RAM KRISHNA CHATTERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a 'constable' under Calcutta Police. Records would reveal that he was a habitual absentee. Regular proceedings were drawn on the basis of three charge sheets for absence of eighty-three days, one day on May 1, 2001 and eighty-two days between August 05, 2001 to November 22, 2001. From the records it further reveals that he was also absent on earlier occasions. As on the date of his removal he was found absent for 267 days. He was proceeded with departmentally after being warned from time to time. Ultimately, he suffered order of dismissal, which he challenged before the learned Tribunal unsuccessfully. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner before the Tribunal was indisposed and as such could not appear at the time of hearing. Although several points were urged before the Tribunal, new Advocate, who was later on engaged, urged only one plea to the extent that the Authority could not have considered the earlier records before passing the order of dismissal. The Tribunal rejected such contention and dismissed the application.

(2.) Being aggrieved, the applicant filed the instant application before us.

(3.) Mr. Bhubaneshwar Sinha Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that although he was engaged in the matter, however, he was indisposed at the relevant time and as such could not argue before the Tribunal. According to Mr. Sinha Roy, the points urged by the petitioner were not properly placed before the Tribunal. He prays for liberty to urge those points before this Court. Mr. Majumdar, appearing for the State has not opposed such prayer.