AMITAVA BANERJEE Vs. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL KOLKATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the complaint dated 22nd December, 2004, the investigation report, letters directing further action against the petitioner and to quash the said documents.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that a complaint was lodged by one Shib Shankar Naskar on 22nd December, 2004 wherein it was alleged that casteist remarks had been made by the petitioner while posted on deputation as Assistant Registrar in the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I Kolkata. Such complaint was made to the National Commission for Schedule Caste who on receipt of the said complaint, directed the Registrar Kolkata Debts Recovery Tribunal to make an enquiry and submit a report within the time specified in the letter dated 4th February, 2005. THE Registrar, acting as the Investigating Officer undertook investigation by calling for statements from various witnesses. One of the witnesses who submitted a statement was the Register himself. A statement was also sought from the petitioner and the same was given. THEreafter report was prepared on 23rd March, 2005 and the same was forwarded to the National Commission. Although the Investigation Report is dated 23rd March, 2005 no copy of the report was given to the petitioner till 10th September, 2005. THE Registrar functioned in two capacities-one as an Investigating Officer and the other as the Registrar. This will be evident from not only the report dated 23rd March, 2005 but also statements dated 7th February, 2005. THE report prepared by the Investigating Officer was forwarded to the Presiding Officer DRT-I Kolkata instead of to the National Commission who had in fact sought an investigation to be made by the Investigating Officer. THE Presiding Officer on receipt of the report forwarded the same to the National Commission Kolkata Chapter, which in turn sent it to the National Commission. Initially the petitioner was on deputation for three years that is from 10th April, 2002 to 9th April, 2005 but an extension was granted on 10th April, 2005 to 9th April, 2006. Repatriation was sought to be made on 18th October, 2005 which was served on the petitioner on 17th March, 2006.

(3.) COUNSEL for the Respondent nos. 1,2,7 and 9 submits that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner is not a disciplinary proceeding. Therefore, it is not a statutory order and is merely a domestic enquiry. The petitioner has treated the said proceedings as disciplinary in nature. The complaint is not a statutory order therefore cannot be quashed. The complainant though a necessary party is not a party in the writ petition and in his absence the complaint cannot be quashed. An investigation was made and report submitted on receipt of complaint. Investigation was required as the complaint related to DRT 1 Calcutta therefore the National Commission sent it to the Presiding Officer for preliminary investigation. The complaint was with regard to the rights of a person belonging to the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe, and in case such complaint is proved will become an offence. The Investigation Report is preliminary in nature and not a statutory report therefore cannot be challenged. The enquiry is an in house enquiry and therefore is not required to be quashed.