DR. HARIPADA PODDAR Vs. S.R. DAS, SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause why he should not be dealt with for contempt of Court. The facts leading to the initiation of this proceeding are briefly as follows: The petitioner, Dr. Haripada Poddar, is employed in the West Bengal Health Service and at the relevant time he held the post of lecturer, Department of Surgery, R. G. Kar Medical College, Calcutta. By an order dated Sept. 27, 1968 which was communicated to the petitioner on Oct. 9, 1968, the petitioner was appointed

(2.) It appears that on Oct. 11, 1968, while this Court issued the rule under Art. 226 of the Constitution at the instance of the petitioner, the Government of West Bengal, Department of Health, also issued an order over the signature of the opposite party placing the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect because he had served on the opposite party the notice dated Oct. 9, 1968, asking the Government to rescind the order of transfer. The material part of this order is as follows:

(3.) On Nov. 23, 1968, the petitioner received a registered cover containing an order dated Nov. 16, 1968, signed by the opposite party and stating that the petitioner had been found prima facie guilty of twofold charge set out in the order and directing him to appear before the enquiring officer who had been appointed to inquire into the charges against him. The first of the two charges against the petitioner states that he had "contravened R. 21 of the West Bengal Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1959, read with the Note thereunder", by serving a notice through his Advocate on the Secretary, Department of Health, to rescind the order of transfer within 24 hours of receipt of the notice and threatening to move the High Court for redress and relief if this was not done. The second charge states that "by holding out a threat" to the Secretary, Health Department, as stated above, the petitioner had "behaved in a manner which was improper and unbecoming of a public servant and derogatory to the prestige of Government" contravening Rule 4 of the said Conduct Rules. A statement of allegations forming the basis of the charges which accompanied the order makes it further clear that the petitioner's alleged act of disobedience to the order of transfer was in sending the lawyer's notice containing threat of legal action against the Government instead of submitting a representation to the Government regarding his grievances as required by the said Rule 21, and that the improper and unbecoming behaviour alleged against the petitioner which is forbidden by Rule 4 also lay in the threat of legal action conveyed on his behalf by his learned Advocate to the opposite party.