STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. RAJAT KANTI SARMADHIKARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of circumstances which are, one may think, rather odd. The petitioner Rajat Kanti Sarmadhikari is a typist working in the police department of the Government of West Bengal. At the time of making the petition he was posted In the District Intelligence Branch under the Superintendent, Government Railway Police, Sealdah who is the appellant No. 3 and who initiated1 certain disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner states that his appointing authority as well as his dismissing authority is the Special Superintendent of Police (I) in the Intelligence Branch and the Criminal Investigation Department of the Government of West Bengal i.e. the appellant No. 2. The petitioner claims, therefore, that the Superintendent, Government Railway Police had no jurisdiction to draw up disciplinary proceedings against him. The short point involved in this appeal is, therefore, whether the appellant No. 3 is the appointing authority of the petitioner. One would normally have expected 'this matter to be decided by the Head of the Police Department, viz., the Inspector General of Police, under whom unquestionably are placed both the Superintendent, Government Railway Police and the Special Superintendent of Police, Intelligence Branch and the Criminal Investigation Department. Instead, the matter has come up to this Court under the writ jurisdiction.

(2.) To understand this case and the implications of the question raised, it is necessary that the salient facts of the case should he set out in further details. On January 11, 1957 the petitioner was appointed for the first time as a clerk in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Malda. In 1958 there were certain vacancies In the posts of temporary typists In the District Intelligence Branch of Malda and a departmental test was held for recruitment of suitable candidates for such posts. The petitioner applied for appointment to one of these posts., and was actually given an appointment as a result of the departmental test. The appointment which took effect from February 15, 1958 is stated by the petitioner to have been made by the appellant No. 2. The petitioner was posted at the office of the District Intelligence Branch, Sealdah and worked there from February 15, 1958 to March 1, 1960. On March 1, 1960 the petitioner was appointed as a probationary typist, in one out of three posts of typists sanctioned by the Government as permanent posts. The petitioner states that this appointment was also made by the appellant No. 2. It appears that while working as a temporary typist in the District Intelligence Branch, the petitioner had sought the permission of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Intelligence Branch and also the appellant No. 2 to prosecute studies tor appearing in the B. A. Examination by attending night classes. Such permission was given to him by order no. I. B. Memo No. 20132/4/58-Staff dated 29th June 1959 and the petitioner joined a "Night College" 'and completed his studies for two years. Troubles started sometime in March, 1961 when the petitioner applied for earned leave for a month. The application was made to the appellant No. 2 though the application was submitted through the appellant No. 3. The leave was granted by the appellant No. 2. The appellant No. 3 was not, however, satisfied that the application for leave on medical ground was bona" fide, he suspected that the real purpose of asking for the leave was to prepare for the B. A. Examination. The appellant No. 3 directed the petitioner to join his duties immediately and threatened him with disciplinary action in the event of his failure to join his duties. The petitioner resumed his duties only on April 7, 1961, i.e., after the expiry of the leave period. On April 7, 1961 the petitioner submitted another application for a further eleven days' earned leave for the purpose of appearing at the B. A. Examination which was to be held on and from April 10, 1961. This application was addressed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Intelligence Branch and was submitted through the appellant No. 3. The petitioner stated in that application that net was going to sit for the examination in anticipation of the leave and he requested that the permission if granted should, be communicated to him over the telephone. On April 8, 1951 the appellant No. 3 issued an order directing the petitioner not to avail of the leave applied for with effect from April 10, 1961 in anticipation of orders and also Directed him to attend office daily and punctually on the pain of disciplinary proceedings to be taken against him on his failure to comply with the order. Upon receipt of the order the petitioner addressed a letter to the appellant No. 3 asking for permission to see the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Intelligence Branch, Criminal investigation Department, West Bengal. This prayer, however, was not granted. The petitioner, thereafter, absented himself from office from April 10, 1961 for the purpose of appearing at the B. A. Examination. On April 15, 1961 the petitioner was served with an order of immediate suspension. The order is set out hereunder: "No. P. 1054 dated 15-4-61. Shri Rajat Kanti Sarmadhifcari Typist, D.I.B. Sealdah is placed under suspension pending enquiry into his conduct with effect from 154-61 A.M. He will draw one anna as Subsistence Allowance as he has asserted the office without permission. He is directed to attend office once daily at 11.00 hours and report personally to the H.A./D.i.b. Sealdah. Sd. K.C. Bose, 15-4-61, Superintendent Government Railway Police Sealdah

(3.) The petitioner contends that this order was beyond the jurisdiction of appellant No. 3 since the appellant No. 2 is the exclusive controlling authority so far as the petitioner is concerned and was the only authority competent to make an order of this kind against the petitioner. The petitioner made certain representations against this order to the Deputy Inspector General, Intelligence Branch, sending one copy through the appellant No. 3 and also sending an advance copy direct to the said Deputy Inspector General (hereinafter referred to as the D. I. G., I. B.) The appellant No. 3 by an order dated 20th June, 1961 refused to forward that representation to the D. 1.6. I. B. and asked for a further explanation from the petitioner for making a direct communication with the D.I.G., I.B. The order reads as follows: