Decided on May 12,1983



- (1.) This Rule arises out of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution made by the petitioner calling upon this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to give any effect to the impugned order of the second show cause notice which is Annexure 'G' and further for issue of an. order, direction and/or writ in the nature of prohibition upon the respondents prohibiting them from acting in contravention of the West Bengal Service (Classificatiin, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 and further for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari directing the respondents to transmit the records so that conscionable justice may be done by quashing the impugned suspension order (Annexure 'A') and the impugned order cancelling the first enquiry report appointing successive enquiry officers and the second show cause notice for imposition of major penalty as contained in Annexure 'G'. On 20th March, 1980 a Rule was issued in terms of prayer (a), that is to say, for issue of a writ in it he nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give any effect to the impugned order and the second show cause notice (Annexure 'G').
(2.) The facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner was at all times a Junior Land Reforms Officer and became entitle to Selection Grade, while he was acting as the Junior Land Reforms Officer and Bhagchas Officer. L. R. Circle, Tarakeswar. Hooghly. Petitioner's case is that he had some acrimonious passage of arms with the Additional District Magistrate over the issue of sale of sand by public auction. Petitioner's case is that in public auction he could procure bid money to the extent of Rs. 12,000/- and the said bidder deposited the requisite percentage of bid money with the petitioner. But as the Additional District Magistrate for the same type of sand could get much less money he ordered the petitioner to return the said bid money and to cancel the said public auction. From then on there was bad blood between the petitioner, and the Additional District Magistrate and the charge that was levelled against him, according to the petitioner, was nothing but a manifestation of that animus against the petitioner. In paragraph 7 of the petition the petitioner states that there was a Bhagchas Case No. 19 of 1977 relating to a particular plot of Mouza Nandanbati, whereon there was a talk of constructing a hospital. It was proposed to be constructed from the charity of public contribution. When the said case was being dealt with by the petitioner, the petitioner was requested by some member of the public, as stated in the said paragraph 7, to draw a solenama so that both the contesting parties may sign and the, dispute could be resolved within no time and accordingly the work of the proposed hospital would be started within the stipulated period. The petitioner drafted the solenama at the instance of the members of the local Land Reforms Advisory Committee and signed the same for its authenticity. But ultimately the matter was fizzled out. The case was heard and Bargadars' names were recorded on 21-2-1977 with retrospective effect to safeguard their interest.
(3.) While the said talk of compromise between the Jotedar and the Bargadars was going on, some persons complained to the Collector complaining about the part of the petitioner in dealing with Case No. 19 of 1977 and on that private enquiry was made in the Bhagchas Office by the Deputy Magistrate. Hooghly who was immediate subordinate to the Additional District Magistrate with whom this petitioner as alleged had not enjoyed a genial relationship and had to suffer indignation from him.;

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