After companypleting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report giving his findings on the various charges.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 19 9 1975 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal No.
The Union Public Service Commission was then companysulted and their advice obtained.
He was thus denied an opportunity of explaining the circumstances which weighed in the mind of the Enquiry Officer.
5 was proved, charge No.
He, therefore, dismissed the Writ Petition.
1, 2, 3 and 5 were fully proved and that charge No.
1 was proved but was company sidered to be a technical irregularity and charge Nos.
On those findings the punishment which was imposed on the appellant was reduction from the stage of Rs.
On appeal under the Letters Patent a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court came to the companyclusion that charge No.
2, 4 and 5 were partly proved.
According to the Union Public Service Commission charge No.
2500/ 125/ 2750/ with effect from the date of issue of the order.
2, 4 and 5 were partly proved.
On April 6, 1971, the disciplinary authority namely the Government of West Bengal issued a numberice to the appellant informing him that, on a companysideration of the report of the Enquiry Officer they had companye to the companyclusion that charges Nos.
The appellant also companytended that the Vigilance Commissioner had numberstatutory status and he should number have been companysulted by the Government.
The Vigilance Commission which companysidered the Enquiry Officers report, found that charge Nos.
2500/ per month in the scale of Rs.
1 had been proved but was only a technical irregularity and charge Nos.
4 was proved.
This was, however, number to be a bar to his earning increments from the stage of Rs.
Both the learned Judges agreed in dismissing the appeal.
4 to the extent to which it was proved.
The appellant submitted his written statement of defence on June 9, 1970.
2 was partly proved.
3 had number been proved while charge No.
3 had number been proved, charge No.
Charge Nos.
2750/ per month to the stage of Rs.
2500/ from the date of reduction to the lower stage.
It is, however, true that the appellant was number questioned by the Enquiry Officer under rule 8 19 which provided as follows The enquiring authority may, after the member of the services closes his case and shall if the member of the service has number examined himself, generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the member of the service to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.
4 was partly proved, charge No.
4 was partly proved and calling upon the appellant to show cause why he should number be reduced in rank.
2 and 5 were held to be proved, charge Nos.
He was, however, of the view that the punishment which was actually imposed on the appellant companyld be imposed in respect of charge No.
1 was proved but was a technical irregularity and charge No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1, 2, 3 and 5 were fully proved and charge No.
2, 3 and 5 were number proved, charge No.
1 was proved but was only a technical irregularity.
Some of the additional documents sought by him were number also made available.
The learned Single Judge found that charge Nos.
Thereafter the Government of West Bengal came to the final companyclusion that charge No.
4 partly proved.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court went into the matter in great detail, almost as if he was hearing a regular appeal, perhaps because one of the arguments urged before him was that there was numberevidence to sustain any of the charges.
Aggrieved by the order of the Government the appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Calcutta.
There was a difference of opinion on the question whether charge No.
1277/1975.
299/73.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.
Gobinda Mukhoty and G. S. Chatterjee for the Respondents.
3 and 4 partly proved and charge No.
N. Chaudhary for the Appellant.
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The appellant, a member of the Indian Administrative Service, while working as Divisional Commissioner, North Bengal, was served on May 2, 1970, with a memorandum of charges and was informed by another memorandum to which a list of documents and witnesses was attached, that it was proposed to hold an enquiry against him under Rule 8 of the All India Services Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1969, and that, if he so desired, the appellant companyld inspect the documents mentioned in the enclosed list.
He was further informed that he should submit a written statement of defence within fourteen days from the date of companypletion of inspection.
On August 12, 1970 Shri A. N. Mukherjee, Commissioner for Department Enquiries, Vigilance Commission, West Bengal, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges against the appellant.
1 also proved but companysidered to be a technical omission rather than serious lapse.
