SUB Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal directed against an order dated 5th May, 1988 passed by the Learned Single Judge whereby the Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and directed that the respondents may proceed with the departmental enquiry in accordance with law and it was observed that the petitioner should be given all opportunities to defend himself and for the purpose he should be furnished with a copy of the report of the preliminary enquiry and related documents, if any, of which he has not been given inspection so far. The Learned Single Judge further directed to complete the enquiry within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date of communication of the order. It was further directed that the petitioner should co-operate with the enquiry and in case he does not, the respondents may hold and conclude the enquiry ex parte and pass the final order within the specified time. Aggrieved against this order the present appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the petitioner was serving as Sub Inspector of Police and he was served with a charge sheet on 28th Oct., 1977 and a departmental enquiry was initiated on the basis of the said charge-sheet. The charge sheet relates to misconduct of the petitioner while he was posted as a Sub Inspector of Police at Nakashipara Police Station in the District of Nadia in the year 1975. During the course of enquiry the petitioner challenged the order of the respondent authorities dated 12th Jan., 1978 appointing Sri H. Chakravarty as Enquiry Officer. He also challenged another letter dated 3rd Jan., 1983 questioning the authority of Sri B. Chakravarty, successor to the earlier Enquiry Officer. Ultimately he served a notice of demand of justice and then filed the present writ petition and obtained an interim order restraining the respondents from proceeding further with the enquiry. This order of stay continued till 5th May, 1988 when the writ petition was dismissed.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the incident was of 1975 and no action could be taken thereon after a long lapse of about 3 years in view of the provisions of section 42 of the Police Act which provides inter alia after allegations and prosecutions against any person which may be lawfully brought for anything done or intended to be done under the provisions of the Act or under the general police powers shall be commenced within three months after the act complained of and not otherwise. The Learned Single Judge held that section 42 has no relevance in the present case because it relates to prosecution for acts done in execution of his duty. In the present case the allegation was for receiving illegal gratification in course of discharging his duties and that cannot amount to acts done in execution of his duties. Therefore, the Learned Single Judge negatived the contention.