1983 (11) TMI 340 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Memorandum dated 25th June 1975.
2. Validity of the order appointing Shri R. Banerjee as Enquiring Authority.
3. Validity of the order dated 25th June 1975 initiating departmental proceedings.
4. Refusal to provide inspection or copies of documents.
5. Legality of the transfer order dated 23rd May 1974.
6. Legality of the suspension order dated 4/6th November 1974.
7. Allegations of misconduct against the petitioner.
8. Violation of principles of natural justice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Memorandum dated 25th June 1975
The petitioner challenged the Memorandum dated 25th June 1975, which proposed a common enquiry under Rules 9 and 10 of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971. The petitioner argued that the Governor was not the appropriate authority to issue the memorandum and claimed the initiation of common proceedings to be unauthorized. The court found that the issue of the charge sheet by or in the name of the Governor and the initiation of common proceedings under the said Rules were not void, irregular, unauthorized, or without jurisdiction.

2. Validity of the order appointing Shri R. Banerjee as Enquiring Authority
The petitioner contested the appointment of Shri R. Banerjee as the Enquiring Authority under Rule 10(4) of the said Rules. The court upheld the appointment, finding no irregularities or unauthorized actions in the appointment process.

3. Validity of the order dated 25th June 1975 initiating departmental proceedings
The petitioner argued that the departmental proceedings initiated by the order dated 25th June 1975 were based on stale and remote incidents from 1967, which lacked nexus and were biased. The court agreed, stating that the incident of 1967 was too stale and remote when the charge sheet was issued in 1975, thus vitiating the entire proceedings. The court also noted that the said Rules were not retrospective, and the petitioner could not be proceeded with under these Rules for offences that occurred before their enactment.

4. Refusal to provide inspection or copies of documents
The petitioner claimed that the refusal to provide inspection or copies of documents violated the principles of natural justice. The court agreed, stating that the refusal constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice, as it deprived the petitioner of a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

5. Legality of the transfer order dated 23rd May 1974
The petitioner alleged that the transfer order was a result of his detection of mischief in a modified ration shop and was not made in public interest. The respondents claimed the transfer was in public interest due to the petitioner's careless and irresponsible dealings. The court found no evidence of malice or improper motives behind the transfer order and upheld its legality.

6. Legality of the suspension order dated 4/6th November 1974
The petitioner challenged the suspension order as null, void, irregular, and passed in excess of power and jurisdiction. The court found that the suspension order was issued pending investigation into certain allegations against the petitioner and was in accordance with the rules, legal, bona fide, and proper.

7. Allegations of misconduct against the petitioner
The petitioner denied the allegations of misconduct, claiming they were baseless and contrary to the said Rules. The court found that the conduct of the petitioner in dealing with blank ration cards was suspicious and unbecoming of a government servant. However, the court noted that the charges were not duly framed or proceeded with at the relevant stage, and it would be unfair to allow such stale charges to be racked up after a long lapse of time.

8. Violation of principles of natural justice
The petitioner argued that the proceedings were vitiated due to the violation of principles of natural justice, including the non-supply of records and the delay in initiating proceedings. The court agreed, stating that the unexplained delay in initiating the proceedings constituted a violation of principles of natural justice. The court also emphasized that mere suspicion could not be the basis for initiating or concluding departmental proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court found that the initiation of departmental proceedings based on stale incidents, refusal to provide documents, and unexplained delay constituted violations of principles of natural justice. The Rule was made absolute to the extent indicated, with no order as to costs.