P.B.Mukharji, C.J. - (1.) This is an appeal from an order passed by T.K. Basil J., in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) This was an application by Biswanath Mukherjee challenging the order dated February 6, 1968 passed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta whereby the petitioner was removed from service. The only point on which the learned judge decided the whole application was whether the charge-sheet was defective or not, leaving the other points undecided. The decision appealed from was based entirely on the interpretation of two expressions "found" and "giving rise to presumption" in the charge-sheet The charge-sheet reads as follows:-- "That Sri Biswanath Mukherjee, who had been functioning as Preventive Officer, Grade I, during the period between 20-12-58 and 31-12-59, was found on 1-1-60 to be in possession of assets which are disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of about Rs. 61,000/- giving rise to the presumption that the aforesaid Sri Biswanath Mukherjee acquired the said disproportionate assets by obtaining pecuniary advantage to himself by corrupt and illegal means and thereby he had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to the duly as a public servant." The learned judge came to the conclusion on an interpretation of the expressions "found" and "giving rise to the presumption" that they were indicative of the mind of the Collector of Customs who was also the punishing authority and that he had not kept an open mind. Therefore the learned Judge held that the whole proceeding was vitiated and the charge-sheet was defective, being in violation of the principles of natural justice, and vacated the entire proceedings.
(3.) The learned Judge expressly mentions four other points which were argued before him but on which he expressed no opinion. These are: (1) the petitioner had been found guilty of a charge of "Benami" which was not in the charge-sheet; (2) the findings of the Enquiring Officer were perverse as being based on no findings and on mere conjectures and surmise; (3) certain documents were considered by the Enquiring Officer behind the back of the petitioner; and (4) the onus of the proof was misplaced by the disciplinary authority as a result of a confusion between the law regarding disciplinary proceedings under Section 178-A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. The learned Judge observed: "It is not necessary for me to express any opinion on the merits of these contentions.";