(1.) This appeal founded on a certificate, is against the judgment and order passed by the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court of Calcutta which, setting aside the judgment end order of a learned Single Judge, allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and issued a mandamus directing the appellant. State not to enforce its orders issued under Rule 20 (1) and Rule 23 (1) (i) of the Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1926.
(2.) The respondent was appointed in June 1945 as a sub-inspector under the Director General (Transportation and Storage) of the Civil Supplies Department of West Bengal Government. In December 1951, he was attached to the movement section under the Directorate of Transportation in the Department of Food. He was placed under suspension by an order dated December 21, 1951. That order provided that he would be paid 25 per cent of his basic pay during the period of suspension. On January 19/21, 1952 he was served with a charge-sheet containing four charges (1) that he published a certain pamphlet without obtaining the previous sanction required by Rule 20 of the said Rules, (2) that the said pamphlet contained criticism of the Government capable of embarrassing the relations between the Government and the public, thus violating Rule 20 (1) (a) , (3) that the pamphlet showed that he was taking active part in politics in breach of R. 23 and (4) that the said publication constituted propaganda in connection with general elections and therefore, was in breach of Rule 23 and the standing orders of the Government in that regard. The rules on which the charges were thus founded were Rules 20 (1) (a) and (2) , and Rule 23 (1) (i) of the said Rules. Though the charges mentioned standing orders of the Government, it was conceded in the High Court that there were no such standing orders.
(3.) The explanation of the respondent was that he had neither printed nor published the said pamphlet, that a pamphlet of the kind mentioned in the charge-sheet was printed by one M. K Mukhopadhyaya and that his name (the respondent's) was printed therein as its publisher without his knowledge or consent. As regards the rest of the charges, he denied them all. Since they flowed from the first charge, and that charge depended upon his having published the said pamphlet, those charges, according to him, were not sustainable in view of his not having been responsible for its publication.