Sinha, J. - (1.) On or about the 18th August, 1944, the Government of Bengal in its Agriculture Department, Fishery Branch, sanctioned the creation of a number of posts of District Fishery Officers. On or about the 27th October, 1944, the appointment of the petitioner to the post of a District Fishery Officer was approved by Government. The approval is contained in a letter addressed by the Assistant Secretary to the Government of Bengal to the Director of Fisheries, Bengal dated the 26th October, 1944. A copy thereof is Annexure "C" to the supplementary affidavit-in-reply affirmed by Sri Naresh Chandra Gangopadhyay on the 7th April, 1956. The relevant part thereof is as follows: "The undersigned is directed to convey the approval of Government to the appointments of the marginally noted officers to the posts of District Fishery Officers sanctioned in this Department Government Order No.3044, dated the 18th August, 1944, on probation for a period of two years. "The candidates will have to appear before the Professor of Clinical Surgery, Calcutta Medical College, in regard to their physical fitness prior to their appointment on probation. There is no objection however to their joining the posts immediately. They will be confirmed in service on the satisfactory completion of the period of probation and the passing of a departmental examination, which may be prescribed during the period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."
(2.) Te petitioner joined service on probation, but has never been confirmed. In May, 1951, he appeared in the prescribed departmental examination but failed. He has after being suspended from service, as stated hereinafter, passed in the said examination. In or about September, 1951, he was employed as District Fishery Officer at Malda. On or about the 22nd September, 1951, the Director of Fisheries, West Bengal, issued a charge sheet against the petitioner, a copy whereof is annexed to the petition and included in Annexure "A" (page 19). The name, rank and grade of the officer proceeded against, as stated in the charge sheet is "Sri Naresh Chandra Gangopadhyay, District Fishery Officer on probation (Malda)". In the charge sheet five charges are mentioned. The first is failure to maintain proper accounts. The second is for failure to issue receipts for monies received. The third and fourth are the issuing of excessive and unauthorized loans. The last charge is failure to inspect tanks before advancing loans. The petitioner was directed to show cause within a fortnight from the receipt of the order why disciplinary action under Rule 7 of the Bengal Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1936, should not be taken against him. The petitioner gave a long explanation in writing. In fact it extends over 27 closely typed pages. He nowhere took the plea that he was not an officer on probation or not governed by Rule 7 of the Bengal Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1936. On the same day, he was placed under suspension. He was directed to proceed at once to Headquarters and to hand over charge of his office to Sri Dhirendra Nath Chakrabarty, the Assistant Fishery Officer at Malda. This order was obviously made under Rule 10(1) of the Bengal Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1936. The charge as framed against him related mainly to his work at Malda and in respect of which the records and documents were mostly in Malda. What the petitioner did was to apply for casual leave for five days to the Superintendent of Fisheries, Northern Circle, at Murshidabad, without mentioning the order of his suspension. He then returned to Malda and made entries in the Stock Register and, inter alia, recorded a note in the same as follows: "Stock verified on 29.9.51." It is not denied that such entries were made. The explanation is that they were made in the usual course.
(3.) On or about the 7th December, 1951, the petitioner was called upon to see the Director of Fisheries in connection with the departmental enquiry. He accordingly saw the said officer on the 10th December, 1951. What happened at the enquiry is matter of dispute. According to the petitioner, he was faced with new charges and asked to make statements with regard to them which he refused to make unless and until the charges were reduced into writing. According to the respondents, all that happened was that the Director tried his best to make the petitioner answer only relevant questions in elucidation of his explanation in his written statement, but the petitioner refused categorically to answer such questions until they were given to him in writing before he would reply to the same. It is stated and not unreasonably that this would have meant giving him one set of questions one day and then on receipt of his reply giving him a supplementary set of questions in writing for his reply and so on, and that this was an unheard of and impracticable procedure in departmental proceedings. The petitioner further took up an attitude which is described as insolent, and the Director gave him further time to reconsider his position and to come up again on the 30th December, 1951. On the 11th December, 1951 however he sent in a letter virtually refusing to comply with the requisitions of the Director, and it appears that on the 11th December, 1951 the Director declared that under the circumstances the enquiry may be considered as closed. It is stated by the respondents that the matter was really decided on documentary evidence and at no time the petitioner ever expressed his desire to examine any witness. There is of course no question of cross-examining witnesses because the respondents never called any witness in support of the charges. Although in his affidavit-in-reply, paragraph 18, the petitioner has denied that he did not ask for any such opportunity, nothing has been placed before me to show that he did. The Director of Fisheries thereupon proceeded to consider the case and made a report to Government wherein he found the petitioner guilty of all the charges and made a recommendation that his services be terminated. On the 14th May, 1952 a show cause notice was issued upon the petitioner addressed by the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Forest and Fisheries (Fish) Department. The petitioner was described as "Sri Naresh Chandra Gangopadhyay, District Fishery Officer (on probation) Malda, now under suspension". It is stated in the said notice that Government had carefully considered the report of the Director and other relevant papers and agreed with the findings recorded therein and had come to the conclusion provisionally that the petitioner should be punished with discharge from Government service under Rule 49(VI) of the C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules. The petitioner was therefore called upon to submit within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the order any representation that he might desire to be considered as to why he should not be punished in the manner stated in the grounds referred to. The petitioner thereupon showed cause and his second representation contained 65 closely typed pages. The Government thereupon forwarded the records and its own findings to the Public Service Commission for its recommendation. The Commission carefully went into the matter and expressed the opinion that the petitioner should be discharged from service. A copy of this recommendation was produced at the hearing and I direct that it be kept in the record. The Commission pointed out that the petitioner, even after 7 years of probation, displayed incompatible temperament apart from other omissions and commissions, and that he was unsuitable for retention in service. It pointed out that the representations made by the petitioner consisted of long dissertations on the interpretation of the Rules and Orders, which were not only incorrect and unacceptable, but that the petitioner was adamant to maintain his own view and was certainly not likely to observe discipline in public service and was therefore not suitable to be retained therein. Finally it pointed out that the petitioner had degrees in Psychology and Anthropology and his services might be utilised in departments where such qualifications were useful, but not in the department of fisheries. On the 28th March, 1953, an order was issued by the Government of West Bengal, the relevant part of which is as follows: "With reference to this Department Memo No. 3857 dated 14.5.52, drawing up proceedings against Sri N. C. Gangopadhyay, District Fishery Officer of Subordinate Fishery Service, Class I, by the Director of Fisheries under Rule 7 of Bengal Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1936, Government have now carefully considered the charges and the explanations offered by him in consultation with the Public Service Commission, West Bengal, and have come to the finding that Sri N. C. Gangopadhyaya is guilty in respect of all the five charges framed against him by the Director of Fisheries. On the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, it has accordingly been decided that he should be discharged from Government service. The Government are accordingly pleased to order that Sri N. C. Gangopadhyaya be and is hereby discharged from service with effect from the date of issue of this order.";