- (1.) The writ petitioner is aggrieved by (a) the charge-sheet dated December 5, 2003, whereby a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against him; (b) the decision whereby his prayer for engaging a lawyer as defence helper has been rejected; and (c) the manner in which the enquiry officer has so far proceeded.
(2.) The petitioner's case is this. He is a cobbler (mochi) by caste, and hence belongs to a Scheduled Caste. On March 1, 1979 he joined the respondent-bank. Till October 1991, when he joined its Malda Branch, there was no problem in his place of work. During the period from January 1992 to April 1997 he did not get due salary and allowances, and hence he moved this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 13253 (W) of 1997. Alleging that he was subjected to untouchability both mental and physical, at the place of his work (in Malda branch of the bank), in March 1998 he lodged a complaint with the District Magistrate, Malda. On December 15, 1999 he was severely assaulted by some officials of the branch. Complaint by his wife dated December 27, 1999 was treated as the First Information Report, and the police started investigation. His prayers made from time to time by representations to the higher authorities for making enquiry into the allegations made by him failed to move the authorities. In 2000 he filed an application in his pending 1997 writ petition. He prayed for release of salary from March 2000; since he did not get relief from the learned single Judge, he preferred an appeal before the Division Bench. During pendency of the appeal on September, 5, 2003 the police submitted charge-sheet regarding the incident of assault on December 15, 1999. The charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 325 and 34 of the Indian Penal - Code against the manager and three other employees of the Malda branch of the bank. On December 15, 2003 the appeal was disposed of, and the bank was directed to pay the salary in accordance with law. Till this date nothing was disclosed by the bank about initiation and pendency of any disciplinary proceeding against him. On December 26, 2003 he received a letter from the enquiry officer that in connection with the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him the preliminary enquiry would be held on January 13, 2004. Pursuant to his request the enquiry officer supplied a copy of the charge-sheet to him on January 13, 2004. From the allegations made in the charge-sheet under its 10(ten) items, and the incidents which happened from the year 1992, it is clear that the charge-sheet has been issued mala fide.
(3.) Mr. Subrata Talukdar appears for the petitioner. He contends that the stale and utterly vague allegations made in the charge- sheet as a counterblast to the police charge-sheet must lead to the conclusion that the proceeding has t been initiated mala fide. He relies on the decisions reported at Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi, AIR 1957 SC 425; Surath Chandra Chakravarty v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1971 SC 752 : 1970 (3) SCC 548 : 1971-,I-LLJ-293; State of Haryana v. Rajendra Sareen, AIR 1972 SC 1004 : 1972 (1) SCC 267 1972-I-LLJ-205; State of Madhya Pradesh v.Bani Singh AIR 1990 SC 1308 : 1990 Supp SCC 738 : 1990-II-LLJ- 529; Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co- education) Higher Secondary School, AIR 1993 SC 2155 : 1993 (4) SCC 10 : 1993-II-LLJ-549; Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant, AIR 2001 SC 24 : 2001 (1) SCC 182 : 2001-I-LLJ-583; State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna AIR 2001 SC 343 : 2001 (2) SCC 330.;