BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA,CJ. - (1.) THESE two writ -applications were heard analogously as common question of law and fads are involved herein. We, however, propose to deliver the judgment separately, one after the other. This application being W.P.S.T. No. 52 of 2007 under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of an unsuccessful application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act and is directed against order dated November 21, 2006 passed by the State Administrative Tribunal thereby rejecting the application filed by the writ petitioner, in which he challenged the initiation of a departmental proceedings being Howrah GRP, District. Proceeding No. 12 of 2004, the report of the .Enquiring Officer in respect of the said proceedings given under his signature dated 6th January, 2005 and a second show -cause notice dated January 29, 2005 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Government Railway Police, Howrah, proposing punishment of dismissal of service on the ground that the charge had been proved.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to filing of the said application may be summed up thus: (a) The writ -petitioner is a constable and was posted at Howrah Government Railway Police. On May 26, 2004, the writ petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 26th May, 2004 issued by the Superintendent of Police, GRP Howrah. Subsequently, on May 27, 2004 the writ -petitioner was served with a charge -sheet wherein allegation was made that while attached to Howrah GRP, on May 2, 2004, he was allotted platform -duty at platform Nos. 14 and 15 of the Howrah Railway Station from 12:00 hrs. to 18:00 hrs. On that day, at about 16:00 hrs., a group of fifteen boys was in a queue at platform No. 14 of Howrah Railway Station for availing Coromondal Express for Hyderabad with proper tickets and the writ -petitioner along with other constable, namely, Prasenjit Ghosh and one Anup Tarafdar, an Assistant Sub -Inspector demanded cash of Rs. 20/ - per head as a bribe for their sitting accommodation and they having expressed their inability to pay the money, the petitioner drove them away from the queue, as a result, the train left the station hi the meantime and they could not avail of the said train. According to the employer, instead of performing platform -duty, he harassed one group of bona fide passengers and demanded money with some ulterior motive by abusing the post and power and thereby lowered the image of entire police community in general and the Government Railway Police in particular in the eyes of public. (b) By a letter dated 1st June, 2004 the writ -petitioner submitted his written statement thereby denying all the charges and prayed for permission for appointment of a defence help. (c) During the enquiry, the prosecution produced three prosecution witnesses and exhibited four documents but no defence witness was produced on behalf of the writ -petitioner. In course of examination of PWs, it appeared that PW -1 had no direct knowledge about the incident. What he said was that on hearing of complaint from one Mohan Yadav, he got information about the alleged misdeed but the said Mohan Yadav could not be examined as prosecution witness as he could not be traced in spite of attempt to serve summons upon him. (d) The said PW -1 categorically admitted that the Coromondal Express left Howrah at 14:25 hrs. on 2nd May, 2004 and he did not know why the complainant, viz., Mohan Yadav came to Howrah GRP at about 16:00 hrs. when it should take hardly five minutes to come to How rah GRP from Platform No. 14. The other witnesses gave their version on the basis of hearsay. (e) The Enquiring Officer found the writ -petitioner guilty and subsequently, a second show -cause .notice was issued as to why the writ -petitioner should not be dismissed from service. (f) On the date of filing of the application before the Tribunal, order of dismissal was served upon the writ -petitioner. The application filed by the writ -petitioner before the Tribunal was contested by the respondents and ultimately, the Tribunal below by the order impugned herein has dismissed the application.
(3.) BEING dissatisfied, the writ -petitioner has come up with the present application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.;