Amarendra Nath Sen, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the order discharging the rule obtained by the appellant and dismissing his petition under Article 226 in which the appellant challenged the validity of the order dismissing him from service. The facts of the case may be briefly indicated.
(2.) On the 13th of September, 1955 the appellant was employed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Range II, Calcutta, as a peon in the office of the Income Tax Officer, District III (2), Calcutta at No. 3, Government Place, Calcutta. On the 23rd May, 1959 by direct appointment the appellant was appointed as Notice Server by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Range II, Calcutta and posted in the office of the Income Tax Officer, District III (2), Calcutta at No. 4, Hastings Street. The appellant was transferred from the office of the Income Tax Officer, District 24-Parganas. In the said office although the appellant was posted as a Notice Server he was given the job of a peon in the issue section and the appellant protested against the same. The appellant has alleged that between the 3rd of March, 1964 and 17th of March, 1964 he was seriously ill. The appellant was granted earned leave for this period and the leave of the appellant was extended upto 2nd of April, 1964. It may be noted that the appellant had earlier made representations between the 28th of January, 1964 and 2nd of February, 1964 for re-transfer to another office at Calcutta on the ground of his illness. On the 7th March, 1964 the appellant was directed by the Income Tax Officer, A-Ward, District 24 Parganas to return the log-book and diary maintained by him in the usual course of his duties and the appellant was further directed to report himself to the Staff Surgeon, Fort William for medical examination. It may be noticed that on the 7tb of March, 1964 the appellant was on leave, though this leave was granted subsequently on the 17th of March, 1964. On the 18th March, 1964 the appellant delivered the diary and the unserved Income Tax Notices to the Income Tax Officer, A-Ward, through one Monaranjan Das, a peon attached to the office of the income Tax Officer, District III (2) and the same were received by the Supervisor Sri S.M. Faridar. It appears that on the 18th of March the appellant continued to be on leave as his leave was extended upto the 2nd of April, 1964. On the 23rd of March, 1964 the appellant requested the Income Tax Officer, A-Ward, 24 Parganas for taking necessary action for payment of appellant's medical bills. This request was also made while the appellant continued to be on leave and the appellant joined his duties on the 3rd of April, 1964, on the expiry of the period of his leave. On the 20th of June, 1964 the Supervisor Sri S. M. Faridar by a note informed the Income Tax Officer that some papers concerning the scrutiny report relating to T.A. Bills were missing and the had been taken away by the appellant. On the 24th of June, 1964 the Income Tax Officer, 24 Parganas informed the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Range VI, Calcutta at as the scrutiny papers belonged to the appellant, no one else would be interested in the same and that the Income Tax Officer felt that the appellant was responsible for the disappearance of the said papers. On the 4th of July, 1964 the appellant again requested the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Range VI, Calcutta for payment of the outstanding travelling allowances and requested for the grant of Rs. 100/- as advance T.A. to meet the travelling expenses. Nothing, however, was paid to the appellant and the appellant was asked and ordered to serve notices at places like Bongaon, Basirhat, Hasnabad, Hingulgung, Diamond Harbour and Kakdwip. In his letter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner the appellant had also made certain grievances against the Income Tax Officer and had asked the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to investigate into the matter. On the 7th of July, 1964 the appellant was informed that the papers concerning the appellant's T.A. Bills had disappeared from the custody of the Supervisor in the month of June, 1964 and the appellant was asked to make a verbal statement regarding the said disappearance and the appellant made a statement. On the 9th of July, 1964 the appellant was asked by the Supervisor to sign a type-written paper alleged to contain the statement of the appellant. The appellant, however, did not agree to sign the statement without first verifying the same. On the 13th of July, 1964 the Income Tax Officer sent a copy of a note dated 26. 6. 64 of the Supervisor Sri S.M. Faridar to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and the Income Tax Officer further informed the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner that the appellant had refused to sign the statement. In his matter of the 13th of July, 1964 forwarding the note of Sri S. M. Faridar, the Income Tax Officer has further mentioned that he felt that the appellant was responsible for stealing the papers as the appellant was in the habit of peeping into the paper on the Supervisor's table for the last few months. It may be noted that this letter of the 13th of July, 1964 did not form a part of the records before the learned trial Judge and has been included in a supplementary Paper Book which has been filed by the appellant in the present appeal. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that while preparing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which was presented in Court and was considered by the learned trial Judge, the appellant because of paucity of funds and the urgency of the matter, could not include various important and relevant documents in the said petition, but as this is a writ proceeding in which a Writ in the nature of Certiorari has also been claimed this Court can look into all relevant documents and papers and the entire records of the proceeding. In the supplementary Paper Book prepared and filed by the appellant there are various documents which have been referred to in the petition, but which were not made annexures to the petition ; and there are again certain documents for the Revenue has rightly pointed out that this letter of the 13th of July, 1964 has nowhere been referred to in the petition by the appellant. On the 18th of July, 1964 the appellant was called upon by the Income Tax Officer, A-Ward, District 24-Parganas to show cause within three days from the date of the letter as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for causing disappearance of papers and for refusing to sign the statement. On the 31st of July, 1964 the appellant replied to the said show cause notice and denied the charges levelled therein, On the 4th of August, 1964 it appears that the Income Tax Officer made a complaint against the appellant's statement that T.A. Bills for October, November and December, 1963 which were submitted on 19.6.64 and were sent to the office of the Accountant General, West Bengal on 19.9.64 were returned to the appellant who 'received' them by signing the Bill Register hut later on it was discovered by the Supervisor that the word 'received' was changed into 'returned' and written acknowledgement was scored out. The Income Tax Officer also stated that scoring out of acknowledgement indicated that the bills were resubmitted when in fact they were not. It is to be noted that this letter of the 4th of August, 1964, which appears at page 10 of the supplementary Paper Book was not mentioned or referred to in the petition filed by the appellant. Award, District 24-Parganas asked in writing for an explanation from the appellant concerning the T.A. Bills and alleged the certain bills were not returned by the appellant to the office and it was further alleged that the appellant had changed the word 'received' into 'returned' in the Bill Register.
(3.) On the 7th of August, 1964 the appellant by a letter was suspended by the Income Tax Officer, A-Ward, District 24-Parganas on the charge, inter alia, of (1) causing disappearance of papers and (2) alleged manipulation and interpolation of the Bill Register and also offering (3) threat to the Supervisory Staff. On the very same day, namely, the 7th of August, the appellant by a letter informed the said Income Tax Officer that the purported suspension was prima facie bad in law on the ground that the said Officer had no authority to inflict the said punishment. On the 17th of August, 1964, the said order of suspension issued by the said Income Tax Officer was cancelled but on the same day an order of suspension was made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in exercise of his powers under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 and it was stated that disciplinary action was contemplated against the appellant. On the 13th of November, 1964 the appellant was charge-sheeted on various grounds by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. There were 7 items of charges against the appellant and the said charges were:- Charge No. I. "Shri Rabindra Nath Chatterjee, Notice Server, attached to the Income Tax Officer, District 24-Parganas, Calcutta, now under suspension, while functioning as Notice Server attached to the said office during the period from October, 1963 to August, 1964, has been found grossly negligent, utterly careless and thoroughly irregular in the discharge of his duties by not serving the notices given to him for service on the assessee as was required of him. Charge No. II. Shri Rabindra Nath Chatterjee, while functioning as notice server in the aforementioned Income Tax Office, during the period from October, 1963 to August, 1964 absented himself from duty without prior permission of the authority or authorities authorised to sanction leave to him, applied for extension of leave even when the exigencies of the official duties did not permit such extension and when he had no leave to his credit and has overstayed after the expiry of the leave granted to him thereby contravening office discipline. Charge No. HI. Shri Rabindra Nath Chatterjee, Notice Server, attached to the said Income Tax Office (now under suspension) had fraudulently removed or caused to disappear certain papers and documents from the table of the Supervisor of the Income Tax Office, District 24-Parganas, on or about 20.6.64 with ulterior motives of preventing further enquiry into the genuineness or otherwise of the T.A. Bills submitted by him in the months of October, November and December, 1963. Charge No. IV Shri Rabindra Nath Chatterjee, Notice Server, attached to the said Income Tax Office, 24-Parganas (now under suspension) contravened wilfully office discipline and accepted legal procedure by refusing to sign a statement made by him before the Income Tax Officer, 24-Parganas, during the course of an enquiry made by the latter into the circumstances under which the papers mentioned in Charge No. Ill came to disappear. Charge No. V Shri Rabindra Nath Chatterjee, Notice Server, attached to the said Income Tax Office, Dist. 24-Parganas (now under suspension) fraudulently got hold of the Bills Register maintained in the Income Tax Office, District 24-Parganas and tampered with the original entries made therein between 29.6.64 and 4.8.64 with ulterior motives of preventing the further enquiry into the genuineness or otherwise of the T.A. Bills submitted by him. Charge No. VI Shri Rabindra Nath Chatterjee, Notice Server, attached to the said Income Tax Office, District 24-Parganas (now under suspension) had preferred fraudulent T.A. claims in respect of journies allegedly undertaken by him for effecting service of notice during the months of October, November and December, 1963, thereby attempting to defraud the State ex-chequer. Chargo No. VII Shri Rabindra Nath Chatterjee, Notice Server, attached to the Income Tax Office, Dist. 24-Parganas (now under suspension) had become violent and had threatened dire consequences to the Supervisory Staff of District 24-Parganas for having brought the facts of the interpolation of the entries in the Bill Register to the notice of the Income Tax Officer, A-Ward, 24-Parganas, thereby seriously under-mining office discipline and preventing a full and impartial enquiry being made unto the circumstances leading to the incident".;