RANOTOSH SAHA Vs. SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A show-cause notice dated 15. 11. 2002, issued by the Chairperson, kaliaganj Municipality has been subjected to challenge in the present writ proceeding at the instance of the petitioner who, at the material time, was working in the said Municipality as an Assignment Inspector. The petitioner was sought to be proceeded against for committing misconduct of temporary defalcation of public fund, insubordination and for raising incorrect and inconsistent pleas for obtaining leave on medical ground.

(2.) THE show-cause notice was challenged not on the ground that the Chairperson had no authority to issue the same or that the" same did not disclose any offence or that the allegations were vague. On the contrary, the same was assailed on the ground that before initiation of disciplinary, proceeding against the petitioner, a First Information Report had been lodged on 3. 7. 02 in relation to an allegation of defalcation of fund by the petitioner, giving rise to Kaliaganj Police Station Case no. 84/02 dated 3. 7. 02 under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and since criminal proceeding was pending on the charge of temporary defalcation alleged against the petitioner in the show-cause notice, the continuation of parallel proceedings, viz. criminal proceeding and departmental proceeding would compel the petitioner to disclose his defence which ultimately would prejudicially affect him in the criminal proceeding. In the writ petition, the relief sought for is as follows:-

(3.) THE writ petition was heard on 24. 1. 2003. Though they were put on notice, the Municipal authorities did not appear. The departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner was stayed for a limited period. Thereafter, on 19. 2. 2003 the writ petition was admitted when the Municipal authorities again chose not to be represented and the interim order was extended until further orders. It is not disputed that in compliance with the interim order passed by this Court, the respondents did not proceed with the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner.