HEMANTA KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE Vs. N N SEN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ directing the respondents to forbear from giving effect to an order of suspension dated 5-9-1950, and also for cancellation of the order.

(2.) The petitioner was a Sub-postmaster at Mission Row Post Office, Calcutta. On 2/9/1950, the petitioner along with some other clerks were arrested by the police in connection with an offence of using of used-up postage stamps while on duty at the said Post Office. On the same date the petitioner was relieved of his duties under an order of the Superintendent of Post Offices, South Calcutta Division, who is respondent 1 in this application. By a letter dated 5/9/1950, the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from the afternoon of 2/9/1950, as he was arrested on charges under Sections 261, 262 and 420, I. P. C., Section 5 (2) of Act 2 of 1947, and for conspiracy under Section 120, I.P.C. This order of suspension as contained in this letter was served on the petitioner on 7/9/50.

(3.) The petitioner was thereafter sent up for trial on these charges before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta. On 5/9/1950, the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate with the police report, but he was released on bail, and the case was adjourned till 19/9/1950; but as no report was received from the investigating officer on that date the matter was again adjourned till 13/10/1950. On 13/10/1950, there being no prayer for remand, the petitioner was discharged by the Chief Presidency Magistrate. On the very next day, that is, October 14, 1950, the petitioner made an application for return of a sum of Rs. 1,700.00 cash and his postal savings bank pass-book which had been seized by the police on the day he was arrested, and the Chief Presidency Magistrate upon considering this application and the investigating officer's report thereon ordered the return of the said cash and the bank pass-book, and also discharged the petitioner from the bond which he had executed with regard to his furniture. But although the petitioner was discharged on 13/10/1950, he was still kept under suspension by virtue of the order which was made on 5/9/1950.