KSHETRA MOHAN NATH Vs. DISTRICT CONTROLLER OF STORES E RLY HALISHAHAR
LAWS(CAL)-1969-7-1
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on July 17,1969

KSHETRA MOHAN NATH Appellant
VERSUS
DISTRICT CONTROLLER OF STORES, E.RLY.HALISHAHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

D.Basu, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who entered Into the service as Khalasi under the Eastern Railway, was, at the material time, working as Clerk, Grade III. By the letter at Ann. B., dated the 31st May, 1962, the Controller of Stores (Respondent no. 3) asked the petitioner to submit a complete statement of his assets, movable and immovable by the 15th June, 1962. Another letter was issued by respondent no. 3 to the same effect on the 28th June, 1962 (Ann. C), but on the 26th December, 1962, the charge-sheet at Ann. G was Issued against the petitioner to show cause why he should not be punished for 'disobedience of order' for having failed to submit his statement of assets by the 15th June, 1962, even though he was reminded of his obligation by a second letter.
(2.) In his answer to the charge-sheet (Ann. H), the petitioner stated, inter alia that in course of a proceeding started by the Special Police Establishment, the statement of assets had been called for by them from the petitioner and the petitioner had submitted to them such statement. The petitioner had, by his letter of 4th July, 1962 (Ann. D) requested the Controller to refer to the statement which the petitioner had filed before the Police. Notwithstanding all this, the Controller appointed the Assistant Controller as the Inquiry Officer, on the 21st May, 1963. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on the 28th October, 1964, finding the petitioner guilty (Ann. T.), and, agreeing with that finding, the District Controller (respondent no. 1) issued the second show cause notice at Ann. U, proposing removal from service as the tentative punishment. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner was removed from service by the order of the 8th December, 1964 at Ann. W. made by the District Controller (respondent 1). The petitioner's appeal to the Controller (respondent 3) filed on the 23rd December, 1964, not having been disposed of in a year, the petitioner moved this Court on the 21st December, 1965 and obtained this Rule, challenging the validity of the charge-sheet, show cause notice and the removal order.
(3.) The petition is opposed by a joint affidavit on behalf of respondents 1-3, by the Assistant Controller, respondent 2.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.