Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) This writ application has arisen out of the judgment and order dated 5.1.1998 passed by Hon'ble Mr. D.N. Sen, Vice- Chairman and Hon'ble Mr. R. Kharlukhi, Member (Administration) of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta in T.A. No. 430 of 1996. The learned Tribunal has rejected the application of the writ applicant. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of rejection of his application, the writ applicant has filed the present writ application.
(2.) Fact in short is that the writ applicant was appointed as lower division clerk in the office of the District Magistrate, Purulia and then he and his colleague, Sri Nemai Chandra Pandey, were on deputation for the purpose of back-log cases of mutation at the Settlement. Office at Neturia under the District of Purulia to work under the guidance of one Sri Ajit Banerjee, Junior Land Reforms Officer at Neturia. They were entrusted with the work of verifying the documents of the land owners for mutation of their names free of cost. Later, complaints were made against the writ applicant and others, that they were demanding bribes from the villagers for making mutation of their names. The matter was enquired into by the Vigilance Commissioner, West Bengal. The writ applicant was placed under suspension on 18.2.1976. The Vigilance Commission, West Bengal held enquiries and the writ applicant was found guilty of the charges levelled against him and he was dismissed from service. The writ applicant preferred an appeal which was also dismissed. The enquiry was held against Sri Nemai Chandra Pandey who was also, found guilty by the Vigilance Commission, West Bengal along with the writ applicant. But later he was exonerated from the Departmental proceedings as the Disciplinary authority did not start any enquiry afresh against him in view of the direction of the Hon'ble Court, Calcutta. So the enquiry against the writ applicant was not properly held. The Appellate Authority did not consider the case of the writ applicant also. So the order of dismissal as passed by the Disciplinary Authority was not proper. The Appellate Authority had also dismissed his appeal. In the circumstances, the writ applicant preferred the application before the learned Tribunal but the learned Tribunal failed to consider the points raised by the writ applicant and as such his application before the learned Tribunal was rejected. Hence, the writ applicant has filed the present writ application against the order of rejection.
(3.) Having considered the record and submissions made by the leaned Advocates of both the writ applicant and the State, we find that it is not in dispute that the writ applicant was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Office of the District Magistrate, Purulia in August, 1973 and that subsequently he was sent on deputation for the purpose of backlog cases of mutation at the settlement office at Neturia, Purulia under the District of Purulia to work under the guidance of one Sri Ajit Banerjee, the then Junior Land Reforms Officer at Neturia. Admittedly, while he was posted on deputation he was charge-sheeted with the allegation of receiving illegal gratification from the persons who came to him for mutation of their lands. Admittedly, the Vigilance Commission, West Bengal held departmental enquiry against the writ applicant and others and the writ applicant participated in the Departmental Proceedings. Admittedly, in the meantime, the writ applicant was suspended on 18.12.1976. Admittedly, he filed written statement on 6.12.1977 in the Departmental Proceedings denying the allegations. Admittedly, the Vigilance Commission, West Bengal held that the writ applicant was found guilty of the Articles of Charge I and II and it recommended to the Disciplinary Authority for awarding punishment. Admittedly, thereafter the Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of dismissal against the writ applicant on 3.8.1991. It is also an admitted position that the writ applicant preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal. Admittedly, by the order dated 28.9.1994, the Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal preferred by him against the order of dismissal.;