RAJ NARAYAN GUPTA Vs. CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition is to the order dated 27.01.1998 (Annexure P/1) whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service with immediate effect. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to join the post of his entitlement and to pay all the consequential benefits w.e.f. 05/06.10.1989.

(2.) FACTS , in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner, was working as Superintending Engineer in the respondent department. A raid of Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'the CBI') was conducted at the resident of the petitioner on 30.06.1988 alongwith residence of two other employees. After lapse of 16 months, on 31.10.1989, a criminal case was registered for trial under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and 1988 in the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Dhambad, Bihar. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 29.07.1988, alleging that the petitioner failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and committed misconduct inasmuch as he acquired immovable/movable property in his name or in the name of his family members. A departmental enquiry (for short 'the DE') was conducted and the impugned order dated 05/06.10.1998 (Annexure P/5) was passed dismissing the petitioner from service. The said order was challenged before the High Court of Calcutta in which, the order of dismissal was set aside, however, the charge sheet was not interfered with by the High Court vide its order dated 28.06.1993 (Annexure P/6). The respondent authorities were granted three month's time to initiate the enquiry proceedings. The order dated 29.06.1993 was further modified and the time period of three months was directed to be counted from 02.09.1993 (Annexure P/7).

(3.) SHRI Tamaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the criminal trial and the departmental proceedings were on the same set of facts and were going on simultaneously, it was difficult for the petitioner to attend hearing at both the places i.e. at Dhambad (Bihar) and Bhilai, thus, the petitioner approached the High Court of Calcutta wherein, the High Court, restrained the respondent authorities from proceeding further with the Departmental Enquiry for a period of seven days by interim order dated 18.08.1997. It was further extended till 16.09.1997 by order dated 28.08.1997 and on 22.09.1997 only, the High Court allowed the respondents to complete the enquiry proceedings within the time prescribed by the Division Bench, but no effect, thereto, would be given without leave of the Division Bench. Thus, it is apparent that the DE proceedings were stayed from 18.08.1997 to 22.09.1997. Even then, the respondent authorities proceeded with the DE and examined the prosecution witnesses. The EO also concluded the DE ex-parte on 23.09.1997 holding the charges to be proved against the petitioner. Thereafter, the copy of the Enquiry Report (for short 'the ER') alongwith letter dated 03.10.1997 (Annexure P/11) was served on the petitioner on 07.10.1997. The petitioner, vide his letter dated 09.10.1997 and 14.10.1997, requested the respondent authorities to grant him time upto 25.10.1997 for submiting his reply on the ER and a request was also made for personal hearing, which was denied by the respondent authorities by letter dated 14.10.1997 and 15.10.1997 (Annexure P/12-A and B). Thus, it goes to suggest that the respondents had already made up their mind to dismiss the petitioner from service. Ultimately, by the impugned order dated 27.01.1998 (Annexure P/1), the services of the petitioner was terminated in an illegal and arbitrary manner. Even an appeal preferred to the Board of Directors, Calcutta which has not yet been decided.