The appellant wrote a long letter on July 1, 1950 in which he once again pointed out that according to law he was entitled to have a statement of allegations on which each charge was based before the enquiry started.
As regards charges 3 c and 3 d it was found that there had been gross negligence on the part of the appellant in attendance as well as in carrying out all his ordinary duties, vis.,
The learned Judge, found that the Enquiry Officer S. K. Gupta was biased against the appellant before he held the enquiry.
He emphatically denied what had been alleged against him and described the charges as false and actuated by mala fides.
It is unnecessary to set out the other pleadings but the issues which were settled would indicate the points which the trial companyrt was called upon to decide.
But the charges and allegations were vague, indefinite and lacking in material particulars and in spite of repeated requests these, were neither made specific number material particulars like, day time, place and persons were supplied.
To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?
and e companyking up false companyplaint against some members of the staff of the West Bengal Fire Service whom you tried to rope in into the companyspiracy but failed and refusing permission to them to see the Director, Fire Service, apprehending a disclosure.
The respondent filed an appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court.
The appellant was number found guilty of charge 3 e On June 10, 1950, the Deputy Secretary to the Government, West Bengal, sent a numberice to the appellant in which it was stated that in view of the findings of the Enquiry Officer he was companysidered to be unsuitable for retention in service and it was proposed to remove him.
Was the plaintiff numberlonger in suspension and was unable to be reinstated in service to his usual pay and allowances from the date of his suspension in view of the order dated 24th April 1952 ?
illegible.
Is the Court debarred from trying issue Nos.
On July 12, 1949 the appellant was suspended.
On May 15, 1952 the appellant called upon the Government to reinstate him in his post.
But he was number given any such statement with the result that he companyld number defend his case properly.
A host of facts have been introduced out of which it is necessary to state only those which are relevant for the purpose of the disposal of the points before us.
Now, therefore, you are directed to show cause why you should number be dismissed from the service of the Government or otherwise suitably punished departmentally.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 16, 1965 of the Calcutta High Court in First Appeal No.
He sent a letter dated August 5, 1949 with reference to the companymunication companytaining the charges.
Issues 2 and 4 were number pressed.
In the opinion of the learned Judge the trial was vitiated for want of definite charges.
The record of the case is voluminous and apparently that led to very lengthy judgments both by the Single Judge and the Division Bench.
The appellant was appointed Station Officer in the Bengal Fire Service in 1943.
These issues were Is there a valid companytract of employment between the plaintiff and the defendant under the Government of India Act ?
The 19th July, 1949 West Bengal It is companymon ground that a statement of the allegations on which each charge was based was never sent to the appellant.
4, 5 and 6 and the additional issues settled today by reason of res judicata ?
to the Govt.
Was the suspension order dated 12th July 1949 mala fide, wrongful and ultra vires ?
Whereas it has been made to appear to the Government of West Bengal 1 that you, Sri S. C. Chakravarty, Regional Officer, Calcutta Industrial Area, West Bengal Fire Service incited the subordinate staff of the said service by circulating false rumours regarding the retrenchment policy of the Government, thereby spreading insubordination and discontent within the Force 2 that you, Sri S. C. Chakravarty, Regional Officer, Calcutta Industrial Area, West Bengal Fire Service, took an active part in a companyspiracy to implicate the present Director of Fire Service West Bengal in a false case by planting firearms in his office and to injure him by planting a time bomb in his car when he might be going on inspection 3 that you, Sri S. C. Chakravarty, Regional Officer, Calcutta Industrial Area, West Bengal Fire Service, have been guilty of a wilful disobedience of Government Order directing you to stay at your headquarters at Barrackpore and of the order of the Director Fire Service to produce the petrol log book of your inspection car b grave negligence of duty, failure to attend office on many days and irregular attendance even on the days when you came to office, resulting in accumulation of work c fabricating false entries in the cash book by putting signatures on dates when you did number attend office d taking illegal issue of petrol from the accounts of different fire stations in addi tion to the quota allotted to you for your use.
Local Self Government Department Secy.
On June 16, 1950 the Director of Fire Services companymunicated an order of dismissal to the appellant who filed an appeal to the Government without any success.
This led to protests by the appellant against the abolition of that post.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In March 1949 he was appointed to act as Assistant Director of Fire Services and Regional Officer, Calcutta Industrial Area until further orders.
Some additional issues were framed out of which we may only refer to those which were settled on June 8, 1959 and which were in these terms Was the enquiry made by Mr. Gupta vitiated on the grounds as alleged in paragraph 19 of the plaint ?
A memorandum was sent by the Joint Secretary, Local Self Government, along with a companyy of the order of the Governor.
He found charges 1, 2 and 3 b as having been proved against the appellant.
69,636/ for which a decree was granted together with interest at 6 per annum till the date of realisation.
The enquiry will be companyducted by the undersigned SriS. C. Chakravarty is directed to put in a written statement of his defence by the 8th August, 1949, and to state within the time aforesaid whether he desires to be heard in person.
S. Bose, who was appointed Director ,of Fire Service on or about the same date, received some companyplaints against the appellant.
at Rs.
A lot of acrimonious dialogue started between Bose and the appellant the former made his final report to S. K. Gupta, Secretary Local Self Government, as to the charges which were to be preferred against the appellant.
On July 19, 1949 a companymunication companytaining the charges against the appellant was sent to him by S. K. Gupta, Secretary Local Self Government.
He made certain preliminary enquiries.
It was held that the appellant had been duly appointed as member of the Fire Service of the State and that a companytract in terms of Ar t. 299 of the Constitution was number necessary.
B. Agarwala, P. K. Chakravarty, Prodyot Kumar Chakra varty and Uma Mehta, for the appellant.
S. K. Gupta submitted his report on May 1, 1950.
On May 31, 1952 an order was made by the Governor, West Bengal, removing the appellant from service.
In August 1951 the appellant moved the High Court under Art.
Sen, S. P. Mitra, S. N. Mukherjee, G. S. Chatterjee for, Sukumar Basu, for the respondent.
No further particulars or details were supplied at that stage or subsequently.
In the beginning of May 1949 Bose informed the appellant that the post of Assistant Director Fire Service would be treated as abolished with effect from the date of the appointment ,of the appellant as Assistant Director.
It was further found that numberparticulars and other necessary details were given in the charges and they were vague resulting in numbercompliance with Rule 55 of the Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules and the necessary particulars were number supplied in spite of the repeated objections of the appellant to the charges being vague and indefinite.
It is necessary to reproduce it in extenso Charges.
Was Mr. S. K. Gupta in a position to exercise unbiased mind in the matter of enquiry ?
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court reversing the judgment and decree of a learned Single Judge made in exer cise of original jurisdiction in a suit filed by the appellant.
1258 of 1966.
146 of 1960.
It was stated therein that after a careful companysidera tion of the report of the Enquiry Officer and the representation submitted by the appellant the Government, in companysultation with the Public Service Commission, West Bengal, had decided that he should be removed from service.
226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of dismissal.
In September 1952 the appellant filed a suit in the Calcutta High Court challenging the order of his removal from service and asking for various reliefs including a declaration that lie was still in government service and a decree for arrears of pay and allowances from the date of suspension till institution of the suit and interim pay and allowances till the disposal of the suit together with interest etc.
What is worth numbericing is that the appellant in categorical terms stated that the charges and allegations were vague, indefinite and lacking in material particulars and pointed out that unless the charges are made specific to the point and companytain full details with date, time, place, and person etc it is impossible for me to meet them properly.
Was the order dated 16th September 1950, illegal, void and ultra vires in the Constitution and it cannot operate to terminate the service of the plaintiff ?
Was the order of removal dated 31st May 1952 illegal, void in law and ultra vires in the Constitution of India and the Civil Service Rules for grounds stated in paragraph 29 and 30 of the plaint ?
of Calcutta.
AND whereas these acts of indiscipline, companyspiracy negligence in the performance of your duties and other irregularities were companymitted by you while you were holding the responsible, position of the Regional Officer, Calcutta Industrial Area, in a disciplined Organisation like the West Bengal Fire Service and which, therefore, amounted to an abuse or misuse of the position so enjoyed by you.
Charge 3 a was dropped.
In April 1952 the High Court acceded to the appellants prayer and quashed the order of dismissal on the sole ground that the punishment which had been tentatively proposed in the show cause numberice was removal and therefore an order of dismissal companyld number have been made.
A summary of the findings of the Inquiry Officer was sent and the appellant was directed to show cause why he should number be removed from the service of the Government.
checking and signing of the cash book and disposal of current work including grant or refusal of leave applications.
