Bhagavati Prosad Baverjee, J. - (1.) In this case petitioner moved the tribunal against the issuance of a Charge Sheet vide Memo No. 495-P & HR (Vig), dated April 16, 1997. The articles of charge that was served upon the petitioner are as follows:- "It appears that Shri Narayan Barat, while working as Sub-Inspector of Police, S.C.O, Calcutta during the period from 1.1.1975 & 31.12.76, acquired movable assets to the tune of Rs. 21,750/- in the shape of deposit in Bank Accounts, purchase of Scooter and ; Stereo in the names of self and wife Smt. Pratima Barat. Out of the said amount a sum of Rs. 19,299.42 p. say Rs. 19,299/- for which the explanation of Shri Barat does not seem to be convincing, appears to be disproportionate to his known source of income. Details are given in the statement of imputation:- Such conduct of Shri Barat pratima facie shows lack of integrity and is improper and unbecoming of a public servant and as such is violative of Rules 3 & 4 of the West Bengal Govt. Servants' Conduct Rules, 1959."
(2.) In the year 1978 petitioner was called upon by a secret memo issued by the Departmental Authority to appear before the Deputy Superintendent of Police-I, Anti Corruption Bureau, Vigilance Commission with deeds relating to all immovable properties standing in bis name or in the names of his dependents ; (b) L.I.C. Policies, Postal and Bank A/Cs., Fixed Deposit Account standing in his name or in the names of his dependents ; (c) Purchase papers regarding other valuables (Refrigerator, Radiogram, Motor Cycle, Ornaments etc., standing in his name or in the names of his dependents. It appears that the petitioner appears before the Officer pursuant to such notice, dated April 27, 1978 issued by the Joint Commissioner of Police and the petitioner produced all those documents and explained the position, but as the authority concerned remained significantly silent over the matter and not dropping the proceedings formally, petitioner made a representation to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vigilance Commission on July 31, 1980 but without any result. Again the petitioner made a representation before the Vigilance Commissioner, Government of West Bengal on February 2, 1982 drawing the attention of the Commissioner of the fact that he had co-operated with the Investigating Agency with ail papers and documents as called for with the assured understanding that it would quicken the process. But, 7 years had passed without any result. Accordingly, petitioner prayed for quick disposal of the matter. A further representation was made before the Joint Commissioner of Police, Calcutta requesting him to dispose of she matter expeditiously as it caused serious difficulty in the service career of the petitioner, but nothing was done by the authority concerned and the matter was not proceeded with.
(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that after all these, it must be taken that the matter must be deemed to have been dropped altogether. Thereafter by the orders of the Commissioner of Police Calcutta published in the Calcutta Police Gazette, dated June 1,1990 it was informed that the petitioner who was one of the officiating Inspectors who had completed more than two years officiation in the rank of Inspector (Investigating Cadre) was called to appear before the Board the Board after going through the records of those 37 officiating Inspectors Secluding the petitioner and after interviewing them according to their seniority in the Gradation List selected the said Officers including the petitioner as Inspectors in the Approved List-1 in the confirmed rank. At the time of promotion petitioner's records was considered and vigilance clearance was taken. Subsequently, petitioner was given further promotion to the Assistant Commissioner of Police and posted at South Division, Calcutta which was published in the Calcutta Police Gazette, dated January 22, 1996 and now he is confirmed in the post of Assistant Commissioner of Police. While was posted as Assistant Commissioner of Police, petitioner was served with a charge sheet as mentioned above and the petitioner was directed to submit a written statement to his defence to the Enquiry Officer for full-fledged departmental proceedings. Against the initiation of the said departmental proceedings petitioner filed an application before the tribunal and the tribunal rejected the petition relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in She case of Union of India v. Ashok Kacker reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 180 wherein the Supreme Court held that in a departmental proceeding a party will get ail reasonable opportunity of being heard and at the initial stage Court or the tribunal should not interfere with such proceeding.';