ASHOKE KUMAR NATH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a judgment and Order dated, September 2, 2009 passed by the learned Trial Judge in W.P. No. 28446 (W) of 2008 dismissing the writ petition filed by the Appellant.

(2.) It was alleged by the Appellant in the writ petition that in the year 2004 the Respondent No. 2 to the writ petition i.e. the Director, Kolkata General Post Office, after duly accepting the tender of the Appellant had permitted him to work as a Professional Letter Writer (P.L.W., for short) at the Kolkata G.P.O. for a period of 3 years. In February, 2005 one Anil Sharma entrusted the Appellant to send money through an insured envelope containing currency notes of Rs. 1,300. According to the Appellant, in spite of handing over the insured envelope containing the said currency notes to Shri Anil Sharma, after the said envelope was received by the addressee it was discovered that the said currency notes were missing and the same was reported by Anil Sharma. The Appellant as a result of the pressure created upon him, had made the payment to Shri Anil Sharma. Thereafter, Shri Anil Sharma lodged a complaint to Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 3 issued a show cause notice dated 23rd February, 2005, asking the Appellant to show cause why the permission granted to him to work as a Professional Letter Writer (P.L.W.) shall not be cancelled and why action against him shall not be taken. The Appellant on apprehension that the said Shri Anil Sharma was hatching a conspiracy against him in collusion with some employees of the G.P.O. had lodged a complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of the Here Street Police Station and requested him to take necessary steps in the matter. The Appellant also requested the Respondent No. 3 to send him a copy of the alleged complaint against him to enable him to give a comprehensive reply to the show cause notice. It was further alleged in the writ petition that without affording any opportunity the Respondent No. 2 by an Office Memo dated March 4,2005 had terminated the Appellant's tenure as a P.L.W. at the Calcutta G.P.O.

(3.) The Appellant challenged the same by a writ petition which was disposed of in the year 2007 by which the learned Trial Judge set aside the impugned Order of termination and passed a direction upon the Respondent No. 2 to consider the matter afresh upon giving the Appellant an opportunity of being heard and upon making available to him the copies of the said complaint within a period of eight weeks. It was further directed that the Appellant would be entitled to participate in fresh tender but in the event he was found guilty of any misconduct his offer would not be accepted and till the Respondent No. 2 decided the matter he would not be entitled to work as a P.L.W.