- (1.) The Petitioner, Bistupada Das has filed this Writ Petition praying for an Order upon the Respondents to withdraw and/ or cancel the Orders/Notices/Letters dated 23.02.2008, 15.03.2008 and 31.03.2008 as contained in Annexures- P/7, P/9 and P/12 respectively. By the Order dated 23.02.2008 (Annexure-P/7), the Notified Disciplinary Authority, while forwarding a copy of the Enquiry Report dated 12.06.2004, informed the petitioner that he differed from the findings recorded therein and accordingly, by his own reasons, held that the charges levelled against the Petitioner stood proved. Having so held, he directed the petitioner to make his submissions within ten days from the date of receipt of the said letter failing which it would be presumed that he had no submissions to make and the matter would be proceeded with further. By reason of the Letter/Order dated 15.03.2008 (Annexure-P/9), the Notified Disciplinary Authority, having referred to the chargesheet dated 07.04.2003, the Enquiry Report dated 12.06.2004 and the Order dated 27.11.2007 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 10673 (W) of 2006 (Annexure-P/6) and also the reply filed by the Petitioner against the letter dated 23.02.2008, held the Petitioner guilty of all the Charges and informed him that he had tentatively decided to impose the punishment of "Dismissal from Service without Notice" but before doing so, he asked the Petitioner to file a "show-cause" within seven days explaining as to why the said punishment should not be imposed upon him. By reason of the Order/Letter dated 31.03.2008 (Annexure-P/12), the Notified Disciplinary Authority, while holding the charges made against the petitioner as proved and observing that although there was nothing adverse in his past records, nevertheless Dismissed him from Service by taking into consideration the gravity of the charges which were proved against him. He also held that the entire period of suspension would be treated as such and apart from the subsistence allowance which he had already received, he would not be entitled to any salary, allowances or other consequential benefits including annual increments. The Notified Disciplinary Authority also gave liberty to the Petitioner to prefer an Appeal before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner has also prayed for an Order commanding upon the respondents to cancel the Appellate Order dated 24.11.2009 (Annexure-P/17) whereby and whereunder the Deputy General Manager-cum-Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeal, thereby upholding the Order of the punishment of Dismissal from Service without Notice.
(2.) It appears that the petitioner was suspended for being implicated in a Police Case registered with the Hare Street Police Station being Sessions Case No. 55 of 1997. It also appears that the petitioner was not found guilty in that case by the Criminal Court and was acquitted. The petitioner had earlier come to this Court vide W.P. No. 10673 (W) of 2006. Judgment in that case was delivered on 27.11.2007 and the fact of that Criminal Case was also duly recorded therein at Paragraphs 6 and 7. Those Paragraphs read as follows:- 6. "Let it be recorded here at this stage that so far as the Criminal Case was concerned, the allegations were that on the 22nd day of March, 1997, at about 1.15 p.m. the accused persons were alleged to have committed dacoity in as much as while the Complainant was working in a shop situated at 54A. Old China Bazaar Street, 3/4 miscreants suddenly caught hold of another person and attempt to snatch away a black coloured suitcase from his hand. One of the miscreants was carrying a revolver and another, a razor. The miscreant with the razor hurt the man with the suitcase and then the other miscreant carrying the revolver shot at him as a result of which, he fell down bleeding and then, there was a bomb blast whereafter the miscreants fled with the suitcase. On the basis of a written complaint. Hare Street Police Station Case No. 174 dated 22.3.1997 was lodged and after investigation, chargesheet under sections 396 and 397 IPC was submitted against the petitioner and other accused persons. These facts have been gathered from the judgment of the learned City Sessions Court (Annexure P/2)." 7. "The aforementioned police case then gave rise to Sessions Case No. 55/ 1997 which was tried by the learned City Sessions Court (VIth Bench) at Kolkata and by Judgment dated 8.7.2003 (as contained in Annexure P/2), the Petitioner (Bistupada Das) along with the other accused persons were not found guilty under Sections 396 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, acquitted. (QUOTED)
(3.) It appears that thereafter an Enquiry Report was submitted on 12.06.2004 holding that the Charges against the petitioner were not proved. The Report of the Enquiry Officer was also noticed in Paragraph 12 of the earlier judgment referred to above and for the sake of convenience the same is reproduced below: 12. "After the above mentioned findings, the Enquiry Officer gave his final conclusions in Para-26 of the Report which read as follows:- 26. CONCLUSION (a) The regular/final hearing was started on 20.12.2003 only after the order of the Honorable High Court dated 8.12.2003 passed in W.P. 13091(W) of 2003 withdrawing the stay order granted on 25.11.2003 for staying all further disciplinary proceedings (copy enclosed) (Annexure-I) (b) The regular/final hearing was completed on 24.04.2004 and the written briefs submitted by the Presenting Officer (PO) and the Defence Representative (DR) were duly received by me. (c) On assessment of the various documentary and oral evidences it is found that all the three imputations are not established and therefore the article No. (i) of charge framed against the Charged Employee (CE) vide Charge Sheet bearing no Region-I/Misc/nil dated 07.04.2003 is not proved. (d) It will not be out of place to mention that the defence produced a certified copy of the judgment/order passed by the learned City Sessions Court at Calcutta on 08.07.2003 in the original case bearing No. SC 55 of 1997. A study of the judgment/order reveals that Shri BISTUPADA DAS is found not guilty under sections 396 and 397 IPC. (ExD-2/13). (QUOTED VERBATIM);