G.R.hattacharjee, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against a departmental enquiry proceeding conducted against the petitioner and the show cause notice issued to the petitioner for removal from service. The petitioner was appointed as a driver under the Calcutta Port Trust sometime in the year 1964. On 29th November, 1979 while the petitioner was functioning as H.T. Driver in a particular C.P.T. Lorry he was apprehended by the C.I.S.F. Personnel at about 2 p.m. at 27, K.P.D. on the charge of taking one coil of stainless steel strip, imported cargo of M.V. Jalaplaka in the said lorry. A criminal case was also started against the petitioner. The petitioner was also placed under 'deemed suspension' with effect from 29-11-79. By the order dated the 3rd April, 1980 the petitioner was however discharged from bail bond in that case by the learned S.D.J.M., Alipore, vide Annexure-A to the writ petition. It is obvious that the discharge was not on merit and it was only a discharge from bail bond. Subsequently, a departmental enquiry being proceeding No. Dis/10/81 was started against the petitioner in respect of the same matter. It may be mentioned here that another departmental enquiry proceeding, being Dis/1/81, was also started against the petitioner in respect of some other charges. Annexure-D to the writ petition as well as to the affidavit-in-opposition and the pleadings show that the Inquiry Officer disposed of both the disciplinary proceedings by his order dated 14-11-84. He recorded a finding of not guilty in the proceeding Dis/1/81 dated 28-1-81, but found the petitioner guilty in the proceeding Dis/10/81 dated 11-3-81. Thereafter the Deputy Chairman, C.P.T. obviously Disciplinary Authority, by his order dated the 5th July, 1986 Annexure-C to the writ petition accepted the findings of the Inquiry Officer and directed the petitioner in Dis/10/81 to submit such representation as the petitioner might wish to make against the contemplated penalty of removal from service as proposed in the said order. The petitioner then moved this Court by this writ petition.
(2.) The ground in substance taken in the writ petition is that the Chairman, CPT in a meeting with the Workers' Union on 18-12-85 asked the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer to look into the case of the petitioner and submit report to him as early as possible, but inspite of that the enquiry report was submitted by a junior Officer, namely, the Jr. Executive Mechanical Engineer and it was not even disclosed in the meeting held on 18-12-85 that any such enquiry report had been finalised. The enquiry report as well as the show-cause notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority has been attacked in the writ petition mainly on the ground of discussion held in the said meeting of the 18th December, 1985. Page-28 of the writ petition is a copy of an application dated 15-1-82 submitted by the petitioner to the Chairman, CPT for payment of full wages to the petitioner for the period from 11-11-79 to 31-8-80. Prom the minutes of the meeting held on 18-12-85 it would appear that the question that was discussed in the meeting in this connection was relating to payment of wages to the petitioner for the period of suspension. That was entirely a different aspect and has got nothing to do with the pending departmental proceeding. I therefore hold that there is nothing in the said minutes of the meeting which could debar further proceeding of the departmental enquiry. The departmental enquiry and the show-cause notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority to the petitioner proposing certain penalty cannot therefore be assailed on the ground of the discussion held in the meeting on 18-12-85. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner did not submit any representation before the Disciplinary Authority against the proposed penalty although he tools time for the purpose and subsequently filed this writ petition.
(3.) The learned Advocate for the petitioner, at the time of hearing, however raised two entirely new points which were not taken in the writ petition. One of these two new points is that the show-cause notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority both in respect of guilt and punishment should be only tentative and in this connection he relies on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Babban Singh v. Union of India, CAL LT 1993(2) HC 128 : 97 CWN 1135. In the said decision the Division Bench granted liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to issue fresh second showcause notice proposing a punishment tentatively if after applying his mind to the evidence and material on record and the enquiry report or respect of the charges he comes to a provisional and tentative finding that the appellant is guilty of the alleged misconduct. In our present case the punishment proposed is expressly tentative. As regards the question of guilt the Disciplinary Authority has accepted the findings of the Inquiry Officer 'after considering carefully the records and proceedings of the said enquiry and the report of the Inquiry Officer'. It is true that the finding of guilt recorded by the Disciplinary Authority is not tentative or provisional. But the object of quashing the same for that reason and of asking the Disciplinary Authority to consider the matter afresh and to have liberty to issue a second showcause notice again if a tentative finding of guilt is arrived at, can be achieved by directing the Disciplinary Authority to treat his finding of guilt as only tentative and provisional and not final and allow the petitioner to make representation, which indeed the petitioner is entitled to, against the finding of guilt also while making representation against the proposed penalty. If any such representation is made against the finding of guilt along with the representation on the proposed penalty the Disciplinary Authority will be under an obligation to consider the same dispassionately on merits again and thereafter to come to his own final finding on the question of guilt, this way or that way as may be warranted under the law, and also to take decision simultaneously on the question of imposition of penalty if any such decision is still warranted in view of his final finding on the question of guilt.;