SATI MUKHERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is a lady victim of the worth of a Judicial Officer of the State of West Bengal. Her case, in short, is that she was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the office of the District Judge, Howrah, on 13th September, 1962 and was posted as Money Suit Clerk in the Court of the learned Third Munsif there and worked from 3rd December, 1974 to 14th June, 1976. For six days, i.e. 27th February, 1975 to 4th March, 1975 she was Sheristadar-in-Charge of the Third Court of the learned Munsif in place of one Smt. Jyoti Prova Chatterjee who was on leave. Mr. S.P. Mitra, Munsif, Third Court, informed the District Judge about missing of a large number of court-fee stamps filed by different parties in different proceedings which were found missing in course of casual inspection of the office and a criminal case being Howrah P.S. No. 40 dated 27th March, 1976 (C.R. Case No. 843 of 1976) for criminal breach of trust by public servant etc. was started against six persons including the petitioner. Thereafter on 22nd May, 1976 a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner and others to which the petitioner submitted a reply on 2nd June, 1976. Mr. S.P. Mitra, learned Munsif, conducted enquiry and submitted a report and after considering the said preliminary enquiry the District Judge directed the learned Munsif , Third Court, to frame charges against 8 persons including the petitioner. On 13th September, 1976 the petitioner was allowed to cross the efficiency bar with effect from 1st September, 1976 by an order No. 171 M. By an order dated 5th June, 1979 the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate of Howrah discharged P.S. Case No. 40 dated 27th March, 1976 because of inordinate delay in completing the investigation. In January 1980 the District Judge of Howrah issued a notice to the petitioner directing her to show cause within 15 days why the proceeding regarding the responsibility of causing loss of court-fees and revenues should not be initiated against her and a reply was thereto given to by the petitioner. On 12th May, 1981 three disciplinary proceedings were started against three different persons excluding the petitioner and all the three proceedings were dropped. On 12th May, 1981 the benefit of New Intermediate Selection Grade was granted to the petitioner and it was treated as promotion. Thereafter on 9th December, 1981 the benefit of higher scale of pay was granted with effect from 1st,April, 1981. Then comes on 20th July, 1983 a charge-sheet against the petitioner relating to the incident which occurred as far back as in 1975 being Disciplinary Proceeding No. 2 of 1983. A show cause was submitted. The disciplinary Proceeding commenced and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 24th January, 1984 exonerating the petitioner from the charges. There after the District Judge, Howrah, by his Memo dated 31st January, 1984 amended those charges upon which the enquiry had taken place and the petitioner was exonerated. This amended charge is the subject matter of the writ petition.

(2.) The State has produced the records in original and from the report of the departmental proceeding the following conclusion of the Enquiry Officer appears:-

(3.) The Enquiry Officer has further observed in his report that on considering of the entire facts and circumstances he was of the firm opinion that the court-fees which were found missing from the records, had actually been filed, but had been specifically removed before they had been punched and defaced. As the Enquiry Officer was not concerned with the said charge against the delinquents, the inevitable result was that the delinquents could not be found guilty in the proceedings.