Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. - (1.) Sushil Kumar Ganguly, the Respondent No. 1. at the relevant time was an Examiner in the Air Sorting Office, Dum Dum Airport under the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, Sri P. G. Pal, Assistant Collector of Customs held an enquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 against the present Respondent No. 1 in respect of two articles of charge. By his report, the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the first charge which was to the effect that while functioning as the Examiner posted at Air Sorting Office at Dum Dum Airport on 17th December, 1978, he was found to be under the influence of intoxicating drink and had thereby violated Rule 22(a) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The Enquiry Officer, however, found that the prosecution could not prove against the present Respondent No. 1 the second charge that he had attempted to pilfer some article, namely one silken shirt and one handkerchief, from one registered package during examination in the Air Sorting Office, Dum Dum Airport on 17th December, 1978 and that he had failed to maintain absolute integrity and bad acted in a manner highly unbecoming of a government servant and had violated sub-rules (i) and (iii) of Rule 2(1) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. By his order dated 8th January, 1981, the Collector of Customs, Calcutta disagreed with the aforesaid finding of the Enquiry Officer. The Collector of Customs held that the second charge of attempting to pilfer articles from one registered package during examination on 17th December, 1978 had been fully established against the Respondent No. 1. The Collector of Customs found that there was no doubt of the fact that on 17th December, 1978 during duty hours the Respondent No. 1 had consumed liquor but there was no conclusive proof in his behaviour or otherwise during the relevant time that he was in a state of intoxication so as to attract the provisions of Rule 22(b) of the Conduct Rules. The Collector of Customs, Calcutta, imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement upon Respondent No. 1, Sushil Kumar Ganguly.
(2.) Sushil Kumar Ganguly, the Respondent No. 1 herein, filed an application under Article 226 af the Constitution of India challenging the said disciplinary proceedings against him which culminated in issue of the order for his compulsory retirement. Upon the said apolication Civil Rule No. 601(W) of 1981 was issued. On 18th July, 1984, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Samir Kumar Mookerjee made the said Rule absolute obtained by Sushil Kumar Ganguly (the Respondent No. 1 herein) and quashed the impugned order for his compulsory retirement and also the entire enquiry proceeding. The learned Judge ordered that a Writ of Mandamus be issued commanding the respondents not to give effect or further effect to the said order for compulsory retirement. The learned trial Judge also directed the respondents to reinstate the writ petitioner with all due benefits in accordance with law and to pay all his dues treating to be in service. Being aggrieved, by the said judgment dated 18th July, 1984 of Samir Kumar Mookerjee, J., the Union of India, the Collector of Customs and others have presented this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
(3.) The learned trial Judge, inter alia, held that the Disciplinary Authority did not record reasons for his disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and had merely stated that the findings of the Enquiring Officer were not acceptable. Mr. Banerjee, who had appeared on behalf of the appellants, has pointed out that as the Disciplinary Authority the Collector of Customs had in fact recorded his own reasons for finding that the delinquent Officer was not guilty of Charge No. 1 but he was guilty of Charge No. 2. The learned trial Judge himself in his judgment had observed "No doubt it i. e. the Disciplinary Authority) has tried to arrive at his own finding upon an appraisal of the evidence but such finding could not be said to be findings which a reasonable man could or should on the existing state of evidence reach." In other words according to the learned trial Judge the findings of the Disciplinary Authority about the charges framed against the respondent officer were in effect perverse. The Disciplinary Authority was not expected to write out a judgment in the manaer an ordinary court law does. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 in case of its disagreement. with the findings of the Enquiring Officer on any article of charge, the Disciplinary Authority is to record its reasons for such disagreement and also to record its own findings on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose.;