Bose, J. - (1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of prohibition or certiorari for quashing of certain departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings mentioned in the petition.
(2.) The petitioner held the office of a Head Accountant under the Directorate of the West Bengal Fire Services at Calcutta. On or about 25th March, 1949, the petitioner along with some other Officers was suspended under orders of the respondent No. 2, who was the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Local Self-Government Department, at the relevant time, on the ground that certain charges of malpractices were brought by the Anti-Corruption Department. On the 1st April, 1949, the petitioner asked for a copy of the charges. On the 22nd June, 1949, the details of certain allegations regarding the charges were communicated to the petitioner by the respondent No. 2, and the petitioner was requested to submit his explanation regarding the said allegations. On the 27th June, 1949, the petitioner submitted his explanations. On the 20th July, 1949, the respondent No. 2 served formal charges in relation to the said allegations and the petitioner was directed to show cause why he should not be dismissed from the Government Service or otherwise suitably punished departmentally. The petitioner was also directed to put in a written statement by the 3rd August, 1949, and the date of the departmental enquiry was fixed as 5th August, 1949. Thereafter an enquiry was held on 17th August, 1949, and 8th September, 1949, and it was concluded on the first mentioned date. On the 29th November, 1949, the respondent No. 2 served upon the petitioner a fresh charge which had its origin in some side remarks made by tile Sub-divisional Magistrate, Serampore in a criminal case being case No. C. R. 122 of 1949. It is alleged in the petition that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to refute the allegations on which the said charge was based, but although no explanation was called for, the petitioner Submitted a petition to the respondent No. 2 on the 13th December, 1949, refuting the said charge. On or about 11th January, 1950, the departmental enquiry in relation to this fresh charge was commenced by the respondent No. 2 and on or about the 1st May, 1950, the said respondent gave his findings in respect of all the charges together. A copy of the findings was forwarded to the petitioner on the 19th June, 1950. The validity of this departmental enquiry has been challenged in the petition on various grounds set out therein. On the 7th June, 1950, the petitioner received a notice from the respondent No. 1, Harold R. Scott, requiring the petitioner to show cause Why he should not be removed from service in view of the findings of the enquiring officer. On 13th June, 1950, the petitioner asked for copies of the said findings and all depositions recorded. The respondent No. 1 however sent to the petitioner a copy of the said findings on or about the 19th of June, 1950. The petitioner submitted his answer thereto, but the respondent No. 2 was not satisfied with explanation and on the 23rd June, 1950, he discharged the petitioner from his service.
(3.) The main point on which the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R. Chaudhuri, has attacked the validity of the departmental proceedings is that, the Public Service Commission of the State was not consulted before initialing the departmental proceedings, as is required by Article 320(3) (c) of the Constitution. This case has, however, not been made in the petition. It is a question of fact and of law but there is not the slightest indication in the petition. The ground is taken for the first time in the affidavit in-reply and is clearly the result of an afterthought. The grounds on which Rules are obtained in matters of application for prerogative writs under the Constitution must be stated with sufficient particularity in the petition and if that is not done, they cannot be allowed to be agitated at the hearing. But since this question is raised very often now in this Court, in applications of similar nature, I propose to record my views briefly with regard to this point.;