CHINMOY GUHA THAKURATA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge dated May 9, 1996 whereby the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for revocation and cancellation of the charge-sheet served on him; the suspension order, all disciplinary proceeding including the alleged show cause notice; proposed termination from service and for a direction for reinstatement of the petitioner with all back wages. The petitioner was working as an Assistant Fitter in general shift in the Kalyanl Spinning Mills Limited Unit No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Mill). He was a permanent employee of the said mill. On September 23, 1982 about 30-40 members of the rival Unions went out of the mill's premises from the main gate without gate pass disregarding the security staff on duty to attend a mass rally organised by the said Union at 1.00 p.m. On that date the workers left duty without any permission and by force. That fact was brought to the notice of the Management, including the Officiating Manager, Sri D.K. Biswas and S.N. Sengupta. But no notice was taken by the representatives of the Management of the said unlawful act of the workers. It is alleged that peaceful demonstration was arranged immediately thereafter by some of the members of the Kalyani Spinning Mills Workmen's Union, of which the petitioner was a member and they stormed into the chamber of the Manager before the Officiating Manager, Labour Officer, Sri D.K. Biswas and others. It is alleged by the Management that the petitioner had wilfully used abusive and threatening words to the Labour Officer and Shri D.K. Biswas. When both the said Labour Officer and Mr. D.K. Biswas protested against the said unruly behaviour of the petitioner, they were physically pushed by this petitioner. For this misconduct the petitioner was charge-sheeted and departmental inquiry was directed against him. An Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the inquiry. The petitioner filed a reply to the charge-sheet and he admitted that a demonstration was arranged by his Union on that date at the relevant time and place and there was a hot discussion as the Management refused to hear the peaceful demonstrators. The Inquiry Officer on the basis of the facts found the petitioner guilty of abusing the Labour Officer, in particular, in a most abusive and vulgar words and he submitted his report. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the aforesaid finding of the Inquiry Officer and being satisfied that the petitioner was given all reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the inquiry proceeding, proposed a penalty against the petitioner by dismissing him from service of the mill by issuing the second show cause notice dated November 28, 1984. Thereafter the Company by its order dated March 25, 1986 dismissed the petitioner from service of the Company. Hence the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the order of the Management dismissing him from service. The petitioner challenged the order on the ground that the charge-sheet was vague and it does not disclose any offence. It was alleged that the statement of allegations and the charge-sheet are different. It was also alleged that the Inquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges which was not in the charge-sheet. It was also alleged that the petitioner was not permitted to have legal assistance though he had prayed for the same. It was alleged that the disciplinary authority has taken extraneous consideration, that is past record of the petitioner, while issuing the second show cause notice. It was also alleged that the copies of the written complaints filed by different officers of the mill were not supplied to him. The writ petition was opposed by the management and they denied all the allegations made by the petitioner and it was contended that the petitioner was given all reasonable opportunity during the inquiry and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. It was also pointed out that the petitioner had the alternative remedy of filing an appeal as per the standing order which he has not availed. The learned single Judge examined all these contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and after considering over the matter, dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner by his order dated May 9, 1996. Hence the present appeal has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Learned counsel for the appellant has repeated all the arguments which were raised before the learned single Judge and submitted that the principles of natural Justice has not been followed. In this connection learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the decision namely Bhagat Ram v. State of H. P. reported in AIR 1983 SC 454 : 1983 (2) SCC 442 : 1983-II-LLJ-1; Deputy Inspector General v. Shib Kumar Ray, reported in 1994 2 CLJ 193; Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohammed Haji Latif reported in AIR 1968 SC 1413; and State of U.P. v. Narain Singh reported in 1973 Lab IC 717 (All).