GOPAL CHANDRA DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
GOPAL CHANDRA DAS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)The petitioner in this rule, according to his case, was appointed in 1953 as a Guard in the office of the Assistant Engineer, Rural Water Supply, Maldah Sub-Division, in a permanent post under Directorate of Public Health Engineering, Government of West Bengal. He was placed on duty as a Night Guard in the stores attached to the Office of the Assistant Engineer, Maldah, and he worked in the said post till 12.6.65 when he was transferred to Kanchrapara in the post of Durwan. The petitioner contended that the said transfer was mala fide and for collateral purpose as the petitioner was sought to removed from Maldah as he was witness to the delivery of huge quantity of stores by the Overseer of the said department to the Contractor without challan and was a source of danger to the local officers. The petitioner filed several representation to the authorities against the transfer, as, being in indigent circumstances and with his family, it would cause great hardship to him to live away from his native place at Maldah. The petitioner however received no reply thereto and joined his post as Durwan in the Office of the Assistant Engineer, Emergency Water Supply Scheme, Kanchrapara on 29.6.65.
(2.)The petitioner continued to make further representations without any effect. As he fell ill, he went on leave for five days from 14.5.66. It appears that the petitioner received a letter dated 24.6.66 from the Executive Engineer of the department at Kalyani asking him to join at once. The letter was replied to on 16.8.66 whereby the petitioner applied for medical leave from 14.5.66 to 13.10.66 with or without pay but no order was received by him on the said prayer. The petitioner made a representation to the Minster of Health complaining the mala fide treatment of officers to him. The said representation was forwarded to the Chief Engineer, to whom also the petitioner made a further representation on 14.7.67. No decision was however communicated to the petitioner and in the circumstances he made a demand of justice by his letter dated 3.4.68 calling upon the respondents to cancel for rescind the impugned order of transfer. After recovery from his illness, the petitioner saw the respondents on 26.4.68 and 3.5.68 with a further representation. The petitioner was informed by the Superintending Engineer that he was dismissed from service with effect from 14.5.66 for being absent without leave and if he apologized and withdrew all allegations he might be reappointed. The petitioner contended that he was appointed by the Chief Engineer and the Superintending Engineer being a subordinate authority had no competency to dismiss him. Further he was dismissed without any proceedings against him in violation of the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and also of Rule 10 of the Bengal Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1936 and the order of transfer was also mala fide as alleged above.
(3.)On these allegations the petitioner moved this Court under Article 226(1) of the Constitution and obtained the rule on 9.5.68 calling upon the respondents to show why a Writ in the Nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing them to cancel and forbear from giving effect to the order of dismissal of the petitioner of the petitioner or as also the order of transfer referred to above.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.