ARINDAM SINHA, J. - (1.) Mr. Mahapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of the petitioner in support of the challenge in the writ petition against the disciplinary proceedings held. The petitioner was serving as cook in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). Mr. Mahapatra submits, his client was a civilian employee. The charge brought against him was under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, in that, inter alia, he was found selling uniform articles in CRPF barrack on 10th September, 2000 which was prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Government service.
(2.) Mr. Mahapatra submits, his client being a civilian employee, it was not necessary for him to seek permission to go out of the Unit. He was to attend his duties regarding cooking and was thereafter free to leave the Unit. It was his client's case that he in assisting recruits of the Force who could not speak the local language, to acquire articles of uniform from the local market, had purchased the uniform articles on their behalf. It was not a case of purchase and then sale to the recruits. He submits further, the inquiry proceedings were conducted by the Inquiry Officer without there being a Presenting Officer. There was thus conflict of interest. He relies on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishna Choudhury v. State of West Bengal reported in 2011(2) CHN (Cal) 498 in particular paragraphs 29 and 30 which are set out below:- "29. It is true that there is no specific provision for engagement of presenting officer in the Kolkata Police Regulation but undisputedly, said resolution does not prohibit engagement of the presenting officer, in the instant case, in absence of the presenting officer enquiry proceeding could not be conducted effectively as the witnesses produced by the prosecution could not be examined properly in an effective manner in order to establish the charges levelled against the petitioner herein. The witnesses of their own deposed before the Enquiry Officer without keeping any eye on the charges actually levelled against the petitioner and nobody on behalf of true prosecution was also present during the enquiry to remind the witnesses to confine themselves only in relation to the charges levelled against the petitioner. 30. A departmental enquiry cannot be conducted in a casual manner in the absence of the presenting officer. It becomes difficult for the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry proceeding in an unbiased manner in the absence of the presenting officer as the said Enquiry Officer sometimes had to perform the duties which are required to be discharged normally by the presenting officer."
(3.) Mr. Mahapatra also submits, this was a charge of corruption brought against his client. His client as a Group-'D' personnel has little or no knowledge and, therefore, lack of awareness. Against such a person a charge of corruption brought which, as would appear from the Inquiry Report, was found to be proved against him on presumption. He relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Gyan Chand Chattar reported in (2009) 12 SCC 78, in particular paragraph 21 to submit that a serious charge of corruption is required to be proved to the hilt, it cannot be proved on mere probabilities. Paragraph 21 is set out below :- "21. Such a serious charge of corruption requires to be proved to the hilt as it brings civil and criminal consequences upon the employee concerned. He would be liable to be prosecuted and would also be liable to suffer severest penalty award able in such cases. Therefore, such a grave charge of quasi criminal nature was required to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt and to the hilt. It cannot be proved on mere probabilities." He submits further, by drawing attention to page 109 of the writ petition, the Inquiry Report relied upon a discreet inquiry as would appear from the portion reproduced below :- "To find factual position (statement of PW-VI) a discreet inquiry was conducted by Dy Comdt. Trg of 138 BN CRPF on 2.11.2000. According to the opinion of inquiry officer, hospital cook A. Prabhakaran brought uniform items from local market and sold them to Recruits besides hospital cook might have used Rt Kanaga Raj's hospital room for stroing the uniform items exhibit P-VI." ;