Mohitosh Majumdar, J. - (1.) The writ petition and the Rule are directed against a Memorandum No. E/203(1), dated 6.9.80 together with the Re: Charge - 1 of the Statement of Allegations. The said charge is set out below: " Calcutta Dock Labour Board Statement of Allegations On the basis of which the charges are framed against Sri Sarajit Coomer Mazumder, Designation U.D.C. Re : Charge - 1. It has been reported that in utter disregard to office discipline and decorum Sri Sarajit Coomer Mazumder, U.D.C., has developed a habit in preferring baseless and frivolous representations/allegations to the various authorities. In the past he was advised/warned/instructed time and again to refrain from indulging in such practice; but the fact remains that he has taken no note of that advice/ warning/instruction. Of late, he has directly submitted two representations to the Board's Deputy Chairman giving forth some vague and baseless allegations against the functioning of the Board's Watch & Ward Section."
(2.) The facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner, after receipt of the articles of charge and statement of allegations of misconduct under the cover of the said Memorandum, dated 6.9.89 submitted reply to that by denying the allegations contacted therein. Mr. M. S. Khan L.R.O. was appointed Enquiring Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner by an order and thereafter the enquiry was commenced, continued and concluded. From a reference to the enquiry proceedings as contained in page 44 and page 45 of the petition, it would appear that Sri J. M. Lahiri, the Presentation Officer was cited as one of the witnesses. After conclusion of the enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report copy of which was not supplied to the writ petitioner despite requests. The petitioner was only informed that he may have extracts therefrom and other documents by letters, dated 10-12-1981 and 6th January 1982 which are quoted herein below: "Calcutta Dock Labour Board. Ref. No. E/203(1) Dated 10-12-1981 Sri Sarajit Coomer Mazumder, U.D.C. Watch & Ward Section. Reference this office letter of even number dated 28-10-81, he is again advised to call at this office immediately for taking the note of the enquiry proceedings and submit his reply to the Shaw Cause Notice No. E 203(1), dated 24-8-81 within 15 days from the date of receipt, of this letter. He may note in this connections that no further time will be allowed to him and if no reply is received within the said time, the case will be decided ex parte without making any further reference to him. (2) This also dispose of his Advocate Sri S. R. Bhattacharjee's letters, dated 4-11-81 and 7-12-81. Administrative Officer" "Calcutta Dock Labour Board No. E/203(1) Dated the 6th Jan., 1982 Sri Sarajit Coomer Mazumder, U.D.C. Watch & Ward Section. In connection to this office letter of even number, dated 10-12-81, he is hereby given the last and final chance to take down notes from the Enquiry Proceedings and other relevant documents available at this office and submit his reply, if any, to the Show Cause Notice No. E/203(I), dated 24-8-81 within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter; failing which ex parte decision will be taken without making any further reference to him. This is done only to accord ample opportunity for preparation of his reply in defence, if any, which he may note. 2. This also disposes of his Advocate, Sri S. R. Bhattacharjee's letter, dated 12-12-81. Administrative Superintendent"
(3.) After the enquiry report was submitted, the petitioner was served with the second Show Cause Notice, dated 22-2-82 in terms of Clause 6(ii) of the Board's S.S.R.S. to reply as to why a penalty of withholding his annual grade increment for one year without cumulative effect should not be imposed on him. The petitioner, through his Advocate in reply informed the Administrative Officer that he was not given copy of the findings of the Enquiring Officer on the basis whereof the concerned authority proposed to indict penalty on him. It was also made known to the Authorities that the petitioner's Advocate by letters, dated 4-11-81 and 7-12-81 requested the authority to supply plain copy of the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the basis of which the petitioner was being sought to be inflicted with penalty, but the petitioner was directed only to take down the note of the proceedings. The petitioner in fact was not given copy of the report although requests in writing were made therefore. The administrative body by order, dated February 22, 1982 actually imposed penalty of withholding annual grade increment for one year without cumulative effect upon the petitioner, as stated above.;