GOPAL KRISHNA SAHOO Vs. CALCUTTA PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner was proceeded against departmentally and at the first stage was punished by dismissal. The departmental appeal which was preferred was partially successful. The writ-petitioner was reinstated in service but his pay was put at the lowest level of the pay for a draftsman. The charge against the writ-petitioner was that on December 4, 1993 he had physically assaulted and seriously injured one Hore, another draftsman of superior rank. A preliminary enquiry was held by one Moitra on December 4, 1993. Several witnesses were examined at that preliminary stage. The show cause prepared and served in January, 1994; that was duly answered by the writ-petitioner. The charge was denied. Thereafter the enquiry itself was held by one M.N. Ghosh. At the enquiry Hore gave evidence, Moitra gave evidence and several others who had given evidence at the preliminary stage again appeared before the enquiring officer and gave their evidence again. The enquiry report was duly prepared. The enquiry report was served along with the order of dismissal. This report was in the possession of the writ-petitioner when the departmental appeal was preferred.

(2.) Although several points have been urged by the writ-petitioner in support of the writ petition, only one appears to be worthy of consideration. It is quite clear from the records that the enquiry was proceeded with, generally speaking, fairly and in accordance with the Rules. Copies of documents were given to the writ-petitioner and the list of exhibits produced on behalf of the respondents during hearing shows that even preliminary depositions were exhibited at the enquiry stage. There is not much, if any, correspondence on record showing any complaints by the writ-petitioner, made contemporaneously that he was not given the copy of this deposition or that document and therefore, he could not conduct his defence adequately.

(3.) The appeal was also duly heard and there was no unfairness in that regard either. The only point which merits consideration is this that the enquiry officer M.N. Ghosh in his detailed report has again and again referred to several preliminary depositions of several witnesses who gave evidence at the preliminary stage. It is apparent from the enquiry report that the case against the writ-petitioner was stronger at the enquiry stage and there were many retractions subsequently made by the witnesses when they came before the enquiry officer.