Bhattacharya, A.C.J. - (1.) This application under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of an applicant before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal and is directed against the order dated 27th November, 2003 passed by the Tribunal in T. A. No. 118 of 1998 by which the writ petitioner challenged the departmental proceeding, the second show-cause notice as well as the subsequent order of reversion.
(2.) The facts giving rise to filing of this application may be summed up thus:- (a) The writ petitioner was a Police Officer and has in fact retired from service on 31st May, 2002 during the pendency of the application before the Tribunal. (b) During his service tenure as a Sub-Inspector of Police, on 31st October, 1985, a truck bearing Registration No.PUM-5303 was seized in connection with Bishnupur Police Station Case No.8 dated 31st October, 1985 under Sections 399/402 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. (c) On the allegation of theft of four new tyres of the said truck and replacement of those by four worn out ones, a first information report was lodged by the then Officer-in-Charge on 13th February, 1986. On the basis of the said report, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate on 14th February, 1986 started a case under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code against 'unknown persons' but ultimately, the same ended as per final report of the Circle Inspector dated 27th August, 1994. (d) The four alleged new tyres of the said truck, suspected to be stolen, were recovered from the house of one Mohan Bauri and a General Diary bearing the Entry No. 574 dated 15th February, 1986 was recorded to that effect. (e) By an order dated 20th February,1986 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bankura, the writ petitioner was placed under suspension. The basis of such suspension was a report of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bishnupur suspecting involvement of the writ petitioner and some other Police Personnel attached to the Bishnupur Police Station in connection with the alleged theft of the four tyres of the said truck. In the said order of suspension, it was alleged that the removal of four tyres had been made at the connivance of the writ petitioner and other Police Personnel and such conduct constituted misconduct unbecoming of a member of the disciplined force.The said order of suspension was intended to be effective from 21st February,1986 pending enquiry into the conduct of the petitioner and the other Police Personnel in the contemplated disciplinary proceedings and completion of investigation of Bishnupur Police Station Case No. 6(2) of 1986 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. (f)Thereafter, a charge-sheet dated 5th March, 1986 in connection with the disciplinary proceeding was served upon the petitioner. In the said charge-sheet, the petitioner had been accused of gross misconduct and dereliction of duty unbecoming of a Police Officer and it was alleged that the petitioner connived at the removal of those seized tyres and wanted to hush up the matter. (g) The writ petitioner subsequently made representation for withdrawing the suspension order and ultimately, the suspension order was withdrawn in the month of May, 1986. As the Enquiring Officer did not supply the necessary papers and documents which were vital before recording the evidence, the writ petitioner made written prayer by his application dated March 30, 1986 before the said Officer but no step was taken to supply the same. (h) As no step was taken to supply the essential documents on the basis of his application date March 30,1986, the writ petitioner made further prayer before the Superintendent of Police, Bankura on 9th April, 1986, but even then no step was taken to supply those documents. The writ petitioner thereafter made further prayer before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bankura Range which was duly received by the said Officer on May 28, 1986 but in spite of receiving those three applications, the employer did not care to supply those documents. (i) During the pendency of the proceedings, the writ petitioner was transferred from Bankura to Midnapore and up to the date of retirement, viz., May 31st, 2002, he served in Midnapore since 1986. The respondents concerned kept themselves silent regarding the disciplinary proceedings being Disciplinary Proceeding No.6 of 1986. Ultimately, the Reserve Officer of Midnapore Police Line by his Memo No.8337/R.O. dated December 18, 1989 had served a copy of the Enquiry Report and/or findings dated October 17, 1987 submitted by the Enquiring Officer in connection with Bankura District Proceeding Case No. 6 of 1986. The charges made against the petitioner were shown to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in the said report. The writ-petitioner received the said report on January 1st, 1990. (j) After receiving the report, he asked the respondent No.4, the Superintendent of Police, Midnapore for personal hearing on 24th January, 1990. The petitioner, however, had already appeared before the said authority and submitted that the enquiry-report had not been submitted in accordance with law. But, surprisingly, on 15th February, 1990 he received a letter dated 5th February, 1990 issued by the Reserve Officer, Midnapore by which he was directed to reply to the show-cause in writing within seven days on receipt of the show-cause notice as to why he should not be dismissed from service. (k) Challenging the said notice, a writ application being C.O. No.10549 (W) of 1990 was moved before this Court. The said application was entertained by a learned Single Judge by passing direction for filing affidavit-in-opposition and reply and the learned Single Judge was further pleased to direct that if any final order was passed that would abide by the result of the pending writ application. (I) During the pendency of the said writ applicationon 24th December, 1990, the writ petitioner came to know that the respondent No.4, the Superintendent of Police, Midnapore by his order dated 18th December, 1990 had passed the final order in the Proceeding No.6 of 1986 by reverting him to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police from the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police. A further affidavit was affirmed by the writ petitioner challenging the said order of demotion in the pending writ application, which was subsequently transferred, to the Tribunal after the Constitution of the same. (m) By the order impugned herein, the Tribunal has dismissed the application thereby affirming the enquiry report as well as the final order of dismissal.
(3.) Being dissatisfied, the writ petitioner has come up with the present writ application.;