum dated 15.12.2020 containing the following charges:-

'That you, being an officer of West Bengal Judicial Service, in the rank of District Judge (Entry Level), have passed two judgments, that, too, contains two completely opposite findings and results in the same case (T.a 28/2012), one dated 28-08-2015 and the another dated 31-08-2015 and that you have drawn up two separate and completely opposite decrees on the same date (07-09-2015)

That you have 'dismissed' the said Title appeal vide Judgment dated 28-08-2015 and you have 'allowed' the same vide judgment dated 31-08-2015

That in the Case Record there is no trace of the Judgment and decree dated 31-08-2015 & 07-09-2015 respectively but the original Xerox-certified copy of the said judgment and decree, which was processed under Process no. 9936 dated 08-09-2015, shows that you have passed the judgment on 31-08-2015 and had allowed the said appeal and you have drawn up the decree on 07-09-2015.

That the particular entries in the Cause List and the Register of Certified copy maintained in your court, were found neatly torn (details of which were mentioned in the previous paragraphs) in order to disappear and tamper evidence of the above discrepancies.

That you did so deliberately with dishonest/malafide intention and on extraneous considerations unbecoming of a Judicial Officer.

and that your activities, as mentioned above, as a whole on your part is also one which amounts to gross illegality and gross misconduct as an officer of West Bengal Judicial Service and tampering of the Judicial Record and the same will necessitate disciplinary action against you.'

after receipt of the Memorandum of Charges, the appellant had submitted detailed written statement of defence by denying the charges and prayed for dropping of all the charges levelled against him after taking all possible scientific enquiry to find out the truth and to take punitive measures against the person/persons who tarnished the image of the judiciary by doing such illegal activities and exonerate him from the Departmental Proceeding.

On receipt of the written statement of defence of the appellant, the respondents were not satisfied with the said defence and have decided to proceed with the Departmental Proceeding further against the appellant and have appointed the Inquiry Officer as well as the Presenting Officer.

The appellant had participated in the Departmental Proceeding. During the inquiry altogether 06(six) witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and 31(Thirty One) documents were exhibited. The appellant has examined two witnesses, including himself and 16 (Sixte