JUDGMENT The petitioner is an Inspector of Boilers in the West Bengal Boilers Service. On 9th May, 1975 the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Labour Department, by Memorandum No. 1969 GE conveyed the order of the Governor of West Bengal under Rule 7(1)(c) of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 placing the petitioner under suspension on and from the date of the service of the said order until further orders. During the period of his suspension the petitioner would draw a subsistence allowance @ 50% of his pay plus allowances admissible under the Rules. The Secretary to the Government of West Bengal by Memorandum No. 1970 GE dated 11th May, 1973 informed the petitioner that the Governor proposed to hold an enquiry under Rule 10 of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 against the petitioner. The substance of imputations of misconduct and misbehaviour in respect of which the said enquiry was proposed to be held were set out under three articles of charge. A statement of imputations in support of these articles of charge and a list of witnesses were also enclosed to the said Memorandum. Sri R. Banerjee, the Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries, Vigilance Commission by Order No. 1971 dated 11th May, 1973 was appointed as the Enquiry Authority to enquire into the said charges framed against the petitioner. An Inspector of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Vigilance Commission was appointed to represent the Disciplinary Authority in the said departmental proceeding against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner in this Rule has challenged the aforesaid order of suspension passed against him on the ground that the same was malafide. He has also impugned the disciplinary proceeding against him on the ground that the charge-sheet shows that the Disciplinary Authority is biased and it has already reached the conclusion about the guilt of the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority had recorded its finding in the charge-sheet itself and the said authority had a closed mind. Therefore, the purported inquiry proceeding would be an idle formality and the same is void ab-initio. 3. Mr. Siblal Bose, the learned Advocate for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy for redress of his aforesaid two grievances and, therefore, this writ petition is no longer entertainable. Therefore, the purported inquiry proceeding would be an idle formality and the same is void ab-initio. 3. Mr. Siblal Bose, the learned Advocate for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy for redress of his aforesaid two grievances and, therefore, this writ petition is no longer entertainable. Under proviso to Rule 14 of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1971 no appeal shall lie against the order of suspension under Rule 7 made by the Governor as the Appointing Authority. In the instant case, the Governor of West Bengal passed the impugned order of suspension. Therefore, the said order of suspension is not appealable. Rule 15 provides for an appeal against orders imposing the penalties specified in Rule 8. In the instant case, no penalty has yet been imposed upon the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has challenged the disciplinary proceeding initiated under Rule 10 on the ground that the same is void ab-initio. The West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 do not provide for any remedy or redress for the said grievances of the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority has made up its mind and it is biased against the petitioner. 4. I, however, hold that there is no substance in the petitioner's contention that the impugned order of suspension passed against him is malafide. The burden is upon the petitioner to satisfactorily establish that the Governor of West Bengal has malafide exercised his powers under Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules. The petitioner's claim of seniority and for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Inspector of Boilers are not within the scope of the present Rule. This writ petition does not contain any prayer in these behalf. Therefore, I need not enter into the question whether or not R.C. Saha and N. Biswas, who are not parties to the petition are juniors to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner had obtained another Rule regarding his said claim of seniority. The petitioner has also referred to the directions made by this Court in Mandamus Appeal No. 161 of 1962 which was preferred by one P.P. Chakraborty. The Appointing Authority of the petitioner under Rule 7 placed him under suspension pending a disciplinary proceeding. The said proceeding has just been initiated. The petitioner has also referred to the directions made by this Court in Mandamus Appeal No. 161 of 1962 which was preferred by one P.P. Chakraborty. The Appointing Authority of the petitioner under Rule 7 placed him under suspension pending a disciplinary proceeding. The said proceeding has just been initiated. At this stage, this Court cannot express any opinion about the truth or otherwise of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour contained in the charge-sheet served upon the petitioner. At this stage, the disciplinary proceeding itself cannot be pronounced as void ab-initio. Therefore the petitioner's suspension pending the said proceeding cannot be also judged as invalid. The petitioner has failed to make out any case of malafide against the respondents. It is not even' suggested that any particular Officer or Officers of the State Government had animus or grudge personally against the petitioner. The petitioner has not also established that the other Officers who were not suspended pending disciplinary proceeding or pending their trial belong to the same class with him. We are also not aware of the facts and circumstances under which the proceedings were started against the other Officers. It may pointed out that at present Article 14 remains suspended and, therefore, the petitioner cannot urge that he has been discriminated. It would presently consider whether the charge-sheet served upon the petitioner shows that the Disciplinary Authority has already concluded that the petitioner is guilty and, therefore, the impugned disciplinary proceeding is invalid. 5. Therefore, I reject the first submission made on behalf of the petitioner. 6. I may now proceed to consider the next submission of the petitioner that the charge-sheet is bad in law on the ground that his Disciplinary. Authority has already made up its mind and is biased against the petitioner and the said charges contain findings of guilt. 7. The Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 provides that no order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 8 shall be made except after an enquiry held in the manner provided in the said Rule. Rule 10 contains detailed procedure for giving hearing to a Government Servant before any of the penalties specified in Rule 8 can be imposed upon him. The delinquent Government Servant must have an opportunity to deny his guilt and to establish his innocence. Rule 10 contains detailed procedure for giving hearing to a Government Servant before any of the penalties specified in Rule 8 can be imposed upon him. The delinquent Government Servant must have an opportunity to deny his guilt and to establish his innocence. He should be told what are the charges levelled against him and the allegations on which the charges are based (See (1) Khemchand v. Union of India, AIR 1958 S.C. 300 , paragraph 19). Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 10 are in the following terms ; (2) The disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up (i) the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge; (ii) a statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge which shall contain (a) a statement of relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the Government servant, (b) a list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained. (3) The disciplinary authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Government servant a copy of the articles-of charge and the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour prepared under Clause (ii) of sub-rule (2) and shall require the Government servant to submit to the inquiring authority within such time as may be specified a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. 3. Thus, under the aforesaid Rules, the articles of charge should consist of the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour which have been levelled against a Government Servant. The ordinary meaning of the word 'impute' is to attribute or ascribe normaly a fault of misconduct or misbehaviour. 9. Under the criminal law, the charge means a written notice of the precise and specific acquisition which an accused is required to meet. Its object is to warn an accused of the case he is to answer (see (2) B. N. Srikantiah v. Mysore State, AIR 1958 S.C. 672 ). Accordingly, it has been observed that charge is not an acquisition in abstract but it is a concrete acquisition of offences allegedly committed. Particulars of the acts said to have been committed should be set out in the charge framed (see 28 IA 257, 42 Cal. 957). 10. Accordingly, it has been observed that charge is not an acquisition in abstract but it is a concrete acquisition of offences allegedly committed. Particulars of the acts said to have been committed should be set out in the charge framed (see 28 IA 257, 42 Cal. 957). 10. But substance of the imputations set out in a charge do not amount to finding of the guilt. At the stage when the charge is drawn up, there is no question of arriving at any finding on articles of charge. 11. Under the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 the Disciplinary Authority itself is required to draw up the charge, but the enquiry under Rule 10 of the said Rules is to be conducted by an Authority appointed for the said purpose. Therefore, when the Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiring Authority are two separate entities, there is hardly any scope for argument that the Enquiring Authority is biased merely because the articles of charge drawn up by the Disciplinary Authority state that the petitioner had committed the misconduct or misbehaviour set out in the articles of charge. Necessarily, it cannot be said that the Enquiring Authority who may not have any hand in drawing the charge had already made up its mind about the guilt of the Government servant concerned. The said Enquiring Authority after the completion of the enquiry would be required to prepare a report in terms of Rule 10(9). It must record its findings on each article of charge and reasons therefor. Thereafter, under Rule 10(10), the Disciplinary Authority itself would record its finding. The Government servant under Rule 12(b) would be entitled to make his representation on the punishment proposed. The West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules" 1971 also provide for appeals against orders imposing penalties specified in Rule 8. The Rule 19(2) lays down how the appellate authority would consider such an appeal. He should, interalia, consider whether the prescribed procedure was followed and if not, whether there was failure of justice for non-compliance with the Rules. 12. In a departmental proceeding, undoubtedly, the disciplinary authority has a two-fold role; prosecutor and judge. The Rule 19(2) lays down how the appellate authority would consider such an appeal. He should, interalia, consider whether the prescribed procedure was followed and if not, whether there was failure of justice for non-compliance with the Rules. 12. In a departmental proceeding, undoubtedly, the disciplinary authority has a two-fold role; prosecutor and judge. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that the disciplinary authority at the stage of the framing of the charge does not prejudice the case by arriving at any definite finding about the misconduct or misbehaviour without even conducting the disciplinary enquiry, It would depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case whether the disciplinary authority is biased and has prejudged the case. The said question of bias is also to be decided in the light of the relevant Rules regarding the personnel of the Enquiring Authority and the manner of conducting the enquiry. 13. Further a charge under Rule 10(2) in order to be definite, must necessarily distinctly mention the acquisition against the Government servant and also the particular provision on he Rule or Law which have been contravened by him. Unless these are disclosed, the charge sheet would be characterized as vague and devoid of particulars. The Government servant would fail to know what precise charges he has to meet. In the present case, the enquiry is to be held by an Authority other than the Disciplinary Authority and the Rules contain elaborate procedure for giving opportunity to the Government servant to meet the charges and to establish his innocence. I am unable to say that the charges which set out the imputations against him should be held to be bad in law. In this particular case, the Commissioner of Enquiries who was presumably a retired Member of the Judicial Service was to conduct the enquiry against the petitioner. There is no reason to presume that the Enquiring Officer and the Disciplinary Authority would not act fairly and in accordance with law. 14. Further, the Article No.1 of the charge against the petitioner is that he had allegedly accumulated assets far in excess of his legal and admitted income and he had allegedly failed to render any satisfactory explanation for possession of certain assets. 14. Further, the Article No.1 of the charge against the petitioner is that he had allegedly accumulated assets far in excess of his legal and admitted income and he had allegedly failed to render any satisfactory explanation for possession of certain assets. The second article of charge is that the petitioner had purchased a house property without previous knowledge of his Appointing Authority and the same had violated the Rule 15(2) of 1959 Rules. The third charge against the petitioner is that he had allegedly submitted incomplete, misleading and false declaration of assets by allegedly suppressing some items of properties acquired by him. The annexures to the charge sheet contain statement of imputations, list of documents list witnesses in support of the above charges. Reference have been made therein to certified copies of sale deeds, alleged statements of bank accounts, papers relating to pay and allowances drawn by the petitioner, declarations of assets submitted by the petitioner etc. Thus, charges arise out of certain declarations submitted by the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to adduce evidence and to establish that he is innocent and the charges are not true. I am unable to say that in the facts of this case, there has been any prejudice to the petitioner because of the manner of the formulation of the charges against him. 15. Recently, Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J. and Salil Kumar Datta, J. in (3) Sudhir Chandra Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal & Others, 1976 (1) CLJ 483 considered the question whether a departmental proceeding was vitiated on the ground that the charge sheet mentioned the punishment proposed to be imposed and whether the same established bias and closed mind of the Authorities. The Division Bench considered the earlier decision in (4) State of West Bengal v. Sali Prosad Roy, (1974) 79 CWN 38. In Sudhir Chandra Chakraborty's case (supra) the first charge sheet served upon the delinquent Government servant was withdrawn. Thereafter, he was served with another charge sheet which has been set out at page 486 of the reports. The said charge sheet, inter-alia, recited : "Whereas it has been made to appear to the Governor that you, Sri Sudhir Chandra Chakraborty, have, while........been guilty of the following charges, namely: (1) That you are found in possession of a property...... ... The said charge sheet, inter-alia, recited : "Whereas it has been made to appear to the Governor that you, Sri Sudhir Chandra Chakraborty, have, while........been guilty of the following charges, namely: (1) That you are found in possession of a property...... ... which is utterly disproportionate to the known sources of your income and the acquisition of which property has not been satisfactorily accounted for by you with the result that there is warrant for the reasonable inference that the said property was acquired by you in criminal misconduct in the discharge of your official duties. (2) That the declaration of assets as they stood on..... .are materially incomplete and/or misleading and false...... (3) That the declaration of assets..... ......are materially incomplete, misleading and/or false. (4) That you are guilty of contravention of Rule 15(2) of the West Bengal Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1959......and whereas on the grounds set forth above, it is proposed to impose upon you the penalty of dismissal from the Civil Service of the State Government Now, therefore...” 16. The Division Bench at page 489 of the reports observed that the proposal of punishment in the charge-sheet undoubtedly should not have been there at that stage. In view of the enquiry which was held in accordance with the principles of natural justice, it could not be said that the enquiry was vitiated by reason of any bias on the part of the Appointing Authority. It may be mentioned that the Enquiring Officer in that case also was a retired Member of the West Bengal Higher Judicial Service and not under the administrative or any control of the Appointing Authority. The Division Bench accordingly held that there was no substance in the appellant's contention that the charge-sheet was biased and invalid. In Sudhir Chandra Chakraborty's case (supra) the Division Bench has also observed that the question of bias and prejudice should be decided on consideration of the attending circumstances and by looking at the cumulative effect of various factors. 17. The charge sheet impugned in the present Rule has some similarly with the second charge sheet considered by the Division Bench in Sudhir Chandra Chakraborty's case (supra). I have also mentioned that the enquiry against the petitioner was proposed to be conducted by the Commissioner of Enquiries, who was presumably a retired Judicial Officer. The Rules elaborately provide for giving opportunity of hearing to the Government servant. I have also mentioned that the enquiry against the petitioner was proposed to be conducted by the Commissioner of Enquiries, who was presumably a retired Judicial Officer. The Rules elaborately provide for giving opportunity of hearing to the Government servant. There is no foundation whatsoever for any reasonable apprehension that the respondents are biased and prejudiced against the petitioner. It cannot be inferred from the circumstances leading to the issue of the charge-sheet that the respondents will not act fairly and in consonance with the principles of natural justice and equity. In case there is any irregularity or illegality in the disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner may seek his remedies prescribed by the West Bengal Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971. 18. The respondents had relied upon an unreported decision of A.N. Sen, J. in (5) Rabindranath Mukherjee v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta (Matter No. 321 of 1974 disposed of on 22nd August, 1975). In that case, the petitioner was charge-sheeted for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. He was found guilty and after the final order was passed on the basis of the said report, the petitioner moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. A.N. Sen, J. followed his earlier unreported decision in (6) Pramada Charan Chakraborty V. State of West Bengal (Matter No.7 of 1975 disposed of on 11th July, 1975) and made the Rule absolute A.N. Sen, J. held that the charge indicated bias and also indicated that the Authorities had already made up their mind. The charge, the enquiry, the finding of the Officer and the final report were set aside and quashed. It appears that the aforesaid Single Bench decisions in Pramda Charan Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal (supra) and in Rabindranath Mukherjee v. The Commissioner of Police, Calcutta (supra) are contrary to the Division Bench decision in Sudhir Chandra Chakraborty v. The State of West Bengal & Others (supra), which is binding upon me. I am unable to follow the aforesaid two decisions of A.N. Sen. J. 19. I, therefore, conclude that the petitioner has failed to establish that the charge-sheet served upon him was biased or that the respondents have already decided that the petitioner is guilty. No finding of guilt has yet been made and it is open to the petitioner to participate in the disciplinary proceeding and establish his innocence. J. 19. I, therefore, conclude that the petitioner has failed to establish that the charge-sheet served upon him was biased or that the respondents have already decided that the petitioner is guilty. No finding of guilt has yet been made and it is open to the petitioner to participate in the disciplinary proceeding and establish his innocence. There is no ground for a reasonable apprehension that the Authorities are biased against the petitioner. I make it clear that at this stage I have not considered the merits of the charges framed against the petitioner and the said question is left open. 20. I accordingly discharge of this Rule. There will be no order as to costs.