B.N.Banerjee, J. - (1.) At all times material for the purposes of this Rule, the petitioner was employed as the Curator of the Indian Botanical Gardens at Sibpore, District Howrah. On July 21, 1958, the petitioner was suspended from service, because there was an enquiry for alleged misconduct started against him by the Anti-Corruption Department of Police. Apparently acting on the report submitted by the Police, C. K. Ray (respondent. No. 3), the then Secretary, Forest Department, by a notice, dated October 17, 1958, charged the petitioner with several misconducts as hereinbelow stated : "Charge I: Illegally and dishonestly accepted- (a) A sum of Rs. 400/- in 1948 from one Monomohan Roy, son of Mohini Mohan Roy of 23A, Peari Mohan Roy Road, Chetla, on the pretest of helping him to get a telephone installed in his house by influencing the Contract Officer Telephones; (b) A sum of Rs. 1,000/- from one Anadi Bhusan Singh, son of Surendra Nath Singh of Prince Anwar Shah Road, Tollygunge, on the false promise of procuring for him two permits for taxi and one permit for bus for Uluberia by influencing the District Magistrate, Howrah; (c) A sum of Rs. 800/- in 1955 from one Abdul Hamid Mir of Village Podra, Howrah, on the pretext of recommending him to Sri S. Mullick, I.C.S., District Magistrate, Howrah, in connection with a criminal case instituted against Sri Mir by his co-villagers; (d) A sum of Rs. 200/- in 1954 from Sri Dhirendra Nath Mondal, owner of a stationery shop at 25, Shilimar Road, Howrah, on the false promise of influencing the Civil Supplies authorities for a licence for a ration shop; (e) A sum of Rs. 80/- in 1955, from Sri Anil Kumar Pathak of 591, Circular Road, Howrah on the false representation that Sri Anil Mukherjee Asst. Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, will have to be entertained in connection with the recovery of a sum of Rs. 800/- lost by Sri Pathak through cheating in respect of a deal in aeroplane plugs; (f) A sum of Rs. 1,000/- in 1955 from Sri Amar Singh of 5/4, Kaibartapara Lane Howrah, on the pretext of procurring for him a permit for Bus No. WBV 388 in the name of his brother Sampuran Singh by influencing the R. T. A., Howrah; (g) Entertainment and parties in hotel costing-a sum of Rs. 200/- from Sri Amal Kumar Bose, son of Dr. Dhirendra_ Nath Bose of 13, Goabagan Street, Calcutta-6, on the false assurance of pro-curing for him a Cinema Licence in Howrah by influencing Sri S. Mullick, I.C.S., District Magistrate, Howrah; Charge II : And whereas you Sri Golam-Mohiuddin, Curator, Indian Botanical Gardens, Sibpur had for about one month taken food and drink without payment at the new Cathey Restaurant Chowringhee Road, Calcutta, belonging to on& Sri A. Rahman, P. 136, Jhowtala Road, Park Circus, on giving the latter a false hope of influencing the police authorities, Calcutta, to revoke the suspension order regarding late closing of his New Cathey Restaurant; Charge III : And whereas you 'Sri Golam Mohiuddin, Curator, Indian Botanical Gardens Sibpur; (a) had obtained two permits for Baby Taxi. one from the R.T.A., Calcutta on 4-1-1957 and another from the R. T. A., Howrah on 18-2-1957 by exerting undue influence on and utilising your personal acquaintance with Sri B. B. Mondal, I.A.S., District Magistrate and Chairman, R.T.A., Howrah and Secretary, R. T. A., Calcutta for and in the name of Sri Sumit Mitra of 193, Karnani Estates, Calcutta knowing or having reason to believe that the said Sumit Mitra was a bad character; and (b) procured one licence for a pistol for and an the name of, one Sri Tarapada Sarkar of P. 147, Janak Road, Calcutta in December, 1956, by unduly influencing Sri R. N. Chatterjee, Superintendent of Police, 24-parganas, knowing and/or having reason to believe that the said Tarapada Sarkar was considered unsuitable for possessing arms; Charge IV: And whereas you Sri Golam Mohiuddin, Curator, Indian Botanical Gardens, Sibpur, had between 1952, and 1958 used the Government quarters meant for the Curator of the Indian Botanical Gardens at Sibpur as a house of ill-fame and a place for assignation by indenting girls there for immoral purposes for entertainment of various persons like Basabendra Nath Tagore, an Artist of the Tagore Family, and Dilip Mitra, son of Sri N. C. Mitra of Beni Mitra Road, Howrah; Charge V : And whereas you Sri Golara Mohiuddin, Curator, Indian Botanical Gardens, Sibpur, were, between 1952 and 1958, seen moving about with women of ill-fame and questionable character, keeping company with bad elements and thus leading a life unbecoming of a Government servant; Charge VI: And whereas you Sri Golam Mohiuddin, Curator, Indian Botanical Gardens, Sibpur, were between 1952 and 1958, actively associating with smugglers and dock thieves and aiding and abetting them in the commission of theft, smug-ogling, trading in stolen or smuggled goods etc. by allowing them to use the Indian Botanical Garden as their operational base which act on your part was unbecoming of a responsible Government servant; Charge VII : And whereas you, Sri Golam Mohiuddin, Curator, Indian Botanical Gardens, Sibpur, were utilising the services of coolies of the Indian Botanical Gardens, who are Government servants, for your personal work, namely, to send fish, vegetable, milk etc. from the Botanical Gardens to the flat of one Mrs, Mitra at 193, Karnani Estates and thus interfering with their Government work."
(2.) In this Rule, however, I am concerned with Charges I(c), II, III and V, in respect of which charges alone the petitioner has been found guilty either wholly or in part. Along with the charge-sheet there was a "statement of facts" served upon the petitioner and hereinbelow are set out the material portions from the said statement : (i) Charge I (c) "Sri Abdul Hamid Mir of village Podra, Howrah, was involved in a false criminal case about three or three and a half years back. His uncle, late Abdul Bank Khan, took him to Sri Mohiuddin, who agreed to recommend his case to Sri S. Mullick, I.C.S., the then District Magistrate, Howrah, provided Rs. 1,000/- was paid to Sri Mohiuddin. He paid Rs. 800/-to Sri Mohiuddin. in two instalments. But Mohiuddin did nothing and pressed for extorting the balance. The criminal case ultimately ended in a compromise in Court. Abdul Mir related this story to Sri Anil Kumar Pathak of 591, Circular Road, Howrah, and to Sri Sukumar Banerjee Overseer of the Indian Botanical Gardens." (ii) "Charge II : Sri R. Rahman of P. 136, Jhowtala Road, Calcutta, was the Proprietor of New Cathey Restaurant on Ghowringhee Rd. The licence of his restaurant for late closing was suspended by the Police for a month on the alleged, entertainment of a prostitute in the restaurant, though Sri Rahman claimed that she was the lady companion of a customer and Sri Rahman had no knowledge about her character. Sri Rahman approached Sri Mohiuddin for help for revoking the suspension order and Sri Mohiuddin assured him that he will get the order revoked, as Sri R. K. Gupta, Dy. Commr. of Police, Headquarters, was his personal friend. After this Sri Mohiuddin visited the restaurant with a number of friends three or four times, took food and wine there free of cost and even took away cooked food for his friends outside. This went on for a month but the order of suspension was not revoked." (iii) "Charge III. (a) Sumit Mitra of 193 Karnani Estates, Calcutta, applied to the District Magistrate, Howrah, on 8-11-56 for a Baby Taxi permit falsely mentioning his address as 51/1/2, Botanical Gardens Road, Howrah, C/o Sri Lachmi Prosad Tewari, a label writer of Botanical Gardens working under Sri Mohiuddin. The R.T.A. Howrah at that time consisted of Sri B. B. Mondal, I.A.S. District Magistrate, as Chairman and Sri D. N. Pal, W.B.J. C. S., as Secretary. Afterwards Sri Mitra informed the District Magistrate of two successive changes of his address with a view to delaying the verification of his antecedents and character by the police, as he knew he was a registered bad character of Beniapukur P. S. As the police report was delayed due to wrong address mentioned by Sri Mitra, a permit was issued to him on 18-2-57 on his prayer to execute a bond before the District Magistrate, Howrah, stipulating cancellation of the permit in case of unfavourable Police report. An unfavourable police report came later but the permit was not cancelled. The unusual procedure adopted in issuing a Baby Taxi permit in this case and the non-cancellation of the same in spite of adverse police report were due to the fact that Mohiuddin utilised his personal acquaintance with and exerted his influence on Sri B. B. Mondal, I.A.S., District Magistrate and Chairman, R.T.A., Howrah. Sumit Mjtra also applied for another Baby Taxi permit to the R.A.T., Calcutta, on 30-7-56. No Police enquiry about his character and antecedents was made. He was interviewed by Sri H. K. Chakravarty, Secretary, R. T. A., Calcutta, on 17-11-56 and a permit for a Baby Taxi was issued on 4-1-57. Sri Mohiuddin himself confessed to S. I., Alwin Biswas that he had manipulated the issue of the Baby Taxi permit in Calcutta for Sumit by Influencing high officials. (b) Tarapada Sarkar was attempting to get licence for a rifle and a pistol since 1940. After several unsuccessful attempts he obtained a licence for a rifle in 1945. He then made several attempts to get the licence for a pistol but the Commissioner of Police rejected his prayer on each occasion. He appealed to Government against the decision of the C. P. but this was rejected. Then on 21-9-56 he applied for licence of pistol to the District, Magistrate, 24 Parganas, giving his address as Madbyamgram. The petition was directly submitted to the Supdt. of Police, 24 Parganas, who directed D.I.O, (I) for an enquiry and on the report of D.I.O. (I) the Supdt. of Police recommended the case to the Dist. Magistrate who issued the licence on 3-12-56. The usual procedure to refer such petitions to thane and then to route it through the Circle Inspr., S.D.P.O. and S.D.O. was not adopted in this case due to the intervention of Sri Mohiuddin who accepted an, illegal gratification of Rs. 1000/- from Sri Tarapada Sarkar and, taking advantage of his undue intimacy with Sri H. N. Chatterjee the then S.P., 24-Paraganas, manipulated the issue of the licence." "Charge V : Sri Mohiuddin was often seen at, the Biltmore Hotel inside a room of the house drinking in company of women of questionable character, such as, Lata, Anima and others. He was also seen coming to the Botanical Gardens at 7 P.M. or 8 P. M. in his car in a drunken state with girls."
(3.) The petitioner alleges that the charges against him had their genesis in the personal vendetta of certain persons, who got the support of certain political leaders and a section of the press and who were aided by Satyendra Nath Mukherjee, Deputy Commissioner Anti-Corruption Department of the police. In elaboration of this part of his case, he says that one Asutosh Banerjee and his son Sukumar Banerji were respectively the Head Clerk and the Overseer in the Botanical Gardens. The petitioner says that he found out that the said Asutosh Banerji was guilty of various counts of misconduct in service and complained against him to the authorities. As a result of that, the said Asutosh Banerjee was dismissed from service. That action against Asutosh Banerjee enraged Beni Chandra Dutt, a member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly, who was an intimate friend of Asutosh Banerjee. Sukumar Banerjee above named also became inimically disposed towards the petitioner, because the petitioner was primarily responsible for the disgrace suffered by his father Asutosh Banerjee. The petitioner further says that the said Beni Chandra Dutt and Sukumar Banerjee started, by way of vengeance, a malicious campaign of publicly vilifying Elm for sexual immorality, spying for Pakistan and for other anti-social activities. The petitioner also says that the campaign was taken up by a Bengali daily newspaper known as 'Ananda Bazar Patrika', through the intervention of Dhananjoy Banerjee, a correspondent of the said daily, who was himself a friend of the said Beni Chandra Dutt and was also a relative of Asutosh Banerjee. Ultimately the petitioner says, Beni Chandra Dutt made several complaints against the petitioner before the State Government. The State Government, it is said directed an enquiry into the complaints and entrusted the investigation to Satyendra Nath Mukherjee, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Anti-Corruption Department. To the misfortune of the petitioner, it is alleged, Satyendra Nath Mukherjee became ill-disposed towards the petitioner from the very inception, on the supposed belief that the petitioner had helped the wife of one Alwin Biswas, a favourite Sub-Inspector of Police under the said Satyendra Nath Mukherjee, in her quarrel with her husband. The investigation report, prepared by Satendra Nath Mukherjee, was, it is said, a malicious report against the petitioner, prepared without any opportunity to him to explain the situation and principally based on maliciously false information supplied by persons like Sukumar Banerjee, Beni Chandra Dutt, Alwin Biswas and also others, who were either intimate with the abovenamed persons or were otherwise inimically disposed towards the petitioner. Amongst the various grievances against the report, made by the petitioner, I need refer to two specific grievances, at this stage. The petitioner says that he had caused disciplinary action being started against Sukumar Banerjee and as a result of the proceeding Sakumar Banerjee was found guilty of misconduct; but that notwithstanding the report eulogised Sukumar Banerjee as a loyal public servant and as a person who had displayed commendable concern for the purity of administration. The report, it is said, accepted irresponsible informations supplied by Sukumar Banerjee against the petitioner on their face value. The other grievance made against the report was that the same was meant to be a confidential document; but that notwithstanding Satyendra Nath Mukherjee in collusion with Beni Chandra Dutt, caused a summary of the said report being published in the press even before the petitioner had been formally charged with misconduct. In these alleged circumstances, the petitioner characterised the initiation of departmental action against him as the product of political pressure. The respondent No. 3, who was at the material time the Secretary of the Forest; Department, it is alleged, although himself otherwise convinced was made to sign the charge-sheet prepared at the instance of Satyendra Nath Mukherjee and others.;