JAYANTA KUMAR SIKDAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 17.01.2002 by which O. A. No.1438 of 1997 filed by the writ petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) The relevant facts of the case are that an order of suspension was issued against the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Bench, in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. Thereafter, on 20th June, 1996, the petitioner was directed to attend the office regularly and the suspension order was virtually withdrawn. The petitioner was thereafter served with a chargesheet alleging misconduct and the petitioner was directed to state in writing within seven days from the date of receipt of the chargesheet whether the petitioner would accept the charges in full or in part or whether the petitioner would like to face an enquiry in respect of those charges. After time was extended to the petitioner to give reply to the charges, the petitioner gave a reply denying the charges and in the said reply the petitioner wanted supply of some documents which were relied on in the chargesheet. The petitioner also made a prayer for engaging an Advocate for defending his case in the enquiry proceeding. However, the petitioner's prayer for engaging an Advocate was rejected by the enquiry officer and the petitioner was asked to attend the enquiry proceeding on and from 10th of October, 1996.

(3.) The main grievance of the petitioner is that the enquiry was conducted without giving the petitioner proper opportunities of defence. In support of the aforesaid grievance, the petitioner urged that his prayer for documents made on 10.10.1996 was turned down by the enquiring authority without any reason. In the said prayer for documents, the petitioner wanted the enquiry officer to furnish him with various documents which were mentioned in the chargesheet. But the enquiry officer did not disclose any reason why the petitioner's prayer for documents was denied to him by the order dated 01.11.1996. Apart from that, the main grievance of the petitioner is that the chargesheet in this case is admittedly based on the alleged complaint of one Smt. Nilanjana Guha. But Nilanjana was not examined in the presence of the petitioner nor was the petitioner given any chance to cross-examine Nilanjana. This seems to be a serious complaint made by the petitioner. The importance of Nilanjana as a witness in the departmental proceeding against the petitioner is clear if we look into the nature of charges against the petitioner.