Manash Nath Roy, J. - (1.) The petitioner in this Rule, has impeached Proceeding No 5 of 1974, as initiated against him and so also the second show - cause notice as issued.
(2.) The Rule was obtained on 16th January 1976 with some interim order to the extent that the departmental proceeding will continue, but the respondent shall not pass any final order until further orders of this Court. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a constable in the Bankura District Police in or about May 1948. As such, he has stated that his terms of service and conditions of employment are governed by Police Regulation, Bengal, 1943 (hereinafter referred to as the P.R.B). and not by the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules). It is his case that he is a class IV employee and his appointing authority was the Superintendent of Police, Bankura.
(3.) The petitioner has stated that he, in the name of his wife, purchased, out of his wife's money, in the year 1966 two plots in Mouza Rampur, Bankura, one at a price of Rs. 999 and another at a price of Rs. 900. The total price of the lands as aforesaid was thus Rs 1. 899 The petitioner has stated that a sum of Rs.500 for the first transaction and Rs.300 for the second transaction was outstanding and not paid at the relevant time It is his case that since the lands were purchased in the name of his wife the petitioner submitted a declaration or statement of his assets to his appointing authority, viz, Superintendent of Bankura, respondent No. 1. It is the further case of the petitioner that after such purchase, he constructed a two-roomed pucca house over the lands within a span of four or five years and the constructional expenses were made by him after taking loans-from his Provident Fund and also from taking loans from the Bankura Town Co - operative Bank. He has further stated that apart from the loans as aforesaid, the balance of the money for such construction, was supplied to him by his wife by selling her gold ornaments and paternal properties in Khulna district now in Bangladesh. It appears that after the filing of the declaration as mentioned above, the concerned proceeding being proceeding No. 5 of 1974, was initiated against the petitioner by his appointing authority, viz, the Superintendent of Police, Bankura. Upon such initiation, an enquiry was also held and thereafter, charges as mentioned in Annexure-D to the petition, were framed against the petitioner and those charges were to the following effect : (1) that during the years 1966 and 1967 the petitioner had acquired landed properties worth approximately Rs 10,000 of which an amount of Rs 7,000 was disproportionate to his known source of income. This was unbecoming of a Government servant and (2) the petitioner purchased two plots of land in 1966 in the name of his wife, without obtaining prior permission from his appointing authority, in violation of Rule 15(2) of the Government Servants' Conduct Rules. In answer to the charges, the petitioner duly filed his written statement, wherein he denied categorically the basis of the allegations and wanted to establish that the lands which were purchased and the construction which was made, were done out of his own money or with such money, which could not 'be said to be disproportionate to his known source of income. In my event, he contended that since prior permission of the authority for acquiring such properties under the said P R. B was not required to be taken by him, so the action as proposed or as taken was improper and not maintainable in law. After this, admittedly a personal hearing was given to the petitioner on 22nd December, 1975 by the Superintendent of Police, Bankura end in the said hearing also, the petitioner pleaded that the allegation as sought to be levelled against him were without any basis apart from the fact (hat they were without jurisdiction. However, after bearing him a provisional order dated 31st December 1975, was passed, directing the petitioner to show - cause why he should not be dismissed from the Police Force. This order is in Annexure E to the petition. The petitioner, without showing cause against the second show-cause notice has come up to this Court and obtained the present Rule.;