DEBDAS GANGULY Vs. DIRECTOR ZOOLOGICAL GARDEN AT ALIPORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order dated 11th July, 1981, passed by the learned single Judge, in Civil Rule No. 795(W) of 1981, discharging the Rule while considering the appellant's application for extension of interim order.

(2.) From the writ petition filed by the appellant it appears that on 1st May, 1974, the appellant was appointed as a durwan of the Zoological Garden at Alipore, Calcutta-700 027. On 5th October, 1980, while appellant was on duty in the said Garden, the Assistant Superintendent of the Garden came to the entrance gate and charged the appellant of having 28 unpunched tickets in his possession. By his letter dated 9th October, 1980, the Director of the Garden placed the appellant under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings. The appellant was, thereafter, served with a charge-sheet dated 31st October, 1980, issued by the Honorary Secretary of the Garden and the appellant was directed to submit his written explanation in respect of the charges within 15 days of receipt of the said charge-sheet. By his letter dated 4th November, 1980, the appellant asked for certain papers which were forwarded to the appellant by the Director of the Garden along with his letter dated 10th November, 1980. The appellant was not, however, supplied with the names of the witnesses proposed to be examined by the management and their statements, if any. On 24th November, 1980, the appellant submitted his written explanation with the observation that the same was not complete for want of the documents that had not been supplied to the appellant and the other papers. On receipt of the said explanation, the Director of the Garden sent a letter dated 4th January, 1980, to the appellant asking him to appear before the Respondent No.5, who had been appointed as the Enquiry Officer, for the purpose of giving evidence. The appellant, thereupon, by his letter dated 6th January, 1981, prayed to the Enquiring Officer for permission to be allowed to be represented at the enquiry by a family friend, who also happened to be an advocate. By his letter dated 7th January, 1981, the Director of the Garden refused the appellant's prayer, without giving any reason for such refusal. Owing to illness, the appellant could not attend the enquiry on 12th January, 1980, and the enquiry was adjourned till 27th January, 1981. On 17th January, 1981, the appellant applied to the Enquiring Officer for a copy of the Garden Rules, since in the charge-sheet it had been mentioned that the appellant had acted in violation of the said Garden Rules. Despite the appellant's request, he was not provided with a copy of the Garden Rules.

(3.) At this stage, on 22nd January, 1981, the appellant moved the writ application out of which the present appeal amanates. The learned single Judge directed the matter to be listed on 27th January, 1981, and also directed that the departmental proceedings would continue, but no final order was to be passed therein. On 3rd February, 1981, the learned single Judge issued a Rule and further directed that the proceedings would continue but no final order should be passed till the disposal of the Rule. During the pendency of the Rule, the respondents stopped paying subsistence allowance to the appellant from the month of June, 1981. The appellant thereupon made a substantive application in the pending Rule, praying for a direction on the respondents to continue to pay subsistence allowance to the appellant. The said application for further interim directions came up for hearing before the learned single Judge on 21st July, 1981. On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the appellant had been appointed on a purely temporary basis for six months and such temporary appointment was extended from time to time upto 4th May, 1981. Since the appellant's services were not extended beyond 4th May, 1981, the question of payment of subsistence allowance after 4th May, 1981, did not arise at all. On behalf of the respondents it was further contended that on and from 5th May, 1981, since there was no relationship of master and servant between the appellant and the respondents, the question of continuing the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant did not also arise. It was also contended on behalf of the respondents that in view of the above, the writ application itself become infructuous.