Disciplinary authority's findings must be based on evidence; failure to adhere to natural justice principles renders proceedings void.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred praying for quashing of the entire disciplinary proceedings including the show cause notice dated 26.07.2007 and not to give further effect to the said notice.

2. By the said notice dated 26.07.2007 the Deputy Chairman and disciplinary authority on considering the enquiry report submitted by Sri D. K. Roy, Enquiring Officer did not agree with the findings of the Enquiring Officer on the second charge. The said disciplinary authority held as follows:-

“i) The charged Officer was in total charge of chlorination of drinking water at certain identified points in the Dock area as well as KoPT Quarters area.

ii) Such contract for manual chlorination was made w.e.f. 8.6.02 initially for a period of one year and subsequently extended for another year.

iii) The charged Officer raised a proposal dated 22.3.04 in anticipation that finalization of fresh tender would require time.

iv) Meanwhile the charged Officer proposed to extend the existing chlorination contract with the existing firm on existing terms and conditions for a period of two months.

v) The charged officer placed repeat order with the same firm on 13.7.04 for chlorination in respect of the period 14.7.04 to 31.8.04.

vi) For fresh contract, tenders were invited on 26.5.04. No tender was received and the date was extended thrice on 14.7.04, 11.8.04 and 27.8.04 but no result could be yielded.

vii) The charged Officer wrote to the existing contractor on 6.8.04 for extension of the existing contract for a further period of three months w.e.f. 1st September, 2004 and this was refused by the existing contractor.

viii) The charged Officer further wrote a letter to the existing contractor on 20.8.04 for extension of contract for a period of atleast one month w.e.f. 1.9.04 but the contractor refused to comply with the request.

ix) At this stage, the charged Officer raised a proposal dated 14.9.04 seeking administrative approval for fresh press advertised tender for manual chlorination of drinking water which has been delayed.

x) In view of the delay in raising proposal for fresh contract even after expiry of the existing contract, the charged Officer cannot disown his responsibility and he should have been much more alert and prompt in dealing with such important, sensitive issue which relates to drinking water to the port users and inhabitants of KoPT.

xi) The report submitted by the enquiry officer did not take into account the above facts though they were on record before him. As such the undersigned proposes to disagree with the findings of Enquiring Officer on the 2nd Charge. With the reasons of disagreement as appearing in the immediately preceding paragraph, now the undersigned as Disciplinary Authority forwards a copy of the said report of the Enquiring Authority to the said Dr. B. P. Samantaray, Sr. M.O. and directs him to submit, if he so desires, his written representation/submission thereto to the undersigned within 15 days from the date of receipt of this letter irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not to him.;

If no written representation/submission is received from the said Dr. B. P. Samantaray, Sr. M. O. within the aforesaid time frame, further action on the Enquiry Report will be taken as per provision of the Regulation 8A and 9A of the CPT Employees’ (CCA) Regulation 1987 read with Regulation 7 of Calcutta Port Trust Employees; (Pension) Regulation 1988.

Enclo: As stated.

Dy. Chairman & Disciplinary Authority”

3. It appears that the said disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer and asked the petitioner to show cause. It appears from the report of the enquiry officer that on extensive enquiry on examining relevant witnesses and documents the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that none of the charge(3) as framed against the petitioner could be established.

4. Written notes filed by the parties have been considered.

5. The petitioner without replying