ANANDA KUMAR GHOSH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a constable under the State Police Service. In 1988 petitioner was implicated in a criminal case initiated under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The police arrested him. The authority placed him under suspension vide order dated December 30, 1988 and was granted subsistence allowance @ rupee one. Pertinent to note, that time he was in custody. The petitioner was released subsequently on bail on April 1, 1989 however, the authority did not increase his subsistence allowance.

(2.) On March 20, 1996 the authority issued charge-sheet on the ground that he was involved in a murder which defaced the image of the police department. The petitioner made representations for enhancement of his subsistence allowance. The authority did not consider the same. He was proceeded in an enquiry where he was found guilty of the offence. He made representation before the Enquiry Officer for supply of G.D. Entry. He was not given. Subsequently, additional charge-sheet was given as he failed to appear at the roll call on more than one occasion.

(3.) Vide judgment and order dated August 23, 2001 the Additional Session Judge, Darjeeling acquitted him of the charges on the plea that the authority could not assist the prosecution to have a conviction. According to the learned Judge, the extra judicial confession so relied by the prosecution was conspicuously absent in the written complaint. There was no attempt to get any such confession recorded under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Judge acquitted him by giving benefit of doubt as according to him it would be unsafe to come to a conclusion that the accused had committed the alleged offence. The petitioner gave reply to the show cause notice on October 3, 2002 where he relied upon the decision of the Criminal Court. The authority gave him a second show cause notice why he would not be dismissed from service. He prayed for sometime to give reply. The authority did not adhere to such request and pass a final order of dismissal vide order dated October 29, 2002. Being aggrieved, he preferred an appeal. The appellate authority confirmed the order of dismissal vide order dated December 5, 2002. He filed an application before the Tribunal challenging the order of dismissal. The Tribunal dismissed his application vide judgment and order dated June 15, 2009 impugned in his writ petition.