D. Basu, J. - (1.) Though the instant case under Article 226 of the Constitution raises questions within a short compass, they are nice questions of law.
(2.) The Petitioner was a nurse, employed by Opposite Party No. 1, Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta. On the 19th November, 1962, Opposite Party No. 2, the Dy. Chairman of The Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta, issued the charge-sheet at Ann. B to the Petition, requiring her to submit a written statement of her defence against the charge within a week from the date of receipt of the notice as to why she should not be punished. The charge was - "That the said Sh. Nirmala Chakraborty while functioning as Nurse, Remount Road Hospital on 17th November, 1962, soon after 9 hours has acted in a manner prejudicial to discipline and amounting to gross misconduct," And the allegations regarding the charge which were supplied along with the charge were as follows:- "That the said Sm. Nirmala Chakraborty, while functioning as Nurse, Remount Road Hospital - (1) On 17th November, 1962, soon after 9 hours obstructed in a violent attitude with the help of an unknown young man the Chief Medical Officer while the latter was entering the Remount Road Hospital compound in his car from the western gate. (2) She again obstructed the Chief Medical Officer soon alter the above incident while he was entering the Remount Road Hospital building through the western gate, abused him and threatened to assault him." By her letter dated the 23rd November (Ann. C) the Petitioner asked for copies of several documents in order to enable her to submit the written statement. Opposite Party No. 2 however, did not furnish copies of all the items asked for and the Petitioner was obliged to file her written statement without having an opportunity of looking into same of the documents, as desired by her. Thereafter, an inquiry was held by the-Assistant Secretary to the Commissioners and he submitted his report holding the Petitioner guilty of having abused, threatened and humiliated Dr. D.B. Sen, the Chief Medical Officer, within the Hospital precincts. Accepting the findings of the Inquiry Officer O.P. No. 2 issued a second notice dated the 24th May, 1963, asking the Petitioner to show cause why she should not be dismissed from service. The Petitioner again by her letter of the 28th May, 1963. asked for copies of certain documents. The Opposite Parties allowed her to inspect certain items but no copies of the evidence recorded by the Inquiring Officer were supplied or shown to her and she was eventually dismissed by an order of the 10th August, 1963.
(3.) The only point urged at the hearing by Mr. Roy, on behalf of the Petitioner, is that the order of dismissal must be struck down as contravening the principles of natural justice because of the refusal of the Opposite Parties to furnish the Petitioner with the copies of relevant documents, first, at the inquiry stage when she was asked to submit her written defence to the charge and, again, at the second stage when she was asked to show cause against the proposed punishment.;