STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. SALLENDRA NATH BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the state of West Bengal and others against the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of dismissal passed on the respondent and granting him incidental reliefs.

(2.) The respondent had joined Government service as a sub-inspector of police and had risen to the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police in 1958 when disciplinary proceedings were started against him. The immediate cause for the taking of these proceeding was the information given by one Jagadish Chandra Dhar, then employed as a sergeant in the Calcutta Police force to the Special Officer, Enforcement Branch of the State of West Bengal that the respondent had asked for illegal gratification in the sum of Rs. 200/- in return for which he had promised to help Dhar out of some disciplinary proceedings which were then pending against Dhar. According to the Government's case 20 ten rupee notes of which the numbers were taken down on the morning of the 15th October, 1955 were handed over to Dhar to be given to the respondent in the middle of the day outside the gate of the port Police Office on Dumayune avenue where the respondent was working. The arrangement was that Dhar should go to the Port Police Office with an envelope containing the said notes and make over the same to the respondent at the time when the latter would be coming out of the office for his midday meal. The police party was to consist of S. N. Mukherjee, Deputy Commissioner, Enforcement Branch, N. N. Basu, Special Superintendent of said Branch, P. Ghosal, an assistant commissioner, A. K. Roy Chowdhury of the West Bengal Transport Directorate and Sub-Inspector A. Bhattacharjee of the Enforcement Branch. The party travelled in two vehicles, one a private car belonging to A. K. Roy Chaudhuri and the other a closed delivery van belonging to the Arya Bakery which was requisitioned for the purpose, the vehicles were parked at Dumayune Avenue about 30 yeards to the south of the mam gate of the Port POLICE Office. Sergeant Dhar, sub-Inspector A Bhattacharjee were dropped at a point a little to the north of the main gate of the Port Police Office whereas the others were to remain in their respective vehicles. Shortly before 2 P. M. the respondent came out of the main gate of the Port Police Office in his jeep. According to the Government case sergeant Dhar made over the envelope containing 20 currency notes to the respondent who after counting them put the same in his pocket. The jeep was moving slowly all the time. After it had covered a distance of about 20 yards to the south the jeep stopped and the respondent jumped down therefrom and threw away the envelope containing the notes on the road having caught sight of sub-inspector Bhattacharjee of the Enforcement Branch. After some discussion tne respondent was taken to Naba Gopal Das, Special Officer, Enforcement Branch, before whom he made a statement denying having demanded or accepted any bribe from Sergeant Dhar. According to the respondent while making over the envelope sergeant Dhar had told him that it contained a letter from one Chandi Charan Ghose, an officer of the West Bengal Agricultural Department who was known to the respondent on opening the envelope and finding that it contained no letter but currency notes he had got down from the jeep and thrown away the notes calling upon sergeant Dhar to stop as he wanted to take the latter to the Deputy Commissioner of Police for having offered bribe to him.

(3.) An order of suspension was passed against me respondent on October 17, 1958 and a charge sheet was submitted to him several months thereafter, i. e., May 19, 1959 and disciplinary proceedings were started under rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The charges were grouped under four main heads, the first being split up in six parts each part containing allegation of demand of illegal gratification and/or acceptance of the same from different police officers. Charge 1 (a) related to the incident narrated above while charges 1 (b), (c) and (d) related to demands of money made from three other police officers in 195/-58- Charge 1 (e) related to demand and acceptance of illegal gratification in the year 1953 and charge 1 (f) related to a similar incident in 1954-55. It is not necessary to give the details of the second and the third group of charges excepting to state that these related to demand and acceptance of regular monetary contribution from different persons from 1953 onwards. The fourth Charge related to a very serious disregard of good order and discipline spread over a period of three years from 1956 to 1958.