Acquittal in a criminal trial does not automatically invalidate disciplinary proceedings, but substantial overlaps in evidence may necessitate reconsideration of the latter's findings. Procedural fairness is essential in both contexts.

JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarathi Sen, J.

1. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondent/authorities commanding them to cancel/rescind/withdraw the following:-

i. The office order no.3 dated 06.01.2003 whereby and whereunder the writ petitioner was placed in suspension;

ii. The charge sheet dated 31.03.2003 issued by the disciplinary authority;

iii. The enquiry report dated 22.03.2006 as prepared by the enquiry officer being respondent no.6 herein;

iv. The second show cause notice dated 25.09.2006 as issued by the respondent no.4/authority;

v. The final order of punishment dated 11.01.2007 as passed by the respondent no.4/authority;

vi. The order of the appellate authority dated 28.03.2007 as communicated by the respondent no.5 along with other ancillary reliefs.

2. At the time of hearing Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page nos.64 to 66 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the memorandum of charge sheet dated 31.03.2003 together with articles of charges as lebelled against the writ petitioner being the delinquent on account of alleged violation of the Regulation nos. 38 and 59 of WBSEBESR which according to the disciplinary authority of the writ petitioner tantamouns to the act of misconduct in terms of Regulations 61(d), 61(e) and 61(p) of WBSEB Employees Service Regulations.

3. Mr. Banerjee in course of his argument took me to page nos. 196 to 235 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the enquiry report dated 22.03.2006 as prepared by the respondent no.6/authority.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Banerjee that from the materials as placed before this Court it would reveal that the said disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the delinquent who is the writ petitioner herein since the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with regard to the reply as given by the writ petitioner in terms of the memorandum of charge sheet dated 31.03.2003.

5. It is further submitted by Mr. Banerjee that from the materials as placed before this Court it would reveal further that in the said disciplinary proceeding ten witnesses have been tendered on behalf of the prosecution and on behalf of the defence i.e. on behalf of the writ petitioner four witnesses have been examined.

6. It is further contended by Mr. Banerjee that on careful perusal of the said enquiry report dated 23.02.2006 it would reveal that most surprisingly the complainant from whom the writ petitioner has allegedly demanded bribe has not adduced evidence. It is further contended that despite absence of the complainant the enquiry authority most surprisingly marked the written complaint of the complainant as an exhibit and while coming to the finding of the said enquiry, the enquiry officer being the respondent no.6/authority herein placed his reliance upon the said exhibited written complaint i.e. Exhibit 1 which causes a serious miscarriage of justice in view of the fact that marking of a document in absence of the author is absolutely unknown to the prescribed procedure for a disciplinary proceeding.

7. It is further submitted by Mr. Banerjee that the enquiry officer being the respondent no.6/authority while preparing his enquiry report dated 23.02.2006 has failed to visualize the serious prejud