- (1.)THIS appeal under cl. 15 of the letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order of M. N. Roy, J. , made in Civil rule No. 52 (W) of 1974 discharging the Rule.
(2.)THE petitioner was an employee of the respondent No. 1 and was at the relevant time working as Chief Inspector, Food and Supplies at Bongaon in the District of 24 Parganas. On May 4, 1978, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet alleging inter alia: charge No. 1: That while employed as inspector, F. and S. Ranaghat, Nadia during the year 1959, you had been in possession of pecuniary assert to the extent of Rs. 10,700 which is disproportionate to the known sources of your income and which you failed to satisfactorily account for and may be presumed to have been acquired by you by corrupt means or otherwise obscuring (sic) your power as public servant. Charge No. 2: That while employed as inspector, F. and S. , Ranaghat, Nadia, you purchased and acquired a building at Sidnantapara, Ranaghat (Vide deed No. 1, 2033 dt. 4-3-59) in the name of your dependant wife S. n. Protima Rani Ghosh at a very low price and that you concealed this fact of acquisition by not wilfully obtaining prior permission of the Government to acquire such a low price and that you thus wilfully violated the provision of Rule No. 15 (2) of the west Bengal Govt. Servants' Conduct Rules, 1959. Charge No. 3: That while employed as inspector, F. and S. Ranaghat, you gave loan of a big amount of Rs. 57,000 to your relative in 1968 without having any prior sanction of the government and that you thus violated the provision of Rule No. 14 of the West Bengal Government servants' Conduct Rules, 1959.
(3.)THE petitioner was directed to submit his written statement of defence to one Mr. T. C. Guha, District Controller of Food and Supplies, nadia who was appointed as enquiry officer for holding enquiry into the said charges against the petitioner by the respondent No. 2, the Director, District Distribution Procurement and Supply. This charge-sheet has been annexed as Annexure "a" to the petition. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence denying all those charges and praying for the assistance of a lawyer to represent him in the disciplinary proceeding. The petitioner sent a letter dated August, 17, 1970 to the enquiring officer praying for examination of his mother who was a vital witness as she was keeping indifferent health. He also requested the enquiring officer for expediting the enquiry. This prayer was rejected and the petitioner was informed of the same by the enquiring officer by his letter dated 11th December, 1971. The petitioner again after a lapse of more than one year requested the enquiring officer by his letter dated 21st December, 1971 to examine his mother who was material defence witness at her residence in Calcutta as she was bedridden owing to various ailments. No reply was received to the said letter by the petitioner. The petitioner was informed by the enquiry officer that he would not be permitted to engage a lawyer by letter dt. February 23, 1972. Witnesses were examined and cross-examined and the petitioner was eagerly waiting for the report of the enquiring officer. But on March 31, 1973, another charge-sheet containing identical charges was served on the petitioner by the respondent No. 2. The charges are : "article of charge 1. That Shri Manindra nath Ghose, in the year 1959, while functionating as Inspector, Food and supply, Ranaghat (Nadia), was found to have disproportionate assets to the extent of Rs. 27,300 in the shape of cash of Rs. 10,700 and house properly in Ranaghat the valuation of which would be Rs. 16,600 and as such his conduct is unbecoming of a Government servant. Article of charge 2. That the said Shri manindra Nath Ghosh while functioning as Chief Inspector of Food and supplies, Krishnanagar, Nadia, in the year 1968, had lent a sum of rs. 5,700 to his son-in-law without any prior sanction and this amount of loan not being a small amount, he violated Rule 14 of the West Bengal government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1959.