Amitava Lala, J. - (1.):- The writ petitioner challenged the order of her dismissal from the respective service along with the incidental prayers in connection thereto.
(2.)The charges levelled against her are that she committed gross misconduct of suppression of the fact of her participation in politics and becoming an Executive Member of the State Committee of a political party and General Secretary of the women wing of such political party and contest of election for the post of Councillor of the Calcutta Municipal Corprotion from such party and continuance of remaining absent from service without permission. According to the authority, she violated the regulations 34 and 35 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1971 as amended and she is liable to be punished as per regulation 66(l) (a) therein. Regulation 34 speaks as follows:
"34. Taking part in politics:

(i) No employee shall be a member of, or otherwise be associated with, any political party or organisation which takes part in politics, nor shall he take part in, subscribe in aid of, or assist in any other manner and political movement or activity.

(ii) It shall be the duty of every employee to prevent any member of his family from taking part in, subscribing in aid of, assisting in any other manner, any movement or activity which, is, or tends directly indirectly to be subversive of the Corporation or of the Government as by law established. Where an employee is unabie to prevent a member of his family from taking part in or subscribing in aid of or assisting in any other manner any such movement or activity, he shall make a report to that effect to the Corporation."
Similarly Rule 35 speaks as follows:
"35. Taking part in elections:

No employee shall canvass or otherwise interfere with or use his influence in connection with or take part an election to any legislature or local authority, provided that :

(i) An employee qualified to vote at such an election may exercise his right to vote, but where he does so, he shall give no indication of the manner in which he proposes to vote or has voted;

(ii) An employee shall not be deemed to have contravened the provisions of this paragraph by reason only that he assists in the conduct of an election in due performance of a duty imposed on him by or under any law of or the time being in force.

Explanation: The display by an employee on his person, vehicle or residence of any electoral symbol shall amount to using his influence in connection with an election within the meaning of this regulation".
Rule 66 speaks about suspension in certain circumstances. As because now the Court is considering the question of order of dismissal such part of suspension will be merged with the order of dismissal. Therefore, whatever be the result in considering the case about the order of dismissal it will govern the field of suspension. Hence, there is no necessity at the stage to deal with the order of suspension separately.
(3.)Mr. Ashok Banerjee, Learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the petitioner, with the able assistance of Mrs. Bharati Ghosh raised few important questions for the purpose of due consideration by this Court as follows:
(a) When the Presenting Officer became the witness, can he continue as Presenting Officer?

(b) Why not second showcause notice was issued upon the petitioner before issuance of order of punishment?

(c) Whether the order of punishment is disproportionate?
He cited a judgment reported in AIR 1983 SC 454 : [1983(1) SLR 626 (SC)] (Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.) to establish the first point as above and contended that when an order of dismissal or removal is to be passed which is as good as capital punishment one should be very cautious about the disciplinary proceedings. Further he contended that here the Investigating Officer became the Presenting Officer, then witness and again the Presenting Officer. Therefore, finding, if any, on the basis of the presentation of such Presenting Officer is to be declared as perverse.
;