9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Bias and Prejudgment in Issuing the Charge Sheet 2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice 3. Non-Supply of Documents 4. Refusal to Allow Cross-Examination and Examination of Witnesses 5. Violation of Statutory Rules 6. Refusal to Remand the Case for Further Inquiry 7. Harshness and Disproportionateness of the Punishment 8. Refusal to Allow Assistance of a Lawyer 9. Charges Found Different from Charges Leveled Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Bias and Prejudgment in Issuing the Charge Sheet: The petitioner contended that the charge sheet reflected a closed mind, indicating bias. The court examined precedents and concluded that mere use of certain expressions in the charge sheet is not sufficient to establish bias. The charge sheet must be read in its entirety along with the covering letter. The court found that the charge sheet in this case did not indicate a closed mind or bias on the part of the disciplinary authority. 2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The court found multiple violations of natural justice, including non-supply of relevant documents, refusal to allow cross-examination of key witnesses, and improper conduct of the inquiry by the Inquiry Officer (I.O.). The court emphasized that natural justice requires a fair hearing, which includes the right to cross-examine witnesses and access to relevant documents. 3. Non-Supply of Documents: The petitioner was denied access to crucial documents, including statements made during the CBI investigation and records of the inquiry proceedings against a similarly situated colleague, Samar Dey. The court held that non-supply of these documents resulted in a denial of a reasonable opportunity to defend, violating principles of natural justice. 4. Refusal to Allow Cross-Examination and Examination of Witnesses: The I.O. refused to recall key witnesses like P. Roy Choudhury and B. Sarkar for further examination, despite their availability and the relevance of their testimony. The court found this refusal to be unjustified and prejudicial to the petitioner's defense, constituting a violation of natural justice. 5. Violation of Statutory Rules: The I.O. violated several statutory rules, including asking the petitioner to submit the list of defense witnesses before the prosecution case was closed, contrary to Rule 11(16) and 11(17). The court held that such violations affected the fairness of the inquiry and prejudiced the petitioner. 6. Refusal to Remand the Case for Further Inquiry: Despite the liberty given by the court to remand the case for further inquiry, the disciplinary authority decided not to remand the matter based on extraneous reasons. The court found this to be an improper exercise of discretion, further prejudicing the petitioner. 7. Harshness and Disproportionateness of the Punishment: The court found the punishment of removal from service to be harsh and disproportionate, especially when compared to the lenient treatment given to Samar Dey, who was similarly situated. The court held that the punishment was not justified and was disproportionate to the charges found. 8. Refusal to Allow Assistance of a Lawyer: The petitioner was denied the assistance of a lawyer, which the court found to be unjustified given the complexity of the case and the simultaneous criminal proceedings. The court emphasized that in cases involving serious repercussions, the assistance of a lawyer should be allowed. 9. Charges Found Different from Charges Leveled: The court noted that the findings of the I.O. did not align with the charges leveled in the charge sheet. Specifically, there was no clear finding that the petitioner procured false money receipts and certificates from Maharaja Travels. The court held that the charges found were different from those leveled, further vitiating the inquiry. Decision: The court confirmed the order of the trial judge, setting aside the disciplinary proceedings and the order of removal from service. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and all interim orders were vacated. The court also rejected the prayer for a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and the request for a stay of the operation of the order.
|
