AMIYA KUMAR MITRA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-1976-2-4
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on February 19,1976

AMIYA KUMAR MITRA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BISHUN NARAIN V. STATE OF U. P [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MYSORE V. PADMANABHACHARY [REFERRED TO]
CHATURVEDI DR. R. P. V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
ROSHON LAL V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GURDEV SINGH SIDHU VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
B S VADERA G S CHAGGAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
N LAKSHMANA RAO VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. CHITRA VENKATA RAO [REFERRED TO]
PURNANANDA PATRA VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)IN this Rule the petitioner has challenged orders dated 29th September, 1973 (Annexure K), 26th July,1974 (Annexure S) and 21st august, 1974 (Annexure T), By the said ultimate order in Annexure The has been informed that his prayer for releasing him from the order of suspension in connection with an order issued in connection with the second offence, for when he has been charged, cannot be acceded to.
(2.)THE petitioner joined the West bengal National Volunteer Force on 24th March, 1955 as a Platoon Commander (Tailor) and he has alleged that on such appointment, he was performing his duties to the entire satisfaction of the authorities concerned and there was or has been no adverse remark against him. The petitioner has further alleged that as such Platoon Commander (Tailor), his terms of service and conditions of employment are governed by the West Bengal National volunteer Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and the rules framed there under viz. , West bengal National Volunteer Force Rules, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules ). It has further been alleged that because of such appointment, the petitioner belonged to the subordinate and other ranks within the meaning of section 6 of the said Act, the provisions whereof are quoted here in below :-Section-6 : There shall be the following classes of officers and subordinate other ranks in the force, namely :-Officers. (1) Provincial Commandant, (2) Deputy Provincial Commandant, (3) District or Unit Commandant, (4) Company Commander. Subordinate other ranks. (1) Platoon Commander, (2) Section Commander. He has further alleged that as such platoon Commander (Tailor), he was allotted duties of a Tailor with the same scale of pay of Platoon Commanders, who are allotted other duties. The petitioner has further alleged that as such Platoon Commander, (Tailor)his duties were to repair and maintenance of suit, uniform and other materials of the Unit, as ordered by the Administrative Officer or the Commandant and his daily work was required to be recorded in a register and furthermore he would be responsible for the maintenance and security of the sewing machines and other stores. The aforesaid duties, the petitioner has alleged. have been allotted to him by an order dated 1st August, 1973 being Annexure "a" to the petition. The said order mentions that the petitioner will work under the direct control of Administrative Officer (Q) and where there is, no such office, under A. C. C. (Q) and from a reference to the said order, the duties, responsibilities and obligations of the petitioner, particulars whereof have been mentioned hereinbefore are amply testified.
(3.)ON or about 13th September. 1972, the State Commandant, West Bengal National Volunteer Force, Respondent No. 3, issued a charge sheet against the petitioner on the allegations inter alia that on 22nd July 1972 he did not attend to the repairing (stitching) of some pillows and mattress of the Unit, m. I. room and some other urgent work required to be done by him by the Unit medical Officer. It has also been alleged that on 22nd July, 1972, the petitioner mis-behaved with the said Medical officer. The said charge sheet is Annexure A (1) to the petition and it appears from the statement of facts incorporated therein that there were allegations against the petitioner to the effect that he refused to cut "bandage than" into required pieces and furthermore when the Medical Officer requested him to repair (stitch) some pillows and mattress as mentioned hereinbefore, be refused to do the said work and replied that he was not meant for those works, as he was not a "dhunkar". By the said charge sheet, the petitioner was directed to show cause within 7 days from the date of receipt of the same as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. It appears that on 5th October, 1972, the petitioner addressed a letter to the said Respondent No. 3 for copies of some documents, particulars whereof are mentioned in paragraph 6 of the petition and also in Annexure "b" to the same and the petitioner has also admitted that out of the 4 documents as mentioned in the said list of documents, 3 documents were supplied to him and document No. 3, which is a representation dated 22nd July, 1972 by the petitioner, was not supplied. It has further been mentioned that he was also informed that the allocation of duties, in terms of the Government order in respect of a Tailor, was that, a Tailor would have to perform all "tailoring" works of the establishment, to which he is placed.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.