BINOY KUMAR MOULIK Vs. PRESIDENCY POST MASTER
LAWS(CAL)-1963-3-14
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on March 21,1963

BINOY KUMAR MOULIK Appellant
VERSUS
PRESIDENCY POST MASTER Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

HEMANTA KUMAR BHATTACHERJEE V. N. N. SEN GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
DEBDAS GANGULY V. DIRECTOR OF TEXTILES [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

AJAY KUMAR SHARDA VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-2020-2-72] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE petitioner, Benoy Kumar moulik, was at first appointed as a temporary clerk in the General Post Office, calcutta, and was later on made permanent. On May 4, 1959, the respondent No. 2, Deputy Presidency Post master, Calcutta, suspended the petitioner on the ground that a criminal offence, alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, was under investigation. The order of suspension is hereinbelow set out:-
"whereas a case against Shri benoy Kumar Moulik, clerk Treasury Dept. , Calcutta G. P. O. in respect of a criminal offence is under investigation, now therefore the undersigned in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-Rule (1) of Rule 12 of the central Service (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, hereby places the said Sri Benoy kumar Moulik under suspension with effect from the afternoon of 4-5-59. "

(2.)IT appears from the order sheet of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, annexed to the petition, that the criminal case against the petitioner underwent a long and ineffective investigation and ultimately, on March 5, 1960, the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate discharged the accused petitioner with the following observation: -
"seen the police report. I remain unconvinced. In any event, it is not proper for me to hold the accused any more. Discharged. "

(3.)BEFORE the accused petitioner was discharged by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, the respondent presidency Post Master had caused service of a charge sheet on the petitioner, on January 6, 1960, for the purpose of starting disciplinary action against the petitioner, under the provisions of Rule 15 of the Central Civil services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, 1957. The charges of misconduct, as in the aforementioned charge sheet, were more or less identical in character with the criminal charges for which the police was conducting investigation against the petitioner. There was little progress made in the departmental proceeding until the time when the petitioner was discharged by the criminal court. It is, however, stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that as a result of the disciplinary action, the petitioner was ultimately dismissed from service. I am not, however, concerned with the order of dismissal of the petitioner, if any has been made against him, because that order has not yet been challenged before this Court by the petitioner.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.