V.S.Sirpurkar, C. J. - (1.) Appellants herein challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by one Dr. Asok Kumar Das, original writ petitioner (referred to as 'delinquent' hereinafter) and quashing the chargesheet thereby. In that writ petition, the delinquent had challenged the communication dated 11th April, 2003 by which a chargesheet for misconduct was served upon the delinquent. Following charges were framed in that chargesheet: "That Dr. Asok Kumar Das has applied for the post of Associate Professor of Organon of Medicine and Philosophy Chronic Disease and Psychology on 5th July, 1991 as per the advertisement No DAVP 91/147 dated 15.6.1991 published in Employment News for 15th - 21st June, 1991 furnishing false and fabricated teaching experience certificate as per the requirement of the advertisement and had submitted 7 years teaching experience certificate as a lecturer in Bengal Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Asansol, whereas he had worked as an Honorary Lecturer and that too, not for a full term of 7 years as because he was himself a student of M.Sc. (Life Science) at Agartala from 1985 to 1987 and was also an internee from 26.9.1984 to 25.8.1985 at Calcutta Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital for which he had drawn full stipend. Dr. Asok Kumar Das by his aforesaid act of suppressing the abovementioned facts, which if highlighted would have alerted the administrative authorities and thus by this fact had committed gross misconduct and thereby contravened Rule 3 (1) (I) (II) & (III) of the CCS Conduct Rules, 1964."
(2.) The petitioner in support of his petition has claimed an outstanding academic record and bright career thereafter. His claim is that he passed his examination of Bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery in first division and secured gold medal in four subjects. He had also obtained the M.Sc. degree in first class and stood second in the order of merit. He further claimed that he was appointed as a lecturer on 26.9.1984 at a very young age in the Bengal Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital at Asansol and was also a guest lecturer in National Institute of Homeopathy, Calcutta in the year 1991. He further claimed that he had also participated in research projects and worked as a Research Scholar under eminent personalities in the field. He also claimed to have various publications to his credit.
(3.) His further case pleaded is that in pursuance of the advertisement dated 15.6.1991 for a post of Associate Professor in Organon of Medicine and Philosophy, Chronic Diseases and Psychology, the essential experience suggested in that advertisement was - (a) A recognized degree or equivalent qualification in Homoeopathy obtained after undergoing a regular course in recognized institute for at least 4 years duration and included in the II Schedule of HCC Act, 1973 (Central Council of Homoeopathy Act, 1973) or a qualification included in the III Schedule of the HCC Act, 1973. (b) Seven years teaching experience out of which at least four years of teaching experience in the concerned subject as assistant Professor/Lecturer in a recognized Homoeopathic College/Institute. 3.1. He pointed out that while applying for this post, he had attached all the certificates and testimonials along with a Certificate issued by Dr. Amitava Biswas, Principal, Bengal Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Asansol certifying that he was working as a Lecturer in the concerned subject since 26.9.1984. He claimed that he had not given any false or fabricated document nor had made any false statement and further had not suppressed any fact. He pointed out that he was called for interview to be held on 20th February,1992, along with all the original certificates. His further case was that he had never made any representation that he had seven years' teaching experience. It is pointed out that after interview and perusal of all certificates, he was selected for the post which fact was communicated to him vide letter dated March 19, 1994, which offer he accepted and ultimately, he came to be appointed on probation for a period of two years. It is then pointed out. that his success at a very young age caused jealousy in the mind of some others and therefore, a complaint was made to the CBI and a criminal case came to be registered against him by the CBI for offences under sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that he had furnished false and fabricated documents/information and had obtained employment thereby. 3.2. He then refers to a writ petition filed by him being C.O.No. 12028(W) of 1996 and also to an order dated 18.11.1996 by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court directing the CBI to file a chargesheet within a period of 10 days. He then points out that on 17.12.1996, the CBI filed a final report that sufficient evidence could not be collected in course of investigation. However, the CBI had recommended a disciplinary departmental action whereby the matter was referred to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. 3.3. He refers to the role played by the original respondent Nos. 1 to 3, appellants herein, and more particularly, the role of Director, National Institute of Homoeopathy. He also made a reference to an advertisement for the post of Director, Central Council of Research and a writ petition filed by him in the Delhi High Court being Civil Writ Petition No. 7668 of 2002 praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to allow him to participate in the interview. He also referred that one Dr. S.K. Bhattacharjee, original respondent No. 5 to the petition, was also a competing candidate and it was because of his efforts that the petitioner was not given a professional call for the interview for the post of Director. He points out that ultimately Dr. Bhattacharjee was selected for that post and it was as a result of his efforts, that the chargesheet came to be filed against the petitioner. Thus the chargesheet was challenged predominantly on three grounds that (1) chargesheet was hopelessly belated, (2) it was in colourable exercise of powers and on account of the malice on the part of the fifth respondent that the chargesheet surfaced and (3) the chargesheet did not disclose any misconduct.;