Chakravartti, C.J. - (1.) The appellant, Patit Paban Bose, commenced his employment under the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta on the 20th of September, 1921, as a Ticket Collector in their Perry service. By 1950, he had risen to be one of the Forwarding Clerks at the Calcutta Jetties of his employers.
(2.) In 1950, the Commissioners came to detect certain cases of theft of goods lying in their jetties. It was found that on the 13th of April, 1950, a wagon had been loaded from the Import Warehouse (South) of the Calcutta Jetty without any proper document and that it had been drawn out without any shunting order being issued therefor. On the next day, the wagon had been placed before the compartment of a firm called Prayagdas Mathuradas at the Strand Warehouse and the contents of the wagon delivered to a representative of the firm without any invoice at all. Similarly, on the 9th of June, 1950, another wagon had been loaded, drawn out and delivered to the same firm without any authority. The detection of these thefts and the modus operandi adopted in committing them led the Commissioners to suspect that a serious conspiracy was afoot for removing goods from their jetties and that some of their own employees were involved in the conspiracy. Accordingly, they started an investigation.
(3.) On the dates of the two detected thefts, the appellant was one of the Forwarding Clerks on duty at the Import Warehouse (South) of the Calcutta Jetty. On the 1st of December, 1950, he was asked by the Personal Assistant to the Truffle Manager to answer certain written questions relating to the incidents as also to the checks usually made by him to ensure the loading of wagons and the local delivery of their contents under genuine documents. There is a dispute between the parties as to whether a formal notice was served on the appellant or whether he was simply sent for by the Personal Assistant, but which ever procedure was followed, it is not disputed that he answered the questions on the same day. His answers were found unsatisfactory. On the 14th of December, 1950, a notice was issued to him by the Traffic Manager whereby he was asked to show cause in writing through the Superintendent Jetties and Works by the 20th of December, 1950, why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for gross neglect of duty. In compliance with that notice he submitted an explanation on the 20th of December, 1950. His main defence was that, as a Forwarding Clerk, his duty was only to look after the loading of stocks for which he had himself sent in indents and that he had had no concern with the wagons which had been used in the thefts.;