JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned AGP appearing for the State writ petitioners.

2. The respondent has also been heard.

3. The West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal for short) allowed the relief to the applicant and set aside the entire Departmental Enquiry including order of punishment and order of the Appellate Authority. The respondent State of West Bengal has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 24.08.2023 passed in O.A. No. 216 of 2020.

4. The brief background is that an FIR bearing Nabadwip P.S. Case No. 157 of 2008 was lodged against one Samar Mondal alleging that he had committed rape upon the victim. The case was under investigation by one investigating officer (I.O.), a Sub-Inspector, namely Anil Das. After transfer of the earlier I.O., on 07.05.2010 petitioner took up investigation of the case and sent a requisition to the Commanding Officer of the Pioneer Unit for arrest of one Swapan Mondal who was serving in the Indian Army. The arrest was thus effected. The person who was arrested was subsequently allowed bail by the High Court. After grant of bail when the trial was progressing in the Fast Track Court it was revealed that Swapan was arrested treating him to be Swapan alias Samar, however Swapan and Samar were two different persons. Samar, the younger brother was serving in the Indian Army impersonating himself as one Swapan (elder brother). Swapan, on the other hand, was arrested by the police as he personated himself to be the younger brother (Samar). The Fast Track Court thus recorded a finding that this issue requires enquiry by the Superintendent of Police since both the brothers Samar and Swapan, have conspired with the I.O, using each others names have adversely effected the investigation. An issue regarding Samar serving in the place of Swapan in the Indian Army also arose in the Fast Track Court.

5. It is under such circumstance that the charge memo was issued. As per the charge memo the earlier investigating officer recorded in the case diary no. XXI, dated 23.04.2010 the name of the accused as Swapan @ Samar Mondal, son of Ananda Mondal who was serving in the Indian Army, has a wife and a son aged about four years. After recording such entry in the case diary earlier I.O was transferred.

6. We have gone through the case diary and materials before the enquiry officer. We find that to this extent there is no dispute regarding the case diary no. XXI dated 23.04.2010 being recorded by the earlier investigating officer.

7. Thereafter, when the petitioner took up the investigation on 07.05.2010, he proceeded on the premise that Swapan and Samar were one and the same person in view of the case diary no. XXI, dated 23.04.2010 entered by the earlier investigating officer. Under these circumstances he moved for arrest of Samar @ Swapan which led to arrest of Swapan. After the Fast Track Court discovered the fraudulent activity on the part of the two brothers, the charge memo was issued. It was alleged in the charge memo that the petitioner did not take sufficient steps to verify whether Swapan and Samar were one and the same person. Without making sufficient efforts to ascertain the identity of the accused he proceeded to arrest Swapan and, therefore, it was alleged that the petitioner “have acted with ill motive to extend benefits to the accused person. Such action on your part was prima facie violative of Rule 3 and 4 of West Bengal Servants Conduct Rule, 1959” (hereinafter referred to as “Conduct Rules”.

8. After an enquiry, the enquiry report dated 01.08.2014 was submitted by the enquiry officer, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Murshidabad Range. The enquiry report records a finding regarding the charges being proved. The petitioner thereafter was afforded an opportunity of making his representation against the enquiry report.

9. After due consideration of his representation, the petitioner has been visited with an order of penalty dated 27.02.2015. The petitioner has been inflicted t