Kalyanmoy Ganguli, J. - (1.) In this application, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges an order of suspension dated 6th January, 1988 issued by the Assistant Security Commissioner (Railway Protection Force), Assansol, Eastern Railway which is annexure 'B' to the writ petition and the charge sheet dated 2nd may 1988 which is annexure 'C to the writ petition. So far as the order of suspension is concerned the authorities under the rules has right to suspend any employee in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding. So on the whole the order of suspension should not be interfered with. But it is common knowledge now part an order of suspension cannot have any retrospective effect. The order of suspension impugned in the application is dated 6th January, 1988 by which the petitioner is sought to be put under suspension with effect from 1st January, 1988. The order is clearly bad so far as the retrospective aspect of the order is concerned. The order shall take effect form the date of the order namely 6th January, 1988 and the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service upto 5th January, 1988 and all his on emoluments must be paid minus what has already been paid upto 5th January, 1988 as if he was in service upto that date.
(2.) The charge -sheet, according to the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner discloses a closed and biased mind inter alia in as must as it states that the petitioner failed to prove and detect the theft of 57 bags of Atap rice and that he stands responsible for supplying faulty seed. The learned advocate for the petitioner urges that in the charge sheet itself the petitioner has been found guilty of the charges and as such the charge sheet should be quashed and set aside.
(3.) In support of his contention Mr. Nandalal Pal. has cited first the case of Meena Janah v/s. Deputy Director of Tourism & Ors., reported in, 1974 (2) SLR 466 in which S. C. Ghosh, J. as his Lordship then was inter alia held that in the facts of the case the charge sheet show prejudging of the annual issue by the punishing authority. It may be noted here that in the said case the charge sheet also proposed the punishment to be meted out to the petitioner. The facts of the said case are distinguishable from the facts of the present case.;