SUNIL KUMAR BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, member of the Indian Administrative Service, while working as Divisional Commissioner, North Bengal, was served on May 2, 1970, with a memorandum of charges and was informed by another memorandum to which a list of documents and witnesses was attached, that it was proposed to hold an enquiry against him under Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, and that, if he so desired, the appellant could inspect the documents mentioned in the enclosed list. He was further informed that he should submit a written statement of defence within fourteen days from the date of completion of inspection. The appellant submitted his written statement of defence on June 9, 1970. On August 12, 1970 Shri A.N. Mukherjee, Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries, Vigilance Commission, West Bengal, was appointed as Enquiry officer to enquire into the charges against the appellant. After completing the enquiry, the Enquiry officer submitted a report giving his findings on the various charges. Charges Nos.2 and 5 were held to be proved, charges Nos. 3 and 4 partly proved and Charge No. 1 also proved but considered to be a technical omission rather than a serious lapse. The Vigilance Commission which considered the Enquiry Officer's report, found that charge Nos. 1,2,3 and 5 were fully proved and charge No. 4 partly proved., On April 6, 1971, the disciplinary authority namely the Government of West Bengal issued a notice to the appellant informing him that, on a consideration of the report of the Enquiry officer they had come to the conclusion that charges NOs. 1,2,3, and 5 were fully proved and that charge No.4 was partly proved and calling upon the appellant to show cause why he should not be reduced in rank. The Union Public Service Commission was then consulted and their advice obtained. According to the Union Public Service Commission charge No. 3 had not been proved while charge No.1 was proved but was considered to be a technical irregularity and charges Nos. 2,4, and 5 were partly proved. Thereafter the Government of West Bengal came to the final conclusion that charge No. 3 had not been proved, charge No. 1 had been proved but was only a technical irregularity and charges Nos. 2,4, and were party proved. On those findings the punishment which was imposed on the appellant was reduction from the stage of Rs. 2750/- per month to the stage of Rs. 2500/- per month in the scale of Rs. 2500/- 125/2-2750/- with effect from the date of issue of the order'. This was, however, not to be a bar (to) his earning increments from the stage of Rs. 2500/- from the date of reduction to the lower stage. Aggrieved by the order of the Government the appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Calcutta. A learned Single Judge of the High Court went into the matter in great detail, almost as if he was hearing regular appeal, perhaps because one of the arguments urged before him was that there was no evidence to sustain any of the charges. The learned Single Judge found that charges Nos. 2,3, and 5 were not proved, charges No.4 was partly proved, charge No.1 was proved but was only a technical irregularity. He was, however, of the view that the punishment which was actually imposed on the appellant could be imposed in respect of charge No.4 to the extent which it was proved. He, therefore, dismissed the Writ Petition. On appeal under the Letters Patent a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court came to the conclusion that charge No.5 was proved, charge No. 1 was proved but was a technical irregularity and charge No.2 was partly proved. There was a difference of opinion on the question whether charge No.4 was proved. Both the learned Judges agreed in dismissing the appeal.

(2.) The appellant who argued the appeal in person raised several contentions. He contended that though the enquiry was to have been held under All India Services Disciplinary Rules 1969, it was in fact held under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, which had been repealed. He was thereby prejudiced and in particular he pointed out that he was not questioned with reference to the circumstances appearing against him as provided by sub-rule 19 of Rule 8 of the 1969 rules. He was thus denied an opportunity of explaining the circumstances which weighed in the mind of the Enquiry officer. The appellant also contended that the Vigilance Commissioner had no statutory status and he should not have been consulted by the Government. He made a grievance of the circumstance that the report of the Vigilance Commissioner was not furnished to him though the ultimate findings of the Government were based on the report of the Vigilance Commissioner. He further submitted that the Enquiry Officer was prejudiced against him and that he combined in himself the role of both prosecutor and judge. He further submitted that he was denied a reasonable opportunity of defending himself as important witnesses were not called so as enable him to cross examine them though the notings made by them in the files were relied upon against him. Some of the additional document 'sought by him were not also made available. He was also not permitted to engage a lawyer.

(3.) There is no substance in the contention of the appellant that the 1955 rules were followed. As pointed out by the High Court in the charges framed against the appellant and in the first show cause notice the reference was clearly to the 1969 rules. The appellant himself mentioned in one of his letters that the charges have been framed under the 1969 rules. The enquiry report mentions that Shri Mukherji was appointed as an Enquiry officer under the 1969 rules. It is, how ever, true that the appellant was not questioned by the Enquiry officer under Rule 8 (19) which provided as follows: