SUNIL KUMAR MUKERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
SUNIL KUMAR MUKERJEE
State of West Bengal and Others
Click here to view full judgement.
Murari Mohan Dutta, J. -
(1.)The petitioner, Sunil Kumar Mukerjee, is an Inspector (Technical) of Motor Vehicles, Malda. Certain allegations were made against the petitioner and after a preliminary investigation by the Vigilance Commission, a charge sheet dated March 17, 1976 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt, of West Bengal was served upon him. The charge sheet contained two items of charge which are set out below :
Charge I. That the said Sri Sunil Kumar Mukerjee, while functioning as M.V. Inspector (Technical) P.V. Deptt., Calcutta, during the period from 1965 to 1967, was found in possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of his income to the extent of Rs. 10,061.02 in 1965, Rs. 2 203.46 in 1966 and Rs. 8,252.80 in 1967 and that his conduct as such is unbecoming of a Govt. Servant.
Charge II. That the said Sunil Kumar Mukerjee, while functioning as above permitted his wife Sm. Bharati Mukerjee to purchase a car on 19-7-1965 and sell the same on 9-1-1967, without obtaining prior permission from his appointing authority and thus violated Clause (b) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the West Bengal Govt. Servants Conduct Rules, 1959.
In the Charge sheet, the assets of the petitioner on the basis of his declaration as on 1-1-1965 and 1-1-1966 and his income and expenditure during 1965, 1966 and 1967 have been stated. It has been alleged, inter alia, that his assets during these years were disproportionate to his income. Further, it has been alleged that on enquiry, it was found that on 19-7-1965 his wife purchased an old car for Rs. 2,550.00 from one Bhabani Prosad Dutta and sold the same on 9-1-1967 to one Asim Bhusan Biswas for Rs. 3,501.00 without obtaining prior permission from his appointing authority.
(2.)It has been already stated that there was an investigation before the charge-sheet was issued. During that investigation, the Investigating Officer examined a number of witnesses and thereafter submitted a report, The petitioner by his letter dated May 19, 1973, addressed to the Enquiring Officer prayed for allowing him to take copies of the depositions of all the witnesses examined by the Investigating Officer and the copy of the original complaint made against him. He also asked for a copy of the report submitted by the Investigating Officer. The Enquiring Officer by his order dated May 19, 1973, directed that the petitioner would get copies of statements of only those witnesses on whom the prosecution would rely. The copies of depositions of those witnesses were supplied to the petitioner along with the copies of some other documents as mentioned in the charge sheet. He, however, refused to supply to the petitioner a copy of the report of the Investigating Officer on the ground that the same would not he relied upon by the prosecution. The petitioner also by an application dated May 19, 1973, asked for allowing him to engage a lawyer of his choice to conduct the defence case on the ground that Sri. A.K. Roy Chowdhury who was to conduct the prosecution case was well conversant with the procedural matters as well as an expert in conducting prosecution cases. The Enquiring Officer did not acceed to the request of the petitioner for engaging a lawyer to conduct his case on the ground that there was no legal or factual complications in the case. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the charges.
(3.)In the enquiry, certain witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The petitioner cross-examined the said witnesses and filed documents in support of his case. He also examined some defence witnesses. After the close of the evidence, the petitioner filed an application before the Enquiring Officer praying for allowing him to examine himself as a defence witness. He also prayed that he would depose by referring to certain documents which he had brought with him. The Enquiring Officer by his order dated April, 1975, allowed the petitioner to examine himself but refused him to file any documents or to refer to the same during his evidence.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.