- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Challenge in this Appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissing appellant's appeal questioning correctness of the order passed by a learned 7th Assistant District Judge at Alipore, 24, Parganas (South). By the judgment of the trial court the appellant and its functionaries were held to be liable to pay sum of Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. Rs.50,000/- for harassment of the plaintiff-respondent no.1 in this appeal and Rs.50,000/- for loss of his reputation. The High Court upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court.
(3.) Filtering out unnecessary details the background facts are as follows: Respondent no.1 was an employee of the appellant No.1- Board and disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and a First Information Report (in short the 'FIR') was lodged against him and others per alleged misconduct and commission of various offences. Initially, the respondent No.1 was placed under suspension for alleged acts of misconduct while functioning as the Superintending Engineer, pending investigation drawal and disposal of the disciplinary proceedings against him. Since no charge sheet was issued within a period of four months a writ petition was filed by the respondent No.1 for quashing departmental proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of directing the Board to issue the charge sheet. Accordingly the charge sheet was issued on 17.1.1986 containing 10 charges. Respondent No.1 submitted his reply to the said charge sheet inter alia denying and disputing each and all of the charges leveled against him. He prayed for permission to inspect certain documents and to take copies thereof. Since the said prayer was not accepted, another writ petition was filed on 13.9.1986 before the High Court. In the said writ petition order passed by the High Court was with to the effect that the enquiry should continue upon proper inspection being granted to all documents for which inspection had been offered, excepting three items. It was further directed that the enquiry should commence after grant of proper opportunity to the respondent no.1 in accordance with law. It was, further directed that the enquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of commencement of the enquiry. Respondent No.1 continued to make grievance about denial of opportunity and on 10th September, 1986 purportedly written statement of defence in reply to the charge sheet was filed. By order dated 12th December, 1986, the respondent no.1 was informed that his reply was found unsatisfactorily and it was decided to hold an enquiry. Subsequently enquiry officer was appointed and a presenting officer was also appointed. However, the enquiry officer appointed originally was replaced because of respondent no.1's allegations of bias. Another writ petition was filed by the respondent No.1 for quashing the proceedings. The High Court directed the appellant to complete the enquiry by 15th May, 1987. It was clearly indicated therein that if there is default in completing the enquiry within the stipulated time, it would be presumed that the Board was not interested to proceed with the matter so far as the respondent no.1 is concerned, and the order of suspension would stand quashed. On an application moved, the time for completion of the proceeding was extended by two months. The enquiry officer concluded the proceeding on 1st June, 1987. He submitted the report on June 8, 1987, with the finding that charges Nos. I, IV, VI, VII, VIII and IX were not established. However, the charges Nos. II, V and X were established while charge No. III was partially established. Second show cause notice was accordingly issued proposing several punishments. A writ petition was filed challenging the enquiry proceeding, enquiry report and the second show cause notice. The only ground taking during the hearing of the writ petition was that the respondent No.1 who was the writ petitioner had not been given reasonable opportunity of hearing and thus natural justice was denied to him. Further he was not given access to several vital documents. It was contended that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer were perverse and no reasonable person could have come to such finding on the basis of materials on record. The second show cause notice betrays the complete non-application of mind. In any event the punishment proposed was disproportionate with the offence alleged to have been established in the enquiry.;