- (1.) The petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated February 6, 2012 is seeking the following principal relief: (a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and each one of them their men, agents, assigns and subordinates to immediately initiate appropriate disciplinary action against the respondent no.3 on the basis of your petitioner s complaints dated 19th January, 2012 and 30th January, 2012, and if necessary to place the respondent no.3 under suspension for the said purpose.
(2.) The respondent no.3 referred to in prayer(a) is Baidyanath Saha, presently working as Officer-in-Charge of Hare Street Police Station, Kolkata-700012; and the complaints dated January 19, 2012 and January 30, 2012 referred to therein are at pp.23 and 48 respectively. The complaint dated January 19, 2012 was made to the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata and making the same allegations the complaint dated January 30, 2012 was sent to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Division, Kolkata.
(3.) The complaint dated January 19, 2012 was made making a Prayer for departmental enquiry and administrative action against the Officer-in-Charge attached to Hare Street Police Station Inspector Baidyanath Saha for threatening and lodging false and fabricated F.I.R. for some wrongful gain and vested interest. The question is whether the petitioner had any right to call upon the Commissioner; the employer of the third respondent, for that matter; to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the third respondent. Mr. Ghosh appearing for the petitioner has submitted as follows. The petitioner alleged that the third respondent committed a criminal misconduct. Hence as the victim the petitioner was entitled to call upon the third respondent s employer to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the third respondent and also to suspend the third respondent. He has relied on s.13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the decisions in Chaitanya Kalbagh & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 1989 AIR(SC) 1452 and P. Mahalingam v. Monica Kumar & Anr., 2012 1 SCC 694. Mr. Majumdar appearing for the State has submitted that the petitioner had no right to call upon the third respondent s employer to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the third respondent on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint dated January 19, 2012. In my opinion, the provisions of s.13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the two decisions of the Supreme Court cited to me have no manner of application to the issue involved in the WP. I am unable to accept the contention that the petitioner accusing the third respondent of misconduct had a right to call upon the third respondent s employer to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the third respondent on the basis of the allegations made in his complaint dated January 19, 2012.;