KRISHNENDU CHATTERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been served with a charge sheet on 16/12/2019. The main allegation is that the petitioner acted in a manner detrimental to the interest of his employer, West Bengal Electronics Industry Development Corporation Limited (in short, WBEIDCL) in respect of a land measuring about 332 acres in District - North 24 Parganas, for setting up IT Hub. It is also stated that on scrutiny of documents it appears that 2.39 acres of land have been purchased in the name of WBEIDCL from persons who are not the owners of the said land. WBEIDCL further urged that the petitioner has accepted monetary consideration for such wrongful and illegal purchase of land. On the basis of such allegations three charges have been framed as against the petitioner as enumerated in serial no. a, b and c of the charge sheet dated 16th December, 2019.

(2.) The petitioner alleges that the charges are vague. The petitioner had asked for certain particulars and documents vide his letter dated 28th September, 2021, enumerated in serial no. a to f therein. WBEIDCL has responded to such letter by filing a response which has along with the petitioner's letter been taken on record. It appears from the response of WBEIDCL that so far as the serial no. a is concerned, they have said that the same is subject matter of enquiry. So far as the serial nos. b, c and d are concerned, WBEIDCL has said that the petitioner can take inspection thereof. So far as the serial no. e is concerned, the response of WBEIDCL is that the particulars and documents sought for are vague and subject to evidence in enquiry. With regard to serial no. f, it is said that the same is subject to evidence in enquiry.

(3.) It is a consistent view that the Courts are loath in interfering at the charge sheet stage, as the charges levelled against an employee/ex-employee are required to be proved in the disciplinary proceedings either before the Enquiry Officer or before the Disciplinary Authority. The Presenting Officer on behalf of the employer is required to substantiate charges with due and proper evidence. It is also settled position that Courts should not assist any of the parties to the litigation in collecting evidence. In the event, the employer, being WBEIDCL, in the instant case, is unable to substantiate the charges by the documents which are in their possession but have not been made over to the petitioner, then adverse presumption is likely to be drawn against WBEIDCL and in favour of the petitioner.