- (1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner [an Inspector of the Railway Protection Force (hereafter the Force), posted at Santragachi] has questioned the propriety, legality and validity of the charge-sheet dated 8th January, 2009 (annexure P-3), and the orders of suspension (annexure P-4) and temporary attachment (annexure P-5), both dated 29th January, 2009, issued by the respondent No.3, being his disciplinary authority viz. the Senior Security Commissioner of the Force, South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur. The disciplinary authority has also been impleaded in the petition eo nomine as respondent No.4. The charge relates to alleged acceptance of illegal gratification by the petitioner from certain shop holders.
(2.) The disciplinary authority mentioned in the charge-sheet that Mr. S.N. Sinha, Assistant Security Commissioner had been nominated as he Enquiry Officer and the first date of enquiry has been fixed on 27th January, 2009 at the venue indicated therein. The petitioner was requested to attend the enquiry failing which it would be conducted ex- parte. It was further informed thereby that if for the purpose of preparing defence the petitioner wishes to inspect and take extracts from any official records, a list of such records must be furnished to the Enquiry Officer within the time granted.
(3.) In State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna, reported in AIR 2001 SC 343, the Apex Court observed as follows: "34. The High Court while delving into the issue went into the factum of announcement of the Chief Minister in regard to appointment of an enquiry officer to substantiate the frame of mind of the authorities and thus depicting bias-what bias means has already been dealt with by us earlier in this Judgment, as such it does not require any further dilation but the factum of announcement has been taken note of as an illustration to a mindset viz.: the inquiry shall proceed irrespective of the reply-is it an indication of a free and fair attitude towards the officer concerned? The answer cannot possibly be in the affirmative. It is well settled in service jurisprudence that the authority concerned has to apply its mind upon receipt of reply to the charge-sheet or show-cause as the case may be, as to whether a further inquiry is called for. In the event upon deliberations and due considerations it is in the affirmative-the inquiry follows but not otherwise and it is this part of service jurisprudence on which reliance was placed by Mr. Subramanium and on that score, strongly criticised the conduct of the respondents (sic appellants) herein and accused them of being biased. We do find some justification in such a criticism upon consideration of the materials on record.";