A.K.SINHA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the Director General, Posts and Telegraphs, Union of India and others against the judgment and order of P. K. Banerjee, J. passed in writ jurisdiction of this Court upon an application under Article 226 of the Constitution made by the respondent quashing the order of dismissal from his service. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows.
(2.) THE petitioner who was at the material time an Assistant Engineer of Calcutta Telephones was charge -sheeted for his failure to maintain absolute integrity in the performance of his duty as required under Rule 3 of the C. C. S. (Conduct) Rules, 1955. Substantially, the allegations were that there were alterations and interpolations in the sub -vouchers submitted along with certain bills, entries had not been made in case of few purchases of materials of contingent nature in the stock register while in some other cases delayed entries were made, details of cash memos were not entered in the accounts and the petitioner used three receipts for taxi hire amounting to Rs. 4.50 in order to derive undue financial advantage. Along with him another officer named G. C. Roy was also charge -sheeted for making wrong entries or delayed entries of the purchase in the relevant stock register With reference to cash memos or failure to give cash memos or to give certificates for those purposes. The disciplinary proceeding was started both against the petitioner and G. C. Roy with the issue of charge -sheet after the preliminary investigation made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Calcutta. The petitioner in reply to the charges showed cause denying all material allegations made in the statement of allegations annexed to the charge -sheet and one Mr. K. Thomas Kora was appointed the enquiry officer for an enquiry into the charges and for submission of his report to the disciplinary authority. In course of the proceeding the respondent made several representations before the Director General, Posts and Telegraphs, praying for assistance of a legal practitioner in the enquiry proceeding and also for inspection of the report of the Special Police Establishment. They refused both these prayers and these representations were rejected. In the enquiry proceeding, however, 25 witnesses were examined on behalf of the departmental disciplinary authority and two witnesses were examined by the respondent including the evidence of two experts on either side and a number of documents were exhibited in this case. The enquiry officer on consideration of evidence submitted his report holding, inter alia, that the charges made against the respondent were established. After giving a second opportunity to the respondent the disciplinary authority also on consideration of the report and all other evidence and materials dismissed the petitioner from his service.
(3.) THE petitioner preferred a departmental appeal which was also dismissed. The petitioner then moved this Court in its writ jurisdiction and obtained a Rule. Banerjee, J., found that there was violation of principles of natural justice on two points, namely, (i) the refusal to permit the petitioner to take the assistance of a legal practitioner, and (ii) the refusal of the disciplinary authority to allow inspection of the report of the investigating officer of the Special Police Establishment. As such failures deprived the petitioner respondent of reasonable opportunity to defend his case, the impugned order of dismissal was accordingly quashed and the Rule was made absolute. That is how in short the appellant felt aggrieved and preferred the present appeal.;