- (1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order of D. Basu, J. discharging the Rule obtained by the petitioner. The petitioner at the material time was a Lower Division Assistant in Malda Collectorate. On 4.1.65 Departmental Proceeding was initiated against him by the Collector of Malda and copy of charges and allegations were served on him. On 5.1.65 the Collector passed an order placing the petitioner under suspension. The order is to the following effect: In consequence of the Departmental proceedings drawn up against you (vide case No. 1(28) 65) you ere hereby placed under suspension with immediate effect. During the period of suspension, you will be paid as follows: (a) a subsistence grant at the rate of one-half of your pay on the date of Suspension. (b) Dearness allowance at the rate at which it was drawn by you on the date of suspension. Provided that the payment under clause (a) and clause (b) above shall be made unless you furnish a certificate to the entire satisfaction of the undersigned that you are not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation. The petitioner called for copies of the documents some of which were given while others stated to be not available. It appears that the petitioner filed his written-statement on 24.3.65. It was contended that in spite of the order of the Enquiring Officer for production of relevant documents at the hearing, the petitioner was not given opportunity to look into the records. The Enquiring Officer submitted his report on 12.7.65 stating that the petitioner was guilty of the four charges made against him and in view of the nature of the offence committed by him, he was unworthy of being retained in public service. The Collector on consideration of the enquiry report came to the finding that there was lapse on the part of the petitioner except in four cases in respect of second charge and the petitioner was guilty of the charge of short realisation of amounts and negligence in maintaining those case records. It was further held that the fourth charges appeared to have been proved and charges 1, 3 and 4 were of serious nature. The Collector was of opinion that the petitioner was unworthy of being retained in service and should be dismissed. By his order dated 3.5.66 he directed the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner (hereupon moved this Court on 1.7.66 under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution contending that the Disciplinary Proceedings were vitiated inter alia by contravention of the principle of natural justice, as all relevant documents were not made available to him. Further, the documents directed to be produced by the Enquiring Officer at the hearing were not so produced which caused serious prejudice to him. It was also contended that the State Government had no power or authority to suspend the petitioner pending enquiry or to withhold whole or part of his remuneration during the period of his suspension.
(2.) On this petition a rule nisi was issued by this Court calling upon the respondents, State of West Bengal and others, to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus should not issue directing them to cancel or withdraw the order suspending the petitioner and withholding part of his salary and also the disciplinary proceedings and further, why a writ in the nature of certiorari should not issue quashing the said orders and proceedings.
(3.) Cause was shown by the Collector of Malda on behalf of the respondents denying all allegations made in the petition. It was contended that all actions taken so far were in accordance with law and no principle of natural justice was vitiated, as the petitioner was given all possible opportunities for inspection and examination of records relevant for the purpose and he was allowed the help of a lawyer. The petitioner filed an affidavit-in-reply reiterating the allegations and contentions made in the petition.;