JUDGMENT :

MADHURESH PRASAD, J.

Re: CAN 2 of 2025 (Application for Restoration)

1. It is stated that the list could not marked on the fateful day, therefore, there occurred a default in appearance. The application further discloses that thereafter the learned advocate suffered from a knee injury and was confined. He, therefore, could not appear in court up to the year 2024. Only when he was capable of attending to his professional duties, he became aware of dismissal of the appeal and has, thus, filed the application for restoration.

2. We find sufficient cause made out for restoration of appeal. The application for restoration is allowed.

3. We, have determination to take up the present matters arising out of Tribunals under Article 323A & 323B of the Constitution of India, and thus invited the parties to make submissions on the merits of the matter and have heard the submissions of the rival parties.

Re: CAN 1 of 2025 (application for condonation)

4. Disposed of accordingly.

Re: W.P.S.T. 168 OF 2015

5. The petitioner was the applicant before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No.857 of 2003. He assailed the charge memo and entire proceedings conducted pursuant to the charge memo dated 13.04.1992. The final order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Superintendent of Police, Bankura) on 19.01.2012 was also put to challenge. He also assailed the consequential orders issued in compliance of the order of punishment date 19.01.2012.

6. The factual background arising from the charge memo forming the substance of the allegation against the petitioner is that at the time of obtaining employment, the petitioner was accused of submitting a Transfer Certificate from a school so as to take benefit of a mere advantageous date of birth, which was at variance with his date of birth, entered by him while obtaining earlier appointment as a Home Guard.

7. After issuance of the charge memo, the authorities allowed the petitioner personal hearing. On his non-acceptance of the charges, he was allowed an opportunity to submit his written statement of defence. An Enquiry Officer was appointed who enquired into the charges. 13 prosecution witnesses were adduced on behalf of the department. The petitioner was also allowed opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses adduced on behalf of the department. The petitioner’s defence witnesses were also examined.

8. After an exercise in these terms, the enquiry report dated 10.07.2002 was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved. The petitioner, thereafter was afforded an opportunity by the Disciplinary Authority and after due opportunity, the disciplinary authority by its order dated 19.01.2012 has accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and awarded the punishment for dismissal from service.

9. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the findings in the proceedings are unsustainable and stand vitiated for lapses:

(1) The charge memo was not issued by the authority in accordance with procedure specified in the Police Regulations of Bengal, 1943 (in short ‘PRB’). He submits that the petitioner at the time the charge memo was served on the petitioner, he was posted under the S.P., Birbhum. The S.P., Birbhum, however, did not apply an independent judicial mind before framing the charges and was influenced by the S.P., Bankura. The charges were framed at the behest of the S.P., Bankura. The proceedings, founded on such charges, are unsustainable.

(2) It is further submitted that in respect of a charge memo issued in 1992, the authorities have protracted the proceeding and finally Enquiry Report has been submitted after a decade. The delay, therefore, defeats the fairness in the proceeding and on account of such delay, the proceeding is liable to be quashed.

10. Another ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner was proceeded against for the same charge in a criminal case. The criminal case en