SARAJIT COOMER MAZUMDER Vs. CALCUTTA DOCK LABOUR BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition and the Rule are directed against a Memorandum No. E/203(1), dated 6.9.80 together with the Re: Charge - 1 of the Statement of Allegations. The said charge is set out below:

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner, after receipt of the articles of charge and statement of allegations of misconduct under the cover of the said Memorandum, dated 6.9.89 submitted reply to that by denying the allegations contacted therein. Mr. M. S. Khan L.R.O. was appointed Enquiring Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner by an order and thereafter the enquiry was commenced, continued and concluded. From a reference to the enquiry proceedings as contained in page 44 and page 45 of the petition, it would appear that Sri J. M. Lahiri, the Presentation Officer was cited as one of the witnesses. After conclusion of the enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report copy of which was not supplied to the writ petitioner despite requests. The petitioner was only informed that he may have extracts therefrom and other documents by letters, dated 10-12-1981 and 6th January 1982 which are quoted herein below:

(3.) After the enquiry report was submitted, the petitioner was served with the second Show Cause Notice, dated 22-2-82 in terms of Clause 6(ii) of the Board's S.S.R.S. to reply as to why a penalty of withholding his annual grade increment for one year without cumulative effect should not be imposed on him. The petitioner, through his Advocate in reply informed the Administrative Officer that he was not given copy of the findings of the Enquiring Officer on the basis whereof the concerned authority proposed to indict penalty on him. It was also made known to the Authorities that the petitioner's Advocate by letters, dated 4-11-81 and 7-12-81 requested the authority to supply plain copy of the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the basis of which the petitioner was being sought to be inflicted with penalty, but the petitioner was directed only to take down the note of the proceedings. The petitioner in fact was not given copy of the report although requests in writing were made therefore. The administrative body by order, dated February 22, 1982 actually imposed penalty of withholding annual grade increment for one year without cumulative effect upon the petitioner, as stated above.