Chittatosh Mookerji, J. - (1.) The petitioner is an Inspector of Boilers in the West Bengal Boilers Services. On 9th May, 1975 the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Labour Department, by Memorandum No. 1969 GE conveyed the order of the Governor of West Bengal under Rule 7(1)(c) of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 placing the petitioner under suspension on and from the date of the service of the said order until further orders. During the period of his suspension the petitioner would draw a subsistance allowance @ 50% of his pay plus allowances admissible under the Rules. The Secretary to the Government of West Bengal by Memorandum No. 1970 GE dated 11th May, 1973 informed the petitioner that the Governor proposed to hold an enquiry under Rule 10 of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 against the petitioner. The substance of imputations of misconduct and misbehaviour in respect of which the said enquiry was proposed to be held were set out under three articles of charge. A statement of imputations in support of these articles of charge and a list of witnesses were also enclosed to the said Memorandum. Sri R. Banerjee, the Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries, Vigilance Commission by Order No. 1971 dated 11th May, 1973 was appointed as the Enquiry Authority to enquire into the said charges framed against the petitioner. An Inspector of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Vigilance Commission was appointed to represent the Disciplinary Authority in the said departmental proceeding against the petitioner.
(2.) The petitioner in this Rule has challenged the aforesaid order of suspension passed against him on the ground that the same was malafide. He has also impugned the disciplinary proceeding against him on the ground that the charge-sheet shows that the Disciplinary Authority is biased and it has already reached the conclusion about the guilt of the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority had recorded its finding in the charge-sheet itself and the said authority had a closed mind. Therefore, the purported inquiry proceeding would be and idle formality and the same is void ab-initio.
(3.) Mr. Siblal Bose, the learned Advocate for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy for redress of his aforesaid two grievances and, therefore, this writ petition is no longer entertainable. Under proviso to Rule 14 of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1971 no appeal shall lie against the order of suspension under Rule 7 made by the Governor as the Appointing Authority. In the instant case, the Governor of West Bengal passed the impugned order of suspension. Therefore, the said order of suspension is not appealable. Rule 15 provides for an appeal against orders imposing the penalties specified in Rule 8. In the instant case, no penalty has yet been imposed upon the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has challenged the disciplinary proceeding initiated under Rule 10 on the ground that the same is void ab-initio. The West bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 do not provide for any remedy or redress for the said grievances of the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority has made up its mind and it is biased against the petitioner.;