B.P. Banerjee, J. - (1.) In this Rule, the petitioner prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to cancel and/or revoke the order of suspension dated 29th February, 1980 issued by the Government of West Bengal, Department of Health and Family Welfare allegedly on the ground that disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was contemplated and that by the said order the petitioner was allowed to draw subsistence grant at the rate of one forth of his pay. The petitioner, who is an M.B B.S., joined the West Bengal Health Service on November 1, 1959 after being selected through the Public Service Commission, West Bengal and that thereafter, the petitioner was posted to different places in the State of West Bengal as Medical Officer and that when the petitioner was holding the post of Chief Medical Officer of Health, Midnapore, the petitioner all on a sudden was transferred to Calcutta by the order dated 3rd January, 1978 passed by the Director of Health Service and that against the said order of transfer, the petitioner moved this Court and obtained a Rule in the Matter No. 228 of 1978 and also obtained an order of injunction which is still pending. It is the case of the petitioner that for moving this Court against the order of transfer and obtaining the interim order of injunction, the respondent No. 1 and 2, as a measure of victimisation, withheld the promotion of the petitioner higher intermediary selection grade and a number of officers who were juniors to the petitioner, were given promotion to the higher intermediary selection grades by two different batches and that against the said withholding of promotion to the higher selection grade and supersession by his juniors, the petitioner moved this Court and obtained a Rule being Civil Rule No. 11064(W) of 1979. The said Civil Rule has been made absolute by this Court by an order passed today whereby considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents were directed to give to the petitioner the higher selection grade post which fell due to the petitioner long back including all consequential benefits and which was deliberately withheld as a measure of victimisation with effect from a date prior to the date of grant of promotion to the juniors to the petitioner. It is not necessary for the purpose of this Civil Rule to state the facts in details which were the subject matter of the earlier Civil Rule.
(2.) In this case while the petitioner was staying at Midnapore on the strength of the interim order passed in the Matter No. 228 of 1978 and after the petitioner was superseded which was also the subject matter of earlier Civil Rule, the petitioner was suspended from the Service of Chief Medical Officer of Health, Midnapore on the ground that the disciplinary proceeding was contemplated against him It is necessary to set out some of the facts which have been stated in the writ petition. The petitioner made a writ petition to this Court against order of promotion to the juniors to him and the rule obtained by him was still pending. The eligibility list for appointment of the higher intermediary selection grade/special selection grade of the same service in their existing grade was prepared and maintained by the respondent No. 2 for the year 1975 to 1978 which would show that the petitioner was senior to those medical officers who had been promoted to higher intermediary selection grade. On 29th February. 1980, the petitioner worked and performed his duties at Midnapore as Chief Medical Officer upto 3.15 p.m. on that date and thereafter left for Ghatal Sub-Divisional Hospital for certain official duties. But while at Ghatal, the petitioner was informed by a message from the office of the Chief Medical of Health, Midnapore that the respondent No. 3 the Joint Director of Health Service (Administration) and the respondent No. 4 Assistant Director of Health Service, Family Welfare had come to the office of the Chief Medical Officer of Health and have asked the staff present there to inform the petitioner of their arrival and asked the petitioner to immediately come down to the office at Midnapore cancelling all programme. Thereupon the petitioner immediately went to the office of the Sub-Divisional Medical Officer and found several employees of the Hospital were present there. At about 4-45 p.m. on 29th February, 1980, the petitioner got a telephone call in the office from the Sub-Divisional Officer that the Sub-Divisional Officer was directed over the phone by the respondent No 3 the Joint Director of Health Service (Administration) to ask the petitioner to return to Midnapore immediately cancelling all programme there and that the petitioner was further informed that the petitioner would under stand everything on his arrival at Midnapore. The petitioner immediately contacted the A.D.M. (General) over the phone and came to learn that the Respondent No. 2 Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare had informed the A.D.M. that administrative urgency requires the presence of the petitioner at Midnapore, immediately. Inspite of the request, the said A.D.M. did not disclose anything apart from the fact that the petitioner would understand everything on reaching Midnapore as the matter was very simple. At that time, the Hospital staff were crowding the room and they looked to each other in such a way which gave the petitioner an impression that they knew everything and smilling as the petitioner was in trouble. Thereafter, the petitioner left Ghatal and reached his residence at Midnapore at about 8-30 p.m. where the petitioner did not find anybody excepting the maid servant. When the petitioner entered his residence at Midnapore his sons started crying and told him that sometime back 8 or 10 officers came to the house and had hot exchange of words with the petitioner's wife and they had pasted something like a letter on the outer wall of the residence of the petitioner and after they had left, the petitioner's wife started weaping and leaving the children to the maid servant, went to another house to contact the petitioner over phone at Ghatal, At about 8-45 p.m., the petitioner's wife came back to his residence and the petitioner came to know from her that about 5 O'clock in the afternoon several persons including the respondent No. 5, Dr. Niranjan Mohuri, District Health Officer, Midnapore, Respondent No. 6, Dr. Sanat Kumar Sengupta, Assistant Chief Medical Officer, Midnapore and the respondent No. 8, Dr. Pulak Sarkar, Regional Health Transport Officer, Midnapore came to the house of the petitioner and wanted so make over to the wife of the petitioner a sealed envelope. One of these persons at the direction of the respondent No. 6, Dr. Sanat Kumar Sengupta asked the petitioner's wife to put her signature on the acknowledgement of the sealed envelope and when she told him that the petitioner was out of the town on official duty and was due to return shortly, they could wait in the office room and to make over the said respondent No. 6 told the petitioner's wife in a rough and rude tone and in a rude manner that the said respondents No. 3 and 4, namely the Joint Director of Health Service (Administration) and Assistant Director of Health Service (Family Welfare) had come from Calcutta specially for the purpose of making over the said envelope to the petitioner and that they would wait outside and if the petitioner's wife did not take the letter and put her signature, then the respondent No. 8, namely Dr. Pulak Sarkar, the Regional Health Transport Officer would force her to put her signature and to take delivery of the said envelope. Inspite of the said bad behaviour of the said respondents, the petitioner's wife opened the office room and asked them to sit there to which the respondent No. 5 sarcastically said that they had not come to sit and they would make her and her husband to understand the fun for moving the case against the Government in the High Court. The petitioner's wife then started weeping. When the respondent No. 8, Dr. Pulak Sarkar told the petitioner's wife that her husband lost in the High Court case and they are to face the consequence for not only losing the case but also for filing the case against the Government. Thereafter, the said persons left the room and pasted the order of suspension on the outer wall and used filthy language and called names which were very obscene and vulgar. They also threatened that they would come back again with police and throw her out of quarters. The petitioner copied out the said notice which was pasted on the outer wall. The petitioner had neither handed over the charge to anybody, or anybody came to take over charge from the petitioner. The impugned order was passed on 29th February, 1980 which was a Friday. It was issued on the same day and was sought to be served on the same day through such high officials like Respondent No 3 and 4. The respondents in this case acted in a hot haste and had manoeuvered the entire matter in such a manner so that the petitioner could not move the court as the next two days were Saturday and Sunday on which days the High Court remains closed. On 1st March, 1980, the petitioner and his wife left for Calcutta for contacting the lawyer, leaving the two children to the care of the orderly. On 2nd March, 1980, the petitioner's wife left Calcutta for Midnapore at 3-15 p.m. and at about 10-15 p.m. the petitioner got a telephone call from his wife from Midnapore that the orderly in whose care and custody, the said two children of the petitioner was left, had been withdrawn by the Respondents and the respondent No. 3 to 8 had also disconnected telephone installed at the petitioner's residence by tearing the telephone themselves. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner moved a writ application before this court on 3rd March, 1980 and whereupon His Lordship, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Banerjee of this Court was pleased to issue a rule and interim order of injunction.
(3.) The petitioner challenged the validity and/or legality of the said order of suspension on the ground that the said order of suspension was on the face of it malafide and that the same was passed as measure of retaliation and for a collateral purpose with oblique motive and oblique object. It was further alleged that the said order was passed arbitrarily and malafide and that the said order was not passed in the interest of public service or on any administrative reasons, as the same had been passed only to punish and/or cause harm to the petitioner. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it was further alleged that there was no material on record which warrants the passing of the order of suspension in contemplation of a departmental enquiry. It was further alleged that the object of the suspension is to facilitate easy collection of evidence in the investigation or enquiry into the charges against the delinquent officer and that it would be prejudicial to the public interest that when the authorities are satisfied that the witnesses may hesitate to depose against the delinquent officer so long as lie continues to be in the office or that the delinquent officer should be prevented from tampering with the witnesses. The gravity of the charges is also a relevant factor for which the order of suspension could be passed when the charges against the officer are of moral turpetude, bribery, defalcation of public money, corruption or any criminal charges in that case.;