BHUDEB GOPAL CHATTERJEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
LAWS(CAL)-1985-6-40
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on June 10,1985

Bhudeb Gopal Chatterjee Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Paritosh K. Mukherjee, J. - (1.) The petitioner, in the instant writ petition, had challenged the impugned second show cause notice dated October 10, 1979 issued by Shri B.N. Rangawani, the then Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, whereby the petitioner was directed to show cause as to why the penalty of removal shall not be passed in respect of the petitioner.
(2.) The rule was taken up for hearing on May 15 and 16 and June 3 when the hearing was concluded. Mr. N.C. Chakravorty, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that in conducting the enquiry, the Respondents, in particular the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries, Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi, Respondent No. 4, had not proceeded according to the directions contained in the earlier judgment dated March 30, 1979 in C.R. No. 6815 (W) of 1977 delivered by S.C. Deb J. (As His lordship then was).
(3.) Earlier the present writ petitioner challenged the charge-sheet and initiation of the departmental enquiry on the ground that the petitioner having been censured once no charge could be framed against the petitioner in respect of the self-same charge. But when the Rule came up for final hearing on March 30, 1979, S.C. Deb J., however, was pleased to discharge the Rule in so far it related to Charge-Sheet dated November 24, 1976 being Annexure 'B' to the said writ petition and also departmental proceeding of 1976 but, at the same time, the learned Judge directed the Respondent No. 4, namely, the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries, to give inspection of the documents mentioned in pages 46 and 49 of the petition being letters dated March 21, 1977 and August 26, 1978 respectively to the writ petition. It was further directed that the petitioner should be given reasonable opportunity to put his defence in the disciplinary proceedings of 1976, after he had inspection of the aforesaid documents. If, however, the petitioner does not take inspection of the aforesaid documents, the Respondent No. 1 (the disciplinary authority) shall give notice to the petitioner for filing his defence within a reasonable time.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.