- (1.) IN this Rule, which was obtained on 12th Feb, 1980, the petitioner, who has admittedly retired from the services of the Respondent Corporation of Calcutta, has prayed for drawing up proceedings under Sec. 340 of the Cr. P.C. 1973, which is to the following effect : - 340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Sec. 195 : - (1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in cl.(b) of Sub -Sec. (1) of Sec. 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, - (a) record a finding to that effect; (b) make a complaint thereof in writing; (c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction; (d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non -bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and (e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate, against the Respondent officials of the Corporation of Calcutta, after such or necessary enquiry and then to direct the learned Registrar of the Court, to forward a complaint to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, in the facts and circumstances as mentioned hereinafter. The case as submitted by Mr. Banerjee, has really a chequered career. The Respondent Corporation of Calcutta is hereinafter referred to as the said Corporation.
(2.) IT has been stated that in or about 1944, the petitioner was appointed as a "Draftsman" in the Chief Engineer's Department of the said Corporation and thereafter, pursuant to an advertisement dated 7th April 1946, he applied, and was ultimately appointed to the post of 'Draftsman' in charge of (Blue Print) Section, Drainage Department of the said Corporation, on being selected on 1st Mar. 1947, by the Water Work's Committee. It was the case of the petitioner that he was duly confirmed in that post and the duties and responsibilities attached to the post, were not only risky and dangerous, but they were onerous, apart from being full of responsibilities. It was claimed that in view of such character and nature of the job, on representations being made, the Standing Finance Committee of the said Corporation, resolved on or about 21st Jan, 1965, that the petitioner amongst others, should be granted a Special Pay equivalent to 1/5th of the basic pay. Apart from the nature and character of the duties performed, it has been stated that such recommendations were made on consideration of the fact that the employees concerned including the petitioner, were required to perform their duties beyond the office hours and even on holidays. The petitioner has stated that the resolution, by an order of the said Corporation dated 19th March, 1965, was also duly approved and ratified and accordingly, the Schedule of establishments as contemplated by Sec. 78 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), was amended. Apart from the hazards of employment to the concerned post, the petitioner has also stated or given the particulars of such dangerous materials or substances, which were required to be dealt with by him. It has further been stated that because of the character of employment joint representations were made to the Commissioner of the said Corporation, for necessary protection and security and at last, it was decided that persons employed in the department in question, should be provided with a pair of rubber gloves. It was the allegations of the petitioner that even in spite of such directions, nothing was done. It was the case of the petitioner that in 1971, he was transferred with some motive, from the said post of Draftsman -in -charge, Blue Print Section and challenging the said order of transfer, he obtained Civil Rule No. 2618 (W) of 1971. The Rule was made absolute and as a consequence to that the concerned order of transfer was set aside. It has been alleged that thereafter, again on 3rd Feb. 1972, the Executive Engineer of the Drainage Department of the said Corporation, sought to transfer the petitioner from the Blue Print Section to Drawing Section and this action was also challenged by him in Civil Rule No. 440 (W) of 1972. This Rule was also made absolute on 10th November, 1974 and accordingly the order of transfer was set aside. The petitioner has stated that the learned Judge, making the Rule absolute, observed that the post held by the petitioner was created as a Special one, with special designation and payment, as such, his transfer from the concerned post to some other with lesser pay, would be a case of penalty. On a reference to the concerned order making the said Civil Rule No. 440 (W) of 1972, absolute as in Annexure -"B" to the petition it would appear that it was also observed that a special post of Draftsman -in -charge of the Blue Print Section, was created with special pay and the same was provided to the petitioner while holding the concerned post, though the special pay was not allotted to the post itself.
(3.) THE petitioner has alleged that because of his repeated success in this Court, in having the orders, as passed illegally, set aside, one Shri B. Nandi, Executive Engineer, Drainage Department, was displeased and as such, to get rid of him, he, with the help and assistance of one Shri Sukumar Mitra, Deputy Executive Engineer, Drainage Department, took steps and actions and in order to a achieve such mala fide intention in harassing the petitioner, a memo dated 1st April, 1975, was issued calling upon him to produce documents and certificates in proof of his age and qualifications. The petitioner replied to such memorandum on 7th April, 1975. It has been stated that at that time, one Peary Shaw of the Blue Print Section went on leave on and from 23rd Feb. 1973 and no substitute was provided for in his place. It has been stated that a note for the necessary arrangements to be made as was given by the petitioner, was not acceded to and on the directions of the officers as mentioned above and because of their machination, the petitioner had to perform the work of the said Shri Shaw, in addition to his own work and the petitioner having refused to comply with or carry on such illegal order, the officers as mentioned above, threatened him with disciplinary action. The petitioner has stated that his prayers and representations for protective materials, were not only refused unilaterally and without any reason or basis, but the said Shri Nandi, on 8th Mar. 1976, issued a notice calling upon him to show cause, why disciplinary action should not be initiated. This, according to the petitioner, was duly replied to, alleging amongst others, that the lack of co -operation and sympathy, apart from the concern for the safety of the subordinates, by Sarbashree Nandi and Mitra, created dissatisfaction amongst the employees in question and ultimately, the drainage department suffered in its workings. It was also alleged that those officers amongst others, were not at all concerned with the suffering either of the department or the employees and they were out to harass him and ultimately, by an order dated 30th Mar. 1976, his special pay amounting to 1/5th of the pay was withheld. This action, according to the petitioner, was wholly without jurisdiction and authority, apart from being legal, arbitrary and mala fide, and was framed at the instance and machination of Sarbashri Nandi and Mitra, Such action, was of course challenged in Civil Rule No. 5146 (W) of 1976, which Rule was made absolute on 20th July, 1976 by Amiya Kumar Mookerji J. The learned Judge, while setting aside the order withholding the special pay, made it clear that the order as made, would not prevent the said Corporation, to initiate departmental proceeding. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained Civil Rule No. 15209 (W) of 1976 on 16th Dec. 1976 and his case was that upto the date of the issue of such Rule, no such departmental proceeding as mentioned above, was initiated against him.;