Umesh Chandra Banerjee, J. - (1.) The focal point for consideration in this writ application is in regard to R.10 of the West Bengal Service Death-cum-Retirement Benefit Rules, 1971. Before, however, proceeding further, a brief reference to the factual aspect ought to be made at this juncture.
(2.) The petitioner at the material time was a Sanitary Inspector under the Directorate of Health Services. On 14th February, 1969 the respondent No.2 placed the petitioner under suspension and together therewith also issued a charge-sheet for initiation of a disciplinary proceeding. Subsequently the order of suspension was vacated but the petitioner was transferred from West Dinajpur to Raiganj. But the said order of transfer was not given effect to and another order dated 20th February, 1973 was passed under which the petitioner was sought to be transferred from Balurghat to Bankura. As against the order of transfer the petitioner moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein this Court was pleased to dispose of the writ application by directing that the impugned order of transfer would be kept in abeyance till completion of the departmental enquiry pending against the petitioner. It is the petitioner's definite case that, although the charge-sheet was issued as far back as on 14th February, 1969, but no effective step was taken by the respondent for completion of the proceeding. Eventually however, by an order dated 26th April, 1976 the respondent 2 withdrew the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner by the charge-sheet dated 14th February, 1969. The April, 1976 Order provided that full pay and allowance less subsistence allowance already drawn would be made available to the petitioner and the period of suspension would be treated as period spent on duty. Sub-sequently, however by a Memorandum dated 28th May, 1976, the respondent 2 initiated a fresh disciplinary proceeding under the West Bengal Service Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1971. Immediately on receipt of the same, however, the petitioner as appears from records duly sent his reply thereto denying the allegations levelled against the petitioner. On 31st July, 1976 the petitioner retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation.
(3.) After retirement of the petitioner from the service, the respondents, however, continued with the disciplinary proceeding and in spite of objections by reason of R.10 of the West Bengal Service Death-cum-Retirement Benefit Rules, 1971 and in spite of such objections raised by the petitioner with regard o the continuation of the disciplinary proceeding, the enquiry proceedings continued. As a matter of fact, the venue of such enquiry was also changed from Balurghat to Calcutta. The petitioner intimated that after retirement it would not be possible for him to participate in the enquiry at Calcutta since the same would involve huge expenditure, but without paying any heed to the same the enquiry continued at Calcutta and have supposed to have been concluded without the participation of the petitioner at Calcutta.;