GOLAM MOHIUDDIN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At all times material for the purposes of this Rule, the petitioner was employed as the Curator of the Indian Botanical Gardens at Sibpore, District Howrah. On July 21, 1958, the petitioner was suspended from service, because there was an enquiry for alleged misconduct started against him by the Anti-Corruption Department of Police. Apparently acting on the report submitted by the Police, C. K. Ray (respondent. No. 3), the then Secretary, Forest Department, by a notice, dated October 17, 1958, charged the petitioner with several misconducts as hereinbelow stated :

(2.) In this Rule, however, I am concerned with Charges I(c), II, III and V, in respect of which charges alone the petitioner has been found guilty either wholly or in part. Along with the charge-sheet there was a "statement of facts" served upon the petitioner and hereinbelow are set out the material portions from the said statement :

(3.) The petitioner alleges that the charges against him had their genesis in the personal vendetta of certain persons, who got the support of certain political leaders and a section of the press and who were aided by Satyendra Nath Mukherjee, Deputy Commissioner Anti-Corruption Department of the police. In elaboration of this part of his case, he says that one Asutosh Banerjee and his son Sukumar Banerji were respectively the Head Clerk and the Overseer in the Botanical Gardens. The petitioner says that he found out that the said Asutosh Banerji was guilty of various counts of misconduct in service and complained against him to the authorities. As a result of that, the said Asutosh Banerjee was dismissed from service. That action against Asutosh Banerjee enraged Beni Chandra Dutt, a member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly, who was an intimate friend of Asutosh Banerjee. Sukumar Banerjee above named also became inimically disposed towards the petitioner, because the petitioner was primarily responsible for the disgrace suffered by his father Asutosh Banerjee. The petitioner further says that the said Beni Chandra Dutt and Sukumar Banerjee started, by way of vengeance, a malicious campaign of publicly vilifying Elm for sexual immorality, spying for Pakistan and for other anti-social activities. The petitioner also says that the campaign was taken up by a Bengali daily newspaper known as 'Ananda Bazar Patrika', through the intervention of Dhananjoy Banerjee, a correspondent of the said daily, who was himself a friend of the said Beni Chandra Dutt and was also a relative of Asutosh Banerjee. Ultimately the petitioner says, Beni Chandra Dutt made several complaints against the petitioner before the State Government. The State Government, it is said directed an enquiry into the complaints and entrusted the investigation to Satyendra Nath Mukherjee, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Anti-Corruption Department. To the misfortune of the petitioner, it is alleged, Satyendra Nath Mukherjee became ill-disposed towards the petitioner from the very inception, on the supposed belief that the petitioner had helped the wife of one Alwin Biswas, a favourite Sub-Inspector of Police under the said Satyendra Nath Mukherjee, in her quarrel with her husband. The investigation report, prepared by Satendra Nath Mukherjee, was, it is said, a malicious report against the petitioner, prepared without any opportunity to him to explain the situation and principally based on maliciously false information supplied by persons like Sukumar Banerjee, Beni Chandra Dutt, Alwin Biswas and also others, who were either intimate with the abovenamed persons or were otherwise inimically disposed towards the petitioner. Amongst the various grievances against the report, made by the petitioner, I need refer to two specific grievances, at this stage. The petitioner says that he had caused disciplinary action being started against Sukumar Banerjee and as a result of the proceeding Sakumar Banerjee was found guilty of misconduct; but that notwithstanding the report eulogised Sukumar Banerjee as a loyal public servant and as a person who had displayed commendable concern for the purity of administration. The report, it is said, accepted irresponsible informations supplied by Sukumar Banerjee against the petitioner on their face value. The other grievance made against the report was that the same was meant to be a confidential document; but that notwithstanding Satyendra Nath Mukherjee in collusion with Beni Chandra Dutt, caused a summary of the said report being published in the press even before the petitioner had been formally charged with misconduct. In these alleged circumstances, the petitioner characterised the initiation of departmental action against him as the product of political pressure. The respondent No. 3, who was at the material time the Secretary of the Forest; Department, it is alleged, although himself otherwise convinced was made to sign the charge-sheet prepared at the instance of Satyendra Nath Mukherjee and others.