SATYANARAYAN PANDEY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein, a dismissed constable of Kolkata Police, seeks review of a judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court on 10th February 2005 dismissing a writ petition assailing a judgment and order of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner had challenged the order of his dismissal from service before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal ("Tribunal" in short) by filing an application (O.A. No. 8432 of 1999), which was rejected on 18th December 2003. He assailed the judgment rejecting his application before this Court, by filing a writ petition, which was registered as W.P.S.T. 99 of 2004, out of which the present proceeding arises. The main grounds on which review of this judgment is applied for are omissions in the matter of consideration of relevant facts and questions of law by this Court. The case of the petitioner is that if these legal questions and the facts were considered, the decision of this Court, of which review is prayed for, would have been materially altered.

(2.) THE main case against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding which culminated in passing of the order of dismissal is that on 28th August 1998, while the petitioner was on duty, he absented himself without any intimation to and without any leave or permission from his superior authority. On that date, it has been alleged, he had gone with another constable to a brickfield in Tantiberia, a village within the jurisdiction of the Uluberia police station in the district of Howrah and attempted to extort money from one Shyam Sundar Paul, the owner of the brickfield personating himself as a police personnel from the detective department of Kolkata Police. He was arrested on that date itself and detained in Uluberia Police Station, but he did not inform his superior authorities the fact of his arrest. He was enlarged on bail on 29th August, 1998 and sought to resume his duties on 31st August, 1998. A criminal case (Uluberia P.S. Case No. 105 dated 28th August 1998) was started against him under Sections 419/384/511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(3.) THE petitioner participated in the departmental proceeding and contested the charges by filing written statement of defence. The defence of the petitioner in substance, was that he had no specific duty on 28th August 1998, and he along with another constable had gone to Uluberia in a car for the purpose of finding out availability of bricks at a concessional rate. He denied the allegation of extortion. It appears that altogether seven witnesses were examined in course of the departmental proceeding, which included three prosecution witnesses in the criminal case as well. Two of these witnesses were police officials attached to the Uluberia Police Station, being S.I. T. Dutta and ASI. Ganesh Chandra Pramanik. The other common witness was Shyam Sundar Paul, who appears to be the owner of the brickfield and de facto complainant in the criminal case. The Enquiry Officer in his report recorded the factual matrix of the case and after broadly discussing the case of the respective parties and deposition of the witnesses, recorded his finding in the following manner :-