SURENDRA CHANDRA DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is directed against an order of suspension dated June 22, 1973 passed by the Additional Director of Agriculture (Marketing), Government of West Bengal under the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 and initiation of the departmental proceeding against the petitioner under the said Rules by submitting a charge -sheet and continuance of the same under Rule 10 of the West Bengal Services (Death -cum Retirement Benefit; Rules, 1970. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as a Marketing Reporter in 1941 in the Marketing Department of the then Government of Bengal. He was subsequently promoted to the lower division clerk and thereafter as an Accountant in 1951 He was further promoted as upper division clerk and also as a head clerk in the Marketing Branch of the Directorate of Agriculture, Government of West Bengal. It appears that for some time, the petitioner was entrusted to deal with accounts of the Marketing Branch of the Directorate but thereafter the petitioner was absolved from the duties and responsibilities of maintaining cash and the petitioner had handed over the said charge as directed. It further appears that the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 22nd June. 1973 presumably on the contemplation of starting a departmental proceeding against him. It also appears that both against the petitioner and another Government Servant who had to deal with the cash, complaints were lodged to the Police on the allegation of misappropriation of Government fund alleged to have been found on verification of the accounts when the petitioner and the said employee used to deal with the account. It also appears that the petitioner made representations on a number of occasions to the concerned authorities explaining the facts and circumstances of the case and also stating that he had handed over the charge with all papers and cash to the satisfaction of the authorities and it was not proper to place the petitioner on suspension or to proceed against the petitioner later on mere surmise and conjecture. The petitioner complained that he was kept completely in the dark as regards the total amount alleged to have been found short. The petitioner was, however, informed by the respondent No. 2 that there was total shortage of Rs. 6,960.83 p. The petitioner contends that he had to make statement explaining the circumstances as dictated by the respondent No. 2. It appears that by letter dated 16th December, 1974 written by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, Calcutta, the respondent No. 2 was informed that the investigation of the case on the said allegation of misappropriation of Government fund was completed and closed but no prima facie case could be established - It was pointed out in the said letter that accordingly the Police did not submit any charge -sheet against the petitioner. The Police also requested by a letter dated 3rd March. 1975 -that as the Bowbazar P.S. Case No. 302 dated 16th July, 1973 was closed as aforesaid the respondent No. 2 should take back the papers from the police. The petitioner after coming to know that the said Police investigation had been closed in favour of the petitioner, made a request to the respondent No. 2 that the order of suspension should be revoked against the petitioner and the petitioner should be held to have been exonerated from the allegations made against him. It further appears that by a Memorandum dated 17th March, 1975, the respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner that the matter had been referred to the Government and as such no action could be taken on the application of the petitioner for revoking the order of suspension and to exonerate the petitioner from the said allegations.

(2.) IT further appears that having failed in his representations to get the order of suspension revoked and having suffered the order of suspension since 1973 despite the fact that the Police investigation had ended in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner moved a writ petition before this Court challenging the order of suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding when no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for years together. On the said application of the petitioner, a Rule being Civil Rule No. 8564 (W) of 1975 was issued by this Court. The petitioner also made an application for an interim order in the said Rule for staying the operation of the said order of suspension passed against the petitioner in 1973. The said application for interim order was directed to be heard along with main Rule and direction for filing affidavits were given by this Court for an expeditious hearing. The hearing of the said Rub was finally concluded on 23rd December, 1975 and it is contended by the petitioner that the learned Counsel for the State had expressed regret for keeping the petitioner in suspension for years together without initiating any disciplinary proceeding in contemplation of which the petitioner was suspended and the learned Counsel for the State asked for leave to issue charge -sheet against the petitioner and to serve the same either to the petitioner or to his learned Counsel and it appears that this Court disposed of the Rule by directing that the State Government would be at liberty to draw up charge sheet against the petitioner and to serve the same on the petitioner or to his learned Counsel appearing in the said Civil Rule within a fortnight. It, however, appears from the order passed by the Court on 23rd December, 1975 disposing of the said Rule that the said order was passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and the petitioner contends that the said direction was made on the prayer of the learned Counsel appearing for the State and not on consent of the parties - It further appears that this Court did not go into the merits of the case and disposed of the case by giving the said direction as prayed for by the learned Counsel for the State. It is contended by the petitioner that on 29th December, 1975 an envelope was delivered to Mr. Amalendu Mitra, the learned advocate who appeared for the petitioner in the said Civil Rule and the said envelope was also addressed to the said learned advocate, It transpires that the said envelope contained a charge -sheet framed against the petitioner along with a Memo dated 27th December, 1975 appointing one Sri H. Chakraborty, Departmental Enquiry Officer, Vigilance Commission to enquire into the said charges framed against the petitioner. The learned advocate of the petitioner having received the said envelope, granted a receipt mentioning therein that the said receipt was granted without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner had retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation, 4 days thereafter, namely, on 2nd January, 1976.

(3.) IT is, however, contended by the learned Counsel for the State that although in the charge -sheet some definite opinion has been expressed about the complicity of the petitioner in respect of charges levelled against him, it must be held that the same is really intended to be a tentative finding and not a firm finding otherwise there cannot be any sense in starting a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner on the basis of the said charge -sheet and giving the petitioner all opportunities to defend himself in the said disciplinary proceeding. The learned Counsel for the State also submits that for starting a disciplinary proceeding against a delinquent officer, the charges to be framed must be quite clear and must not suffer from any ambiguity or vagueness. If the charge -sheet is not expressed in clear and certain terms, then the delinquent officer is likely to be misled and suffer prejudice for the vagueness in the charge -sheet. If, on the score of expressing definite opinion in the charge -sheet, the same is quashed on the footing that the same was issued with a closed mind, then it may not be possible to issue a proper and definite charge -sheet.