- (1.) THOUGH the facts in this case under art. 226 of the Constitution are short, serious questions of law have been raised.
(2.) THE Petitioner, a Sub-Gunner under the employ of Respondent 1, the commissioners for the Port of Calcutta, was, on the 5th January, 1961, convicted of an offence under sections 147 and 323, i. P. C. , instituted on private complaint and sentenced to a fine and, in default, to imprisonment. Two years later, on the 28th March. 1963, he was suspended and on the 4th April, 1963, he was served with the order of Respondent no. 2, the Traffic. Manager of the commissioners,. removing the petitioner from service. It would be useful to reproduce that order (Ann. A to the Petition) at once:- "whereas Sri Baleswar Singh, sub-Gunner was convicted on a criminal charge under Sections 147 and 323, I. P. C. and sentenced to pay a fine or in default to undergo rigorous imprisenment on 5. 1. 61 which was confirmed by the appellate Court. And whereas it is considered that the conduct of the said Sri baleswar Singh which led to his conviction is such as to render his further retention in service undesirable. Now, therefore, the Dy. Chairman directs that the said Sri baleswar Singh, Sub-Gunner should be removed from service. "
(3.) THE Petitioner states that two other employees who were convicted in the same case along with the Petitioner have not been removed by the respondents. On the 30th April, 1963, the Union to which the Petitioner belongs wrote the letter at Ann. B to the Dy. Chairman of the Commissioners, requesting that the impugned order be reconsidered on the ground that the offence of which the Petitioner had been convicted did not involve moral turpitude nor did it relate to his work or working place and that, accordingly, he should not be removed on the ground of such conviction, in view of the 'prevailing practice' in the Commissioners' service, that only conviction on charges involving moral turpitude caused removal of their empleyees from service.;