Hrishikesh Banerji, J. - (1.) The present writ application is directed against the judgment and order dated August 12, 1998 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal whereby two applications of the respondent before the Tribunal were disposed of with the following directions:- "In the final analysis, therefore, the petition in T.A. No. 228 of 1996 succeeds and the impugned order of suspension being Annexure 'A' to the petition is quashed. So far as the other petition being O.A. No. 1323 of 1997 is concerned is also succeeds in part and the impugned final order being Annexure-'A1' is quashed and the concerned disciplinary authority is directed to proceed afresh from the stage indicated in the body of the judgment above. This is to say, the disciplinary authority should furnish a notice to show-cause about the proposed punishment to be imposed annexing a copy of the report of the enquiry officer and thereafter, proceed in accordance with law upon consideration of the reply, if any, received from the petitioner. The entire exercise must be concluded within eight months from the date of communication of this order. Pending conclusion of such proceeding provisional pension as admissible under the rules must be continued to be paid. The unpaid salary and allowances till the date of super-annuation must be released within 6 weeks. This judgment and order shall govern both the cases."
(2.) We are of the view that the order of the Tribunal quashing the suspension of the respondent does not call for any interference inasmuch as there is no provision in the Police Regulation of Calcutta to suspend a Police Officer for his alleged involvement in a criminal case. The respondent is also entitled to get full salaries and allowances during the period of suspension inasmuch as in the absence of any rule for suspension or payment of reduced salaries and allowances during the period of suspension of work, the Tribunal was justified in directing payment of full salaries and allowances during the period of suspension, to the respondent.
(3.) The second part of the order of the Tribunal regarding the furnishing of a second show-cause notice however, is not sustainable as the Tribunal had given such direction on a misinterpretation of the decision in Ramjan Ali's case reported in 1991 (1) SCC 588. In the said decision it was held that the Departmental Authority was required to serve a copy of the enquiry report on the charged officer. A copy of the enquiry report was served on the charged officer in the case at hand. The Tribunal insisted on the service of the second show-cause notice overlooking the 1976.Amendment of 311(2) of the Constitution whereunder it was not necessary to give any second show-cause notice giving the charged officer any opportunity of making representation on the proposed penalty.;