TAPAN KUMAR DUTTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application under Artticle 226 of the Constitution of India, the order and judgment dated 9.7.97 passed in O.A. No. 617 of 1996 by the State Administrative Tribunal dismissing the application of the petitioner has been challenged.

(2.) The petitioner, a Constable of Special Branch of Calcutta Police was booked for security guard duty of Dr. Sudipta Roy, MLA with another constable Nishakar Panda. According to the petitioner, on 20.1.90 there was an altercation between them over morning shift duties. It degenerated into a scuffle between the two and Nishakar who had revolver with him received shot injuries on his person as the bullet went off the revolver in the melie and the petitioner took up revolver from the ground where it dropped and absconded. A criminal case was started against him for committing offence under section 307 IPC which ended in the discharge of the petitioner under section 167(5) Cr.PC as the IO failed to submit charge-sheet within statutory period. The departmental proceeding which was initiated simultaneously was also dropped. A fresh departmental proceedings was initiated against the petitioner being proceeding No. 99 dated 14.11.94 by Dy. Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Calcutta. That proceeding ended in a finding of guilt of the charges framed against the petitioner and second show cause notice was issued. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice but at the same time filed application before the Tribunal challenging the second show cause notice dated 24.7.91 (annexure K to the petition), inter alia, on the following grounds:

(3.) It has been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer in his report did not discuss seperately each charge nor did he arrive at a finding on each charge as required under rule 9(5)(a)(b) of Police Regulation Act, Calcutta and as such the report is bad in law. The Enquiry Officer relied upon the evidence of Kalpana Das recorded under section 161 Cr. PC although she was not produced before the Enquiry Officer for recording her evidence and for cross-examination by the petitioner. The copy of her statement under section 161 Cr.PC has also not been supplied to the petitioner. It has been further argued that the Disciplinary Authority out of bias did not arrive at a conclusion as to which of the charges have been proved against the petitioner although he wanted to dismiss the petitioner. Lastly, he has argued that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the above points and the Judgment/Order under challenge is liable to be set aside.