S.P.Talukdary, J. - (1.) This case arises out of an application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. By filing such application the petitioner sought for quashing of all the proceedings arising out of the chargesheet No. 21/2003 dated 29.10.2003 submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation. It was in connection with the Special Case No. 2 of 2004 now pending before the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Durgapore, Burdwan.
(2.) Grievances of the petitioner may briefly be stated as follows: While posting as Assistant Grade-II (Department) FCI, ARDE-Gopalpur, the petitioner was placed under suspension by office memo dated 29.05.1999 issued by the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Calcutta. He submitted a representation dated 04.04.2000 praying for revocation of suspension order. By office memo dated 27.07.2000 the Senior Regional Manager, served the petitioner with a chargesheet. Upon receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted a reply dated 07.08.2000 wherein he specifically denied to have issued any fictitious work-done certificate to the departmental labourers. The petitioner denied to have acted in contravention of the established norms under Regulations 31(a), (b), (c), 32, 32(A)(5) and 30 of F.C.I. (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (as amended). By office memo dated 31.10.2000, the Senior Regional Manager issued a letter to all concerned stating therein that the petitioner as well as some other officials of F.C.I. are jointly concerned in a disciplinary proceeding while working under District Manager, Durgapore. Disciplinary proceeding was, thus, initiated with the Senior Regional Manager as the disciplinary authority.
(3.) One Mr. P.K. Mukherjee, retired Manager (F & A), F.C.I., Calcutta was appointed to enquire into the articles of charges framed against the petitioner. The petitioner in reply to the said charges denied and disputed all the material allegations and prayed for exonerating him from the aforesaid charges. By memo dated 24.04.2001, the Assistant Manager, Vigilance served a copy of the enquiry report upon the petitioner wherefrom it could be seen that the charge indicated in Article I in respect of the petitioner and few others were proved. Petitioner submitted a representation dated 26.05.2001 challenging the said findings. This was followed by the petitioner's receipt of the final order of dismissal from service. An appeal was preferred. By order dated 04.04.2002 that appellant authority confirmed the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority, thereby rejecting the appeal. A writ application was, thereafter, filed by the petitioner in the High Court, at Patna. It was dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction. But such dismissal was not to stand in the way of the petitioner's approaching the Court of competent jurisdiction.;