- (1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order of Sabyasachi Mukherjee, J. dated December 3, 1970 whereby the rule obtained by the petitioner on his application under Article 226(1) of the Constitution was made absolute. The petitioner according to his case has been a Lower Division Clerk in the Income Tax Office District I (I) as a permanent employee without any blemish in his service career. By an order dated May 21, 1966, passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Range XIII, Calcutta, the appellant No. 1 before us, the petitioner respondent was placed under suspension as a disciplinary proceeding against him was contemplated and he was further directed not to leave the head quarters without obtaining previous permission of the appellant. The petitioner, thereafter was served with a memorandum dated July 25, 1966, issued by the said appellant proposing to hold an inquiry against him under RULE.14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 (herein after referred to as the Appeal Rules) on several articles of charge and along with the same, alleged imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge were enclosed. The first charge related to the action of the petitioner in leading a number of staff on May 20, 1966, at about 12 noon tot the office room of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range IV Shri Seth and using derogatory, abusive and filthy language towards him, while continuously thumping the table and obstructing him in discharge of his duties, thereby contravening Rule 3(1) (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Conduct Rules). The second article of charge related to the action of the petitioner in respect of the incident in collecting a number of members of the staff and holding demonstration within and outside the room of the said Inspecting Assistant Commissioner thereby violating Rules 3(1) (iii) and rule 7(1) of the Conduct Rules. The third charge related to the action of the petitioner in the same incident in exhibiting violent and unruly conduct to the said officer, breaking the table glass to pieces by the paper weight while thumping the table thereby contravening Rule 3(1)(ii) of the Conduct-Rules. The fourth charge related to the petitioners gross negligence of duties in not attending office regularly and at times leaving office without permission after signing attendance register in dislocation of office work thereby making himself liable for disciplinary action under Rule 3(ii) of the Conduct Rules. Charge V related to the petitioner's leaving the Head quarters Calcutta without obtaining previous permission of his superior authority thereby violating Rule 3(1) (ii) of the said Rules. The last charge related to the obstruction caused by the petitioner to the caretaker of the Income Tax Building of Chowringhee Square on June 16, 1966 while he went with his staff to remove some posters displayed there. Along with the memorandum were annexed a list of documents and witnesses for the purpose of establishing the charges. The petitioner was further directed to file his written statement of defence within a stipulated period.
(2.) The petitioner filed his written statement of defence on August 14, 1966. The appellant No. 1 appointed M. L.C. D'Souza, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner as the Enquiring Officer who by order dated October 11, 1966 fixed the case to November 3, 1966. The petitioner was directed inspect the specified documents within 8 days and to supply list of his witnesses as also to give notice within 10 days for discovery and production of any documents lying in custody of Government. The petitioner completed inspection of the documents on November 1, 1966. By this letter of November 2, 1966 he gave a list of November 2, 1966 he gave a list of witnesses to be examined and as also a list of documents as requisitioned by him were produced and the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined by the petitioner without obtaining inspection of the documents. The petitioner contended that this was done with the purpose of frustrating the defence case. The defence case was that the departmental proceeding was started against the petitioner on false and distorted facts to stifle the trade union movement of the Class IV employees of the Income-tax department. An innocent trade union activity by the petitioner was transformed into a series of gross misconduct by the secret manipulation of the Head of the office. The petitioner further contended that as the defence case was that the Head of the Department "wanted to nip the trade union movement in the bud", advantage of the incident of May 20, 1966 was taken and K. E. Johnson, the Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal 1, Calcutta, who instructed his officers to build a case, was not allowed to be examined even though he was cited by the petitioner as his witness. The enquiry proceeding continued till March 3, 1967 when some prosecution witnesses were examined behind the back of the petitioner which was duly objected to by him. The defence further was that there was a spontaneous assemblage of employees before the room of Seth to express resentment against utilization of services of a Class IV employee for personal work by Seth and as President of Class IV Employees Association, he was there to see an amicable settlement while the imputations against him were untrue. The petitioner on March 7, 1968 and onwards, examined two witnesses on his behalf in support of defence. The petitioner also cross-examined the prosecution witnesses. By his report dated May 9, 1968, the Inquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of charges of Article I, III, IV, V and VI and also of Article II to the extent that the petitioner let a demonstration which was prejudicial to public order, decency and morality.
(3.) The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Range XIII Calcutta by his letter of October 17, 1968, while forwarding the enquiry report, informed the petitioner of his acceptance of the findings of the Inquiry Officer and also that he proposed to impose on the petitioner the penalty of removal or dismissal from service. The petitioner was thereby given an opportunity to make representation on the penalty within fifteen days.;