RANJIT KUMAR CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal against a judgment and decree of dismissal is by the plaintiff who is a discharged Government servant in the Bengal Fire Service and who instituted a suit for a declaration that the order of his discharge which in effect is alleged to be an order of dismissal is void and inoperative, for a further declaration that he continues to be a member of the Bengal Fire Service and is as such entitled to all the benefits thereof and for a consequential relief in the shape of a decree for arrears of salary to the extent of Rs.9,120/- with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent per annum. His case as made out in the plaint was that he was appointed as a Station Officer in the District of Barisal in August 1945 on probation for a period of three months and was confirmed in that appointment on December 19, 1945. His pay as such Station Officer was Rs.75/- per month together with dearness allowance of Rs.75, and he claims to have subsequently earned an increment of Rs.10 per month on his salary.

(2.) On the partition of the province of Bengal in August 1947, the plaintiff opted for West Bengal and was posted as a temporary Sub-Officer in the Calcutta Fire Service. By an order of the Government dated April 18, 1950, the West Bengal Fire Service and the Calcutta Fire Service were amalgamated and a new set up was created. In the same month a Selection Committee was appointed by the Government for selection of officers of different ranks in the new set up of the Fire Services and the plaintiff was selected and posted provisionally as a Sub-officer in the new set up and one of his grievances is that thereby he was reduced in rank without hearing. In June following a Committee for reviewing the appointments already made was constituted and the plaintiff was again interviewed along with the other officers. On July 3, 1950, he was, however, surprised when he was served with an order purporting to her one of dismissal from the service. That order was passed by the Director of Fire Services without giving him any opportunity to show cause and on August 3, 1950, he was served with another order dismissing him from service with effect from August 1, 1950. This order was challenged as mala fide and malicious, but this allegation was ultimately not pressed at the hearing.

(3.) The plaintiff stated that he does not know and was never intimated the reasons for his earlier reduction in a rank and later discharge from the service. He protested against the order, but to no effect. Hence, the suit for the reliefs stated above.