TMI Blog1970 (12) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vices and Regional Officer, Calcutta Industrial Area until further orders. S. Bose, who was appointed Director ,of Fire Service on or about the same date, received some complaints against the appellant. He made certain preliminary enquiries. In the beginning of May 1949 Bose informed the appellant that the post of Assistant Director Fire Service would be treated as abolished with effect from the date of the appointment ,of the appellant as Assistant Director. This led to protests by the appellant against the abolition of that post. A lot of acrimonious dialogue started between Bose and the appellant; the former made his final report to S. K. Gupta, Secretary Local Self Government, as to the charges which were to be preferred against the appellant. On July 12, 1949 the appellant was suspended. On July 19, 1949 a communication containing the charges against the appellant was sent to him by S. K. Gupta, Secretary Local Self Government. It is necessary to reproduce it in extenso Charges. Whereas it has been made to appear to the Government of West Bengal-- (1) that you, Sri S. C. Chakravarty, Regional Officer, Calcutta Industrial Area, West Bengal Fire Service incited the subord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment Secy. to the Govt. of Calcutta. West Bengal The 19th July, 1949 It is common ground that a statement of the allegations on which each charge was based was never sent to the appellant. He sent a letter dated August 5, 1949 with reference to the communication containing the charges. He emphatically denied what had been alleged against him and described the charges as false and actuated by mala fides. What is worth noticing is that the appellant in categorical terms stated that the charges and allegations were vague, indefinite and lacking in material particulars and pointed out that unless the charges are made specific to the point and contain full details with date, time, place, and person etc.. it is impossible for me to meet them properly. No further particulars or details were supplied at that stage or subsequently. S. K. Gupta submitted his report on May 1, 1950. He found charges 1, 2 and 3 (b) as having been proved against the appellant. Charge 3 (a) was dropped. As regards charges 3 (c) and 3 (d) it was found that there had been gross negligence on the part of the appellant in attendance as well as in carrying out all his ordinary duties, vis., checking and signin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... till the disposal of the suit together with interest etc. We need refer only to para 19(a) of the plaint in which it was pleaded that the enquiry was vitiated because under the rules and procedure for holding such enquiry the appellant was entitled to be furnished with definite charges. But the charges and allegations were vague, indefinite and lacking in material particulars and in spite of repeated requests these, were neither made specific nor material particulars like, day time, place and persons were supplied. In the written statement filed by the respondent it was denied that the charges or allegations were vague, indefinite or lacking in material particulars as alleged. It is unnecessary to set out the other pleadings but the issues which were settled would indicate the points which the trial court was called upon to decide. These issues were:-- 1. Is there a valid contract of employment between the plaintiff and the defendant under the Government of India Act ? 2. Was the suspension order dated 12th July 1949 mala-fide, wrongful and ultra vires ? 3. Was Mr. S. K. Gupta in a position to exercise unbiased mind in the matter of enquiry ? 4. Was the order dated 16th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt. We do not consider that we need refer to all the points dealt with by the Division Bench. In our judgment the Division Bench was wholly in error in reversing the decision of the learned Single Judge on one of the crucial points, namely, non-compliance with Fundamental Rule 55 and complete vagueness and indefiniteness of the charges on which no proper enquiry could be held. It is incomprehensible how the details as to date, time, place and person etc. would not have made the charges more definite as appears to have been the opinion of the Division Bench. We are unable to agree that the details without which a delinquent servant cannot properly defend himself are a matter of evidence. In this connection reference may be made to Fundamental Rule 55 which provides, inter alia, that without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servants Enquiry Act 1850 no order of dismissal removal or reduction shall be passed on a member of service unless he is informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed, to take action and has been afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action have to be reduced to the form of a defin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finite. In spite of all this no one cared to inform him of the facts, circumstances and particulars relevant to the charges. Even if the Enquiry Officer had made a report against him the appellant could have been given a further opportunity at the stage of the second show cause notice to adduce any further evidence if he so desired after he had been given the necessary particulars and material in the form of a statement of allegations which had never been supplied to him before. This could undoubtedly be done in view of the provisions of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution as they existed at the material time. The entire proceedings show a complete disregard of Fundamental Rule 55 in so far as it lays down in almost mandatory terms that the charges, must be accompanied by a statement of allegations. We have no manner of doubt that the appellant was denied a proper and reasonable opportunity of defending himself by reason of the charges being altogether vague and indefinite and the statement of allegations current findings against the respondent on that point. The resupplied to him. In this situation, for the above reason alone, the trial judge was fully justified in decreeing the suit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
