DULAL KRISHNA KANJILAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against summary dismissal of the writ petition in C.O. No. 1447(W) of 1987 made by the appellant, Dulal Krishna Kanjilal.

(2.) The application for interim order appeared on 3rd July, 1987 and the direction for filing affidavits was given. Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior Government Advocate has appeared before this court and has submitted that as the writ petition was not made available to the department, proper instructions for drafting the affidavit could not be obtained and as such, the affidavit-in- opposition could not be filed within the specified time. He has, however, produced before us a copy of the letter written by the Deputy Commissioner of India for Bangladesh on 22nd January, 1987 to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Calcutta Airport (Anti Hijacking and Security) containing the signatures' of two persons endorsing the statements made in the said letter of complaint and it appears from the said letter of complaint that the appellant, a Sub-Inspector of Police on duty in the Anti- Hijacking Section of the Calcutta Airport had obtained bribe from two persons travelling to Dacca by Air while the said Deputy High Commissioner of India for Bangladesh and other two witnesses endorsing the letter of complaint had been standing in the same queue for security checking. It has been stated by the Superintendent of Police that the departmental proceeding was going to be initiated shortly and in view of the serious nature of complaint made against him, it was decided to place him under suspension and not to allow him to perform the duties as Sub-Inspector of Police. In that view of the matter, it does not appear to us that without any just cause the order of suspension was made.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of the Managing Director, U.P. Warehousing Corporation and Ors. v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee, reported in : 1980-I LLJ 222 for the purpose of contending that a regular departmental enquiry takes place only after tne charge-sheet is drawn up and served upon the delinquent and the latter's explanation is obtained. Relying on the said decision of the Supreme Court, the learned counsel had contended that under Police Regulation, Bengal, it is only during the pendency of the enquiry the delinquent police employee can be placed under suspension and since the regular departmental proceeding had not been initiated, there could not have been any regular enquiry and as such, the order of suspension was illegal.