A.K. Sinha, J. - (1.) In this Rule the petitioner prays for quashing an order of his dismissal and also for a mandate to reinstate him in his service. The facts as set out, briefly, are : The petitioner was appointed as Overseer Estimator on 17th January, 1955 by Director of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation. As a result of certain controversy over payment of T. A. Bills and return of some articles between the petitioner and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Satgachia, he was deprived of his yearly increment due on 17th January, 1961 which was not restored. Then, there was a further conflict over the occupation of rest house by one Sri A. R. Ghosh, literate Khalashi as a result of which a charge-sheet was drawn against the petitioner but not proceeded with. Thereafter a memo dated May 24, 1982 (Annexure G) was issued again charging the petitioner as follows : "1. That you have been in the habit of absenting from duty and leaving camp frequently without prior permission of the Controlling Officer, 2. That you left station on 23-4-61 without prior approval of the S. D. O., Satgachia and absented from duty for more than a month, 3. That at the time of taking over charge of the camp no discrepancy was mentioned by you in your charge-report but some discrepancies of stores of rest house were brought to your notice you failed to substantiate the same. Moreover, some of your letters to S. D. O., Satgacbia smack of discourtesy and want of manners, and 4. That you entered inflated measurements for earthwork in flood damage repairs to Distributaries 6 MC, 6 K, 6L/1 and 6 M executed by M/s. D. N. Mitra and Co." The petitioner was placed under suspension and also asked to show cause. The petitioner gave a preliminary explanation with a request for withdrawal of the case. On or about August 3, 1962 one Sri S. K. Mitter, Land Requisition and Liaison Officer, was appointed the Enquiry Officer by the respondent No. 2. He submitted a report on the finding that the charges Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were established. A second show cause notice was issued by the Director of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation and thereafter on consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner by an office order dated October 1, 1964 the petitioner was dismissed from his services with effect from 25th September, 1964. That is how the petitioner felt aggrieved and obtained the present Rule but on grounds limited to b, c, d, f and g of the writ petition.
(2.) At the very outset I must observe that this is not a case where the petitioner claims to be holding a 'civil post' within the meaning of Article 211 (2) of the Constitution. What he complains of substantially is that in dismissing him from his service under the Corporation the Disciplinary Authority did not conform to or carry out the specific provision of 'Damodar Valley Corporation Service Regulation' (referred to as the Regulation) in the disciplinary proceedings adopted against him. Mr. Arun Prokash Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner also conceded this position.
(3.) I will now proceed to deal with the aforesaid grounds on merits. In support of the ground 'b' Mr. Chatterjee drew my attention to the first charge-sheet dated July 8, 1961 (Annexure E to the petition) under four heads with three sub-heads under Item No. 3 issued by the Executive Engineer, Construction Division. The petitioner submitted an explanation to this charge-sheet. Although this charge-sheet was not withdrawn, by another memo dated May 24, 1962 the petitioner was charged with misconduct almost on identical allegations under four heads. This time, the Director of Personnel issued the charges and placed the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect with a direction to show cause against punishment in accordance with the Regulations.;