Debasish Kar Gupta, J. - (1.) This writ application is filed by the petitioner challenging the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner by issuing a charge-sheet dated October 15, 1996 and the order of punishment dated October 12, 1998 passed therein.
(2.) The petitioner, while working for gain under the respondent authority as a "Sramik", received a charge-sheet dated October 15, 1996. The article of charges disclosed that there was disruption of power at premises No.AE-329 at Harry Guest House, Salt Lake, Kolkata. The petitioner along with the other went to this spot for repairing works. The repairing was done by the petitioner and another employee of the respondent authority on receipt of bribe amounting to Rs.1500 on May 27, 1996 from the Manager of the above Guest House. Subsequently, the owner of the above Guest House lodged a complaint to that effect. The petitioner submitted his reply to the above charge-sheet. A prayer was made by the petitioner to the Enquiry Officer for supply of eight documents out of which four documents were supplied to him. The other documents were not considered to be relevant according to Enquiry Officer. The enquiry report was submitted to the respondent authority. The disciplinary authority sent the second show-cause notice dated February 12, 1998 to the petitioner proposing the punishment of "dismissal from service". Thereafter, the petitioner passed the impugned order of punishment dismissing the petitioner from the services of the respondent authority. Hence this writ application.
(3.) Mr. Bidyut Kr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the Manager of the Harry Guest House, namely, Mr. S.D' Cruze, though allegedly gave the bribe to the petitioner, did not lodged the complaint. He submits that the charge-sheet was issued on the basis of the preliminary enquiry report. But the copy of that enquiry report was not delivered to the petitioner. It is also submitted by him that the above transaction was allegedly recorded in the accounts book as repairing charges. The accounts book was not produced in course of enquiry proceeding. So, the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved in the reply to the show-cause notice the above point was raised by the petitioner. But the disciplinary authority did not accept the contention of the petitioner. So, the order of punishment is liable to be set aside.;