Sambuddha Chakrabarti - (1.) The question that has cropped up for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the disciplinary authority taking a different view from that of the enquiry officer who had exonerated the petitioner of the charges, was required to have issued tentative finding of disagreement to the petitioner giving him an opportunity to show-cause before passing the final penalty order and whether the disciplinary authority by his act had violated the principles of natural justice.
(2.) The petitioner joined the service at Haldia Doc Complex in the year 1992 which is a constituent of respondent no. 1, Kolkata Port Trust. On July 18, 2006 the respondents issued a work order in favour of M/s. National Engineering Company for performing a certain work which was completed on February 15, 2008. About seven months after the execution of the work the respondent no. 1 made payment to the contractor with reference to the recording in the measurement book. Subsequently, the respondents detected that a certain quantity of scrap steel was missing and a First Information Report was lodged.
(3.) Since the petitioner was assigned the duty to supervise the movement of the concerned scrap steel at the time of weighing and subsequent storing, a disciplinary action was initiated against him by issuing a charge-sheet. It was also decided to hold on enquiry under Regulation 8 of the Kolkata Port Trust Employees' (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 (the Regulations, for short). An enquiry officer was appointed and after about 27 sittings he abruptly concluded the proceeding without allowing the petitioner to adduce evidence in the enquiry. However, the enquiry officer concluded that none of the charges against the petitioner had been proved. But a copy of the enquiry report was not sent to him immediately. In fact, it was sent to him along with the order of penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority i.e., the respondent no. 3.;