JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner was the applicant before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the S.A.T.). He has been visited with a punishment withholding two of his annual increments that also with non-cumulative effect. The punishment awarded in the proceedings has been upheld in appeal as also by the S.A.T. in the proceedings arising out of O.A. No. 296 of 2012.

3. The brief factual background is being noted for easy reference. The petitioner, a Constable, was assigned duty near a market in Sealdah in the city of Kolkata along with one Assistant Sub-Inspector (A.S.I.). A complaint was received from the businessmen in the market in front of which the petitioner was posted along with the A.S.I. that they have indulged in demanding of illegal gratification from the trucks carrying the material to the market from other States. The same led to issuance of a charge memo dated 19.01.2010 against the petitioner and thereby initiation of proceedings. The charge memo clearly specifies that the petitioner is charged with asking the four truck drivers of trucks whose registration number has been specified in the charge memo to park their vehicles by the side of the road and that later the petitioner has demanded money from the drivers and intimidated them for initiating prosecution under grievous sections of law if they do not fulfil the demand for illegal gratification.

4. The petitioner filed a written statement denying the allegation of demand of illegal gratification. According to him, the persons sitting in the truck when asked for papers asked the petitioner to speak to one of the businessmen in the market area. The petitioner thereafter spoke with the person and left the place. He never demanded any illegal gratification nor did he take any money.

5. The Enquiry Officer has considered the evidence of 12 witnesses in support of the charge. The list of witnesses includes at least two persons sitting in two of the trucks said to have been stopped by the petitioner. P.W.4 and P.W.5 have thus deposed before the Enquiry Officer and supported the allegations. They have also identified the petitioner as being the charged officer (Constable) who demanded the illegal gratification.

6. The petitioner has been allowed full opportunity in the proceedings. He has also cross-examined the witnesses. Thereafter the petitioner has been visited with the order of punishment dated 02.11.2011. The punishment imposed by the final order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North & North Suburban Division, Kolkata is for withholding of two increments which were not to effect his future pay and service.

7. The petitioner has preferred an appeal against the punishment before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority (the Joint Commissioner of Police, Establishment, Kolkata) has affirmed the findings by his order dated 22.12.2011.

8. The petitioner thereafter has moved the S.A.T. The S.A.T. has taken note of the charges. It has also requisitioned the records of enquiry which have been examined by the S.A.T. The S.A.T. found that there was evidence of at least two persons P.W.4 and P.W.5 who have deposed and supported the charges of demand of illegal gratification. The S.A.T. did not find any procedural lapse in the proceedings either before the Enquiry Officer or before the Appellate Authority.

9. In the above circumstances, the S.A.T. has refused to interfere with the impugned order/s of punishment as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The S.A.T. in its order has limited its scope of review of the proceedings before the authorities, to the decision making process and having found the procedure being complied, and there being evidence on record has refused to interfere with the findings.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that prior to issuance of the charge memo a complaint was made by the leader