Manash Nath Roy, J. -
(1.) The petitioner in this Rule as impeached (a) Memorandum dated 25th June, 1975, whereby a common enquiry proceeding has been proposed to be held under Rules 9 and 10 of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules), (b) an order under Rule 10(4) of the said Rules, appointing Shri R. Banerjee, Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries, Vigilance Commission, West Bengal as Enquiring Authority to enquire into the charges framed against him, (c) an order dated 25th June, 1975 whereby departmental proceedings were drawn up against the petitioner and (d) a communication dated 30th July, 1975 from the said Commissioner for departmental enquiries to the petitioner refusing inspection or copies of the documents as were asked for. It should be noted here that the Rule for non-compliance with the Court's order dated 28th April, 1981, has been discharged against respondent No. 9, Shri Ghanashyam Prosad Gupta.
(2.) The petitioner has stated that in or about December, 1945, he duly entered into the services of the department of Food and Supplies, Government of West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as the said department), as inspector, Food and Supplies through a competitive examination. It wat his case that throughout his career and tenure he has discharged his duties and obligations faithfully, diligently and to the satisfaction to all his superiors and in fact, his service career is free from any blemish whatsoever. He has stated that considering his commendable services as rendered and more particularly during the course of disasters which occured in 1950, he was temporarily promoted to the post of inspector of the said department but he was subsequent reverted from such posting without any charge of any allegation. He has stated to have proved himself worthy of his appointment and has served the department in the satisfactory manner as indicated hereinbefore and as such, he has also claimed to have been promoted to the post of Inspector of the said department in or about May, 1964. It has further been staled that since such appointment, the petitioner has been posted to different districts and in or about April, 1973, he was transferred to Siliguri under the office of the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, respondent No. 5. The petitioner has reiterated that at Siliguri also he had discharged his duties in the manner as indicated hereinbefore and that two to the satisfaction of all concerned.
(3.) It was the case of the petitioner that in course of his duties as attached to the concerned office, he was required to check the modified ration shops, their registers, books, ledgers, vouchers, stocks of the food-grains etc. and was also competent to report against a modified ration dealer in case of irregularity or illegality if discovered or detected. Such report, according to the petitioner was required to be made to the said respondent No. 5 and he has further stated that as a result of such reports as made by him, many of the persons against whom he had reported were found to be guilty of the concerned illegalities and irregularities as pointed out by him. The petitioner has stated that his jurisdiction to report in the manner as indicated above, was in respect of Siliguri Police Station and so also Phansedeoa Police Station and on or about 2nd November, 1973, he had to go Khokagram within Ghosepukur Anchal under Phansedeoa Police Station in Siliguri Sub-Division for the purpose of checking the modified ration shops of one Shri D. N. Sikdar of Khokagram. It has been stated by the petitioner that during the course of checking the concerned shop had discovered abnormal shortage in rice, atta and stock of sugar. It was his further case that he also found the it one Shri Parimal Ghose of Buragunj Anchal of Kharibari Police Station was managing that shop and incidentally the said Shri Ghose was himself a dealer of a modified shop at Buragunj Anchal under Kharibtri Police Station. Since abnormalities, illegalities and irregularities were found out during the course of inspection as mentioned above, the petitioner made a report to respondent No. 5 on 5th November, 1973, as a result thereof, supplies to both the shops as mentioned above, were stopped from 14th November, 1973 by the respondent No. 5. It was his further case that said Shri Sikdar had another modified ration shop at Siliguri Town and he surrendered of the permit of the same to the respondent No. 5 for irregularities and illegalities as detected. The petitioner has alleged that Shri Parihal Ghose was an influential member of a particular political group and as a result of the detection and checking as held by the petitioner, he became inemical with him and openly threatened him to exert his political influence and to commit mischief so far the petitioner's service career was concerned. It should be mentioned here that although the petitioner has stated that the said Shri Ghose belonged to a particular political party and which according to the petitioner was an influential party, he has not mentioned the name and colour of such political party.;