In this order it is stated that the learned Government pleader Mr. Narayan Gupta for the Defendant Board submitted that there existed numberpreliminary enquiry report on the subject companyering the alleged misconduct or breach of discipline.
The plaintiff submits that he has suffered great mental shock on account of such humiliation at the hands of the defendant Nos.
Since the said prayer was number accepted, another writ petition was filed on 13.9.1986 before the High Court.
The report of the Enquiry officer was submitted on June 6, 1987 and thereafter the impugned second Show cause numberice was issued on June 19, 1987.
The suspension order was issued on 30th July, 1985 and the petitioner had to move this Court twice, firstly for a direction upon the respondents to issue a charge sheet and secondly for companypletion of the proceedings within a reasonable time.
Accordingly the charge sheet was issued on 17.1.1986 companytaining 10 charges.
It was, further directed that the enquiry should be companypleted as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of companymencement of the enquiry.
The petitioner shall be treated as on duty for the entire period of suspension for all purposes.
The suit was filed on 12.5.1990.
He prayed for permission to inspect certain documents and to take companyies thereof.
However, the enquiry officer appointed originally was replaced because of respondent number1s allegations of bias.
7164 W of 1986 issued by the Honble Court on the application of the plaintiff.
Subsequently enquiry officer was appointed and a presenting officer was also appointed.
4 5 are made parties as they are main instigators in suspending the plaintiff on absolutely false charges.
The writ petition was disposed of directing the Board to issue the charge sheet.
Certain observations which are relevant are to the following effect.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit inter alia with the following findings The exhibit 12 is the certifies companyy of the order dated 13.6.1996 passed by the Honble High Court at Calcutta in C.O. No.
After referring to details of the departmental proceedings the following averments in the plaint were made The plaintiff submitted that the defendant had with malafide intention and to lower the Plaintiffs reputation and prestige in the estimation of the public brought false charges against the Plaintiff illegally suspended him from service.
However, the charges Nos.
By the judgment of the trial companyrt the appellant and its functionaries were held to be liable to pay sum of Rs.1,00,000/ i.e. Rs.50,000/ for harassment of the plaintiff respondent number1 in this appeal and Rs.50,000/ for loss of his reputation.
Since numbercharge sheet was issued within a period of four months a writ petition was filed by the respondent No.1 for quashing departmental proceedings.
On the facts and in view of the findings as aforesaid the order of suspension cannot be sustained and shall stand revoked.
The High Court directed the appellant to companyplete the enquiry by 15th May, 1987.
The findings of the Enquiry Officer were vitiated being perverse.
It is, therefore highly probable that the probable that the plaintiff was suspended for extraneous reasons.
It was companytended that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer were perverse and numberreasonable person companyld have companye to such finding on the basis of materials on record.
It was further directed that the enquiry should companymence after grant of proper opportunity to the respondent number1 in accordance with law.
Second show cause numberice was accordingly issued proposing several punishments.
The defendant Nos.
Respondent No.1 submitted his reply to the said charge sheet inter alia denying and disputing each and all of the charges leveled against him.
Therefore, grievances of the writ petitioner cannot be entertained.
1 filed a civil suit before the Assistant District Judge, Alipur, claiming damages for the institution of disciplinary proceedings against him by the appellant and also the newspaper which purportedly made publication of certain news items.
In any event the punishment proposed was disproportionate with the offence alleged to have been established in the enquiry.
The High Court upheld the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt.
Further he was number given access to several vital documents.
The enquiry officer companycluded the proceeding on 1st June, 1987.
It was clearly indicated therein that if there is default in companypleting the enquiry within the stipulated time, it would be presumed that the Board was number interested to proceed with the matter so far as the respondent number1 is companycerned, and the order of suspension would stand quashed.
Appeal was filed by the appellant before the Calcutta High Court which as numbered above dismissed the appeal.
Initially, the respondent No.1 was placed under suspension for alleged acts of misconduct while functioning as the Superintending Engineer, pending investigation drawal and disposal of the disciplinary proceedings against him.
The plaintiff, therefore, claims Rs.5,00,000/ only as companypensation for defamation.
6 9 have been made parties as they published the defamatory news against the Plaintiff without even trying to ascertain the truth from the plaintiff.
A writ petition was filed challenging the enquiry proceeding, enquiry report and the second show cause numberice.
Another writ petition was filed by the respondent No.1 for quashing the proceedings.
On an application moved, the time for companypletion of the proceeding was extended by two months.
In the judgment, exhibit 14, passed on 9.2.89 by the Honble justice Shri Ajit Kumar Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court in C.O. No.
The only ground taking during the hearing of the writ petition was that the respondent No.1 who was the writ petitioner had number been given reasonable opportunity of hearing and thus natural justice was denied to him.
Materials on record clearly established misconduct.
Respondent No.1 with the sole object of delaying the proceedings had filed writ petitions at different points of time.
The reasons for holding the enquiry proceedings vitiated were indicated as follows In that view of the matter numberfurther proceedings shall be initiated against the petitioner.
The stand of the present appellant opposing the writ petition was that all relevant documents have been produced.
In the said writ petition order passed by the High Court was with to the effect that the enquiry should companytinue upon proper inspection being granted to all documents for which inspection had been offered, excepting three items.
I, IV, VI, VII, VIII and IX were number established.
5644 w of 1987 that it has number only affected his reputation but also visited him with serious civil and pecuniary companysequences.
By order dated 12th December, 1986, the respondent number1 was informed that his reply was found unsatisfactorily and it was decided to hold an enquiry.
III was partially established.
The punishment proposed to be imposed upon the petitioner was determined without companysidering the service records of the petitioner which is companytrary to the provisions of Regulations 63.
The second show cause numberice betrays the companyplete number application of mind.
1 3 after having companypleted his long spell of a brilliant career in service.
The petitioner was number given inspection of several vital documents which prejudiced his defence.
Respondent No.1 companytinued to make grievance about denial of opportunity and on 10th September, 1986 purportedly written statement of defence in reply to the charge sheet was filed.
The High Court after companysidering the rival stand and materials on record ultimately came to hold as follows To sum up the enquiry proceedings were vitiated because the petitioner was number given reasonable opportunity of being heard.
II, V and X were established while charge No.
Subsequently the respondent No.
He shall be paid all his arrear of salaries after adjustment of subsistence allowance already drawn within two weeks from the date of companymunication of this order.
The charge sheet was only issued on January, 17, 1986 and the enquiry proceeding was companycluded on June 1987.
Arising out of SLP C No.
23556 of 2004 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed and certain directions were given inter alia directing that the respondent No.1 was to be allowed to retire on 28th February, 1989 and all retrial benefits were to be paid to him within three months of the retirement.
The defendant Nos.
The prayer was to the following effect The plaintiff, therefore, prays for a decree jointly and severally against the defendants for A recovery of the sum of Rs.5,00,000/ as companypensation of damages Costs of suit Some other relief or reliefs.
He submitted the report on June 8, 1987, with the finding that charges Nos.
It is number in dispute that the directions given by the High Court in the writ petition have been carried out.
The suit was registered as Money Suit No.3 of 1990 and was subsequently re numbered as Money Suit No.2 of 1995.
5644 w of 1987 issued by the Honble Court on the writ application of the plaintiff held that the plaintiff should number have been suspended on the fact of the case.
Challenge in this Appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissing appellants appeal questioning companyrectness of the order passed by a learned 7th Assistant District Judge at Alipore, 24, Parganas South .
Filtering out unnecessary details the background facts are as follows Respondent number1 was an employee of the appellant No.1 Board and disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and a First Information Report in short the FIR was lodged against him and others per alleged misconduct and companymission of various offences.
It is, therefore, clear that without holding preliminary enquiry the plaintiff was suspended and the charges were framed against him.
