AMAL KRISHNA DAS Vs. STATE
LAWS(CAL)-1983-5-14
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on May 11,1983

AMAL KRISHNA DAS Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) KRISHNA Das under registered cover sent this writ application to his Lordship Hon'ble mr. Justice P. C. Borooan, who having directed the matter to be placed before the hon'ble Chief Justice, the application has been assigned to me for disposal.
(2.) AT the outset I may point out that this writ application is not in form and is accordingly defective. The application does not bear any stamp, and it has not been also supported by affidavit. Rules framed by the full Court in exercise of powers under clause 29 of the Letters Patent are binding upon me. It would. not be in accordance with the Rules relating to application under article 226 of the Constitution framed by this Court to address a writ application individually to any one of the Judges of this Court. While I fully share the anxiety to do justice. I am of the view that if Rule nisi under Article 226 of the Constitution is issued not upon an application formally drawn up but by taking notice of a private communication, the same would create serious procedural difficulties and might prevent the court from doing complete justice between the parties. It would be for the Full court to consider whether the Rules framed for regulation of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution ought to be suitably altered. But I do not propose to reject this application only on aforesaid technical grounds, because I am not also inclined to entertain this writ application on merits.
(3.) THE petitioner was an employee of settlement Department and had been placed under suspension with effect from 7th December, 1961. The departmental authority has thereafter served a charge-sheet upon him dated 8th October 1964 I find no substance in the contention of the petitioner that the delay in issuing the said charge-sheet had in any way vitiated the disciplinary proceeding held against him. In the absence of any time limit prescribed by the Rules, on the sole ground of delay, the three charges framed against the petitioner cannot be held to be not sustainable.;


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