Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) By this writ application, the writ petitioner, a peon of the Judges' Court at Midnapore, has challenged the order dated February 12, 1992 passed by the disciplinary authority, the learned District Judge, Midnapore in departmental proceeding Case No.l/April, 1991 passing an order of compulsory retirement under Clause VI of Rule 8 of West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971.
(2.) On the basis of complaint made by local residents of Colonelgola against the petitioner who has then attached to the 3rd Court of Assistant District Judge, Midnapore an enquiry was initiated by the order of the District Judge, Midnapore in obedience to this Court's direction (vide No.10739 IJO dated 26/10/90). Accordingly, Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Midnapore held an enquiry to the allegations and submitted a report which was sent to this Court by the District Judge. Under the direction of Inspecting Judicial Officer, High Court, contained in letter dated December 19, 1990, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Midnapore was appointed as Enquiry Authority. The article of charge framed against the petitioner is quoted hereunder. "You, Sri Sk. Mentoo, Peon attached to the Court and office of the Assistant District Judge, 3rd Court, Midnapore, during June, 1990, during a considerable period prior to June, 1990 and till towards the end of the year 1990, at your residence at Colonelgola of Midnapore town, personally and/or through your sons displayed blue films Video Shows to outsiders and during the same period and at the same place you consorted illicitly with women and engaged women to treat outsiders and thus behaved in a manner which is improper and unbecoming of a public servant and derogatory to the prestige of the Government. And you have thereby violated Rule 4 of the West Bengal Govt. Servants' Conduct Rules, 1959, which is punishable in terms of Rule 8 of the West Bengal Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971, and I hereby charge you accordingly. District Judge, Midnapore (Disciplinary Authority) 24.04.91"
(3.) The petitioner filed written statement of defence thereby denying the said charge and his defence may be summarised thus : (a) The charge stated in Article of the Charge was out and out false, imaginary, fabricated and motivated one only with a view to grab the job of the employee and to put his family in starvation which will fulfil the grudge of local antisocial people. (b) The petitioner had never any Video set including V.C.R., V.C.P. or any kind of video cassettes and as such, the question of exhibition of blue films to the outsiders in the house was false and concocted story or collection of women and any illicit deal with them was another fabricated story. (c) Although, "show cause" was answered by the petitioner at the time of preliminary enquiry and the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Midnapore was pleased to examine witnesses in the absence of delinquent, as those were not supplied to the petitioner, he did not get any chance for adducing any evidence of rebuttal. (d) The petitioner's house is situated in a thickly populated area and the same is within 1/4th km from the Sadar Police Station but no one ever lodged any complaint before the local police station alleging exhibition of blue film or violation of Cinema Authority Act. The absence of any prosecution by police authority proved that such allegation was a motivated one. (e) The petitioner was never detained in police custody for giving marriage of an woman with an old person or any allegation to that effect was a false frivolous and imaginary one. (f) All the persons who made allegations against the petitioner and his sons are addicted to alcohol and in the day time some of them used to pull rikshaws and in the night used to carry on a business of illicit liquor and such activity was opposed by the petitioner and his sons on several occasions, as a result, one day they formed an unlawful assembly and gheraod the petitioner and his sons and collected his signature on a blank paper and threatened him that he and his sons would be required to leave the locality to facilitate their business of illicit liquor in the long run. They had also threatened that if the petitioner informed any local authority he and his sons would be murdered.;