ASHUTOSH DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed in 1945 as a Storeman in the office of the Regional Controller of Procurement. In April, 1951 he was promoted to the rank of a junior assessor and at the relevant date was posted as a junior assessor in charge of the main procurement godown at Bhatar, Burdwan, under the Government of West Bengal, Department of Food, Relief and Supply (Food Branch office of the A.R.C.P. Burdwan. On or about 15-6-1954, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet in which the charge was that he had issued W.Q.S. certificates for a certain amount or 'Aman' paddy in favour of the Chief agent Messrs. Shaw Wallace and Company, as stocks purchased from Nasigram centre, although the stock was purchased from Bhatar. What happened was that some of the bags contained markings of Nasigram but the authorities considered that the original Bhatar marking's had been obliterated and the Nasigram markings Were illegally stencilled on the bags. The charge sheet accuses the petitioner of either actively conniving with the dealer or showing gross negligence. On or about 30-6-1954, the petitioner showed cause. On or about 1-7-1954 the petitioner was served with a notice by the A.R.C.P. Burdwan, to the effect that an enquiry will be held on 9-7-1954. There was an enquiry and various witnesses were called and cross-examined by the petitioner. On 28-7-1954 the A.R.C.P. as an enquiring officer submitted, his report to the Deputy Director of Procurement and Supply in which he found the petitioner guilty of gross negligence but recommended that he should be demoted. There are two passages in his report which are the foundation of this application and I will now proceed to consider them. The first passage runs as follows:

(2.) Here the enquiring officer was considering whether the markings had been changed inside the godown after they were stacked, or before the bags entered the godown. In doing so, he relied on certain evidence placed before him, but he also relied on the evidence of himself. It is to be noted that the petitioner denied this fact. In his show cause petition, he had said that so far as the bottom layers are concerned, they contained quite a large number of Nasigram markings. It is clear that the enquiring officer not only imported his personal knowledge, but treated it as part of the evidence but which the petitioner had no opportunity of testing.

(3.) The next passage in the report which is relevant runs as follows: