- (1.) THE petitioner, who is employed with the North Bengal State Transport Corporation as a driver questions in this proceeding the validity of a departmental action initiated against him upon issue of memorandum of charges on 2nd November 2010 and an order of suspension passed against him on 28th October 2010 . The nature of allegations for which these steps were taken would be apparent from the articles of charges itself, which stipulates: - " ANNEXURE -I Statement of article of charges framed against SRI GOURI SANKAR ROY, HVD OF DURGAPUR DEPOT. : SBSTC. CHARGE -I It is reported that on 17.10.10 you were allotted vehicle No. WB -39A/1069 for performing duty in Durgapur -Kolkata route 1st day Car. The said vehicle was being outshedded from Durgapur Depot for plying as Durgapur -Kolkata service in the very early morning. Sri Ajoy Sinha, on -duty Foreman and Shift -in -charge, Durgapur Depot was checked the vehicle before plying in the route and detected that 18(eighteen) Ltrs. (approx.) of H.S.D. (5ltrs. Each in two Jerry Cane, 02(two) each in four pepsi bottles) all in two bags kept with said vehicle. It revealed from the report that it is clear that on the said date you stole 18(eighteen) Ltrs. Of H.S.D. from Durgapur Depot and was carrying it out of the Depot in the vehicle only for personal gain. Your such type of activities in the derogatory to the prestige of the Corpn. before the eyes of the commutors in general. You failed to discharge your duty faithfully and sincerely and to -prevent financial loss to the Corpn. You are charged for violation of provisions 25(1), (2) and (6) of SBSTC ESR. ANNEXURE -II STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION OF MISCONDUCT OR MISBEHAVIOUR IN SUPPORT OF THE ARTICLE OF CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST SRI G.S. ROY, HVD, DGP DEPOT. (Same as mentioned in the Article of charge -I vide Annexure -I with reference to Annexure -II). ANNEXURE -III LIST OF DOCUMENTS OF WHICH THE ARTICLE OF CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST SRI ROY HVD ARE PROPOSED TO BE SUSTAINED. A photocopy of written report/statement of Sri Ajoy Kumar Sinha, Foreman, Durgapur Depot and on -duty Shirt -in -charge 'N' and 'A' shift dated 16.10.10 and 17.10.10, Durgapur Depot, SBSTC, is annexed herewith. ANNEXURE -IV LIST OF WITNESSES BY WHOM THE ARTICLE OF CHARGES FRMAED AGAINST SRI ROY HVD ARE PROPOSED TO BE SUSTAINED. 1.Sri Ajoy Kr. Sinha, Foreman, DGP Depot
(2.) The legal validity of the said proceeding has been assailed by the petitioner on the ground of prejudging the issue on the part of the disciplinary authority and non -supply of documents. It has been submitted by Mr. Kundu, learned counsel for the petitioner that the very fact of appointment of the enquiry officer before the petitioner was given opportunity to respond to the charges leads to the inference that the authorities had prejudged his guilt. The judgment relied on this point on behalf of the petitioner is the case of State of Punjab Vs. V. K. Khanna, 2001 2 SCC 330].
(3.) THE other point on which the legality of the memorandum of charges has been questioned is that the authorities had already come to a conclusion that the petitioner had committed the acts of misconduct without waiting for conclusion of the departmental proceeding. According to the petitioner, it would be a futile exercise to go through the said proceeding as the employer had already come to a finding on the question of his guilt. Allegations have also been made in this writ petition over non -furnishing of certain documents, which the petitioner claims to have had asked for but his request was denied. The corporation has contested this proceeding by filing affidavit. It is submitted on behalf of the corporation that the writ petition is premature, as the petitioner would have opportunity to deal with the allegations made against him. On the question of supply of documents, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that majority of the documents asked for were not relevant for the purpose of giving a reply to the charge sheet. The petitioner was given opportunity to come to the office of the corporation for taking inspection of the documents but he declined to do so and insisted on having copy of the documents. Case of the respondents is that since the petitioner was given opportunity to take inspection of the documents, requirement of adherence to the principles of natural justice stood satisfied.;