The principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard and the right to a fair and impartial hearing, must be adhered to in disciplinary proceedings against government employees.

JUDGMENT

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J. - The present writ application has been filed, inter alia, challenging an order of suspension dated 7th October, 2003, charge sheet dated 23rd October, 2003, the dissenting note of the disciplinary authority dated 11th June, 2004, the order of punishment dated 30th July, 2004 and the order passed by the appellate authority dated 4th August, 2005.

2. The petitioner claims to be a constable of Railway Protection Force (RPF) of South Eastern Railway. At the time when the instant writ application was filed, he was posted at Adra. While the petitioner was working at RPF post Adra, he was placed under suspension by an order dated 7th October, 2003. Subsequently, a charge sheet dated 23rd October, 2003 was served on the petitioner. Without providing any opportunity to the petitioner to respond to the charge sheet, the name of the enquiry officer was announced and the date of enquiry was also fixed. After conclusion of the enquiry, the disciplinary authority had by letter dated 11th June 2004, forwarded the findings of the enquiry officer along with the dissent note and called upon the petitioner to show cause. The petitioner had responded to such show cause, whereupon the final order of punishment dated 30th July, 2004 was passed, thereby reducing the pay of the petitioner by one stage lower, in the time scale of pay for two years with recurring effect. Although a statutory appeal was preferred, the appellate authority refused to interfere and dismissed the appeal.

3. Mr. Majumder learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that there was irregularity in the enquiry proceedings conducted by the respondent no.2 from the very beginning. He says that at the time when the charge sheet was issued, the respondent no 2, had made up his mind to hold the petitioner guilty. It is for such reason, without bothering to wait for the petitioner's reply, the date of enquiry was fixed and the enquiry officer was appointed. It is submitted that the enquiry proceedings, itself, stands vitiated on account of failure on the part of the disciplinary authority to give an opportunity to the petitioner to respond to the charge sheet prior to taking a final decision for holding an enquiry. In support of his above contention, he places reliance on a judgment delivered by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Sanjoy Kumar Singh -vs- Union of India & Ors. [Sanjoy Kumar Singh -vs- Union of India & Ors., 2002 (2) SLR 266] and an unreported judgment of this Hon'ble Court delivered in the case of Dilip Kumar Palit -vs- Union of India & Ors., in W.P. No. 5097 (W) of 2003 [Dilip Kumar Palit -vs- Union of India & Ors., W.P. No. 5097 (W) of 2003].

4. Mr. Majumder, thereafter, by drawing attention of this Court to the dissent note issued by the disciplinary authority on the findings of the enquiry officer submits that the disciplinary authority had already made up his mind to hold the petitioner guilty and for such reason, while disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, and while calling upon the petitioner to show cause, had recorded the petitioner to be guilty of the charges. It is submitted that the aforesaid dissent note is in conflict with rule 154.5 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said rules'). In the event the disciplinary authority was in disagreement with the report prepared by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority ought to have given his tentative findings, for the petitioner to respond to the same. In this case, the disciplinary authority had already held the petitioner to be guilty, at the time of forwarding the dissent note and calling for the show cause. This according to Mr. Majumder, vitiates the enquiry, at least from the stage when the show cause notice was issued on the petitioner, calling upon him to respond to the dissent note, when the finding of guilt was already returned by the disciplinary authority. In support of his aforesaid contentions, he pl