JUDGMENT B.C. Ray. J: This appeal is at the instance of the petitioner and is directed against the judgment and order passed on 4th June, 1979 in Civil Rule No. 1963(W) of 1973 by our learned brother Manas Nath Roy, J. discharging the Rule. 2. The petitioner mt1wd an application under Article 226 of the Constitution assailing the propriety and validity of two orders being memo No. 22-EDN(V)/7(C)-10/72 dated 7th June, 1973 issued in the name of the Governor by the Education Commissioner and Secretary, Government of West Bengal, respondent No.2 intimating that the Governor has been pleased to appoint Sri A.K. Coari. Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries, Vigilance Commission, West Bengal as Enquiring Authority to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner and order dated 7th June, 1973 contained in memo No. 21-EDN (V)7(C)-10/72 stating that an enquiry was proposed to be held against the petitioner under sub-rule 2 of Rule 10 of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1971 in respect of 6 articles of charges contained therein. The Charges being (1) Acquisition of moveable and immoveable properties to the tune of Rs. 148,927/- in excess of his known sources of Income, (2) Collection of subscription or donation for Ram Krishna Sardada Vidya Mahapith without obtaining sanction of the Government as required under Rule 13 of the West Bengal Servant's Conduct Rules, 1959. (3) Non-submission of declaration of assets from 1949 to 1963 in violation of Rule 15(4) of the West Bengal Government Servant's Conduct Rules (4) Fabrication of false receipt dated 27th February, 1960 showing payment of Rs. 2,000/- to Sanat Kr. Ghosh, Controller aid thereby filing to maintain a high standard of integrity and his conduct is thus unbecoming of a Government Servant, (5) Advancement of loan of more than a lakh of rupees to Ram Krishna Sarada Vidya Mahapith and Rs. 17,669/- to Andul Higher Secondary School in contravention of Rule 14 of the said Government Servant's Conduct Rules and (6) Acquiring of moveable and immoveable properties without previous sanction of the appointing authority in violation of Rule 15(4) of the said Conduct Rules. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a professor of Bengali in Chandernagore College which was a French Settlement in India. The petitioner was subsequently confirmed in the said post. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a professor of Bengali in Chandernagore College which was a French Settlement in India. The petitioner was subsequently confirmed in the said post. By the French decree No. 472121 dated 7th November, 1947 the town of Chandernagore was declared to be a free city severing all its connection with other French Settlements in India. On 2nd May, 1950, the free city of Chandernagore provisionally merged with the Union of India by an agreement made between the President of India and the President of the French Republic. Thereafter a treaty of cession were signed by representatives of the Union of India and the President of the French Republic on 2nd February, 1951. The Territory of the free city of Chandernagore was transferred to India in full sovereignty and by Article III of the Protocol annexed to the said treaty of cession the Civil Servants employed in the city of Chandernagore has been given right to exercise their option to retain either French nationality or Indian nationality and those who would opt for Indian Union were to be retained usually by the Republic of India. The petitioner was retained in service and he continued to the Civil Service of the free city of Chandernagore and thereafter on it, merger with the State of West Bengal. Under the provisions of Chandernagore Assimilation of Laws Act, 1955 the pre-merger Civil Servants of the free city of Chandernagore were given the option to retain the old service condition and the petitioner retained his old service condition and was thus governed by pre-merger terms and conditions of service. The Government of India by letter No. 33(4)EL/53 dated 12.11.53 assured the Civil Services of Chandemagore that their pre-merger condition of service would not be changed. 4. After the merger of the free city of Chandernagore with the State of West Bengal a joint communique was issued by the Government of India and the State of West Bengal on 30th of September, 1954 assuring that the terms and conditions of service of the pre-merger Civil Servants of the City of Chandernagore could not be changed. It was also mentioned in the said joint communique that they would continue on their pre-existing terms or option for general service under the State of West Bengal and as such they have nothing to fear in future for the security of their service and tenure. It was also mentioned in the said joint communique that they would continue on their pre-existing terms or option for general service under the State of West Bengal and as such they have nothing to fear in future for the security of their service and tenure. The petitioner, it is stated, exersised his option in writing retaining the pre-merger Chandernagore conditions of his service on August 30, 1967. The petitioner being appointed in the year 1947 and having retained the pre-merger service conditions as a civil servant of the free city of Chandernagore by virtue of the provisions of the Act 36 of 1954 (Chandernagore Merger Act) and in view of the assurances given by the Government of India and the State of West Bengal his conditions of service could not be altered by an unilateral action of the Government of West Bengal without the previous express consent of the petitioner. It has been further submitted that Chapter IV of the Rules governing the service conditions of the servants or the free city of Chandernagore which laid down regulations in respect of the discipline applicable to the officer and clerks under the Government service of the free city of Chandernagore will govern the case of the petitioner and the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 as well as the West Bengal Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1959 are not applicable in the case of the petitioner and the alleged chargesheet drawn against the petitioner are wholly unwarranted, illegal and bad being without jurisdiction and the same is in colourable exercise of the powers of the respondents. It has also been submitted that the alleged chargesheet clearly disclosed that the same has been issued with a closed mind and as it would appear from the said charge-sheet that the disciplinary authority has already formed a bias by saying that the petitioner had acquired a definite sum of money which is disproportionate to his known sources of income and as such it has been submitted that the said chargesheet is liable to be quashed and set aside on that ground. 5. A counter affidavit to the petition was filed on behalf of the respondents stating that after the merger of the territory of Chandernagore with the State of West Bengal with effect from 2nd October, 1954 a Government order issued by the Finance Department in memo No. 40F. 5. A counter affidavit to the petition was filed on behalf of the respondents stating that after the merger of the territory of Chandernagore with the State of West Bengal with effect from 2nd October, 1954 a Government order issued by the Finance Department in memo No. 40F. deted 5th January, 1955 wherein it was decided that with effect from 2nd October, 1954 until further order by a competent authority, the employees of Chandernagore administration should continue to be governed by the French Rules except in the case of leave, conduct and discipline which should be guided by the relevant West Bengal Rules, as amended from time to time. It was further stated that by Finance Department Memo No. 4727F dated 22nd December, 1955 it was decided that such employees of Chandernagore who are in receipt of children allowance and dearness allowance under the French Rules may at their options either retain the existing pre-merger allowance or draw D.A. and each allowance at the West Bengal rates with effect from 1st March, 1957. All these were done to protect the interests of the pre-merger staff of Chandernagore including the staff of Chandernagore College. In accordance with the terms of the above memo No. 40F dated 5th January, 1955 the pr-merger employees of the free city of Chandernagore should be governed by the French rules except in the in the case of leave, conduct and discipline which should be guided by the West Bengal Rules as amended from time to time and as such the drawing up of the chargesheet for violation of the West Bengal Government Servant's Conduct Rules and also the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 as well as proposal for the holding of enquiry on the basis of these charges and the appointment of the enquiring officer are not at all illegal and without jurisdiction as the petitioner in respect of discipline would be guided by the West Bengal Services Rules relevant at that time. It has also been contended that in terms of notification or this department notification No. 1507-EDN(A) dated 1.6.61 the pre-merge- teaching staff of the Chandernagore College of the rank of Lecturer were absorbed in the services of the West Bengal as Gazetted Officers and thus pre-merger Civil Servants of the free city of Chandernagore draw the increments pay and D.A. like any other Government employees under the State of West Bengal and as such it has been submitted that the petitioner was estopped that he was not governed by the West Bengal Service Rules in the matter of discipline and conduct etc. 6. An affidavit-in-reply was filed to the said rejoinder stating that the memo No. 40F dated 5.1.1955 cannot be made applicable to the case of pre-merger civil servants of the free city of Chandernagore inasmuch as the continuance of pre-cessation conditions of service of the petitioner have been recognised by the Government of India and the State of west Bengal and the aforesaid government order cannot under any circumstance override the same. All other statements and contentions in the said counter affidavit were also denied. 7. The learned Single Judge discharged the Rule holding that words used in the chargesheet were only to pinpoint the issue of the chargesheet and the• mere use of these terms or words did not make the charge void or bad in limine. It was also held that the petitioner having accepted the benefits of service available to the employees could not be permitted to challenge the application of the West Bengal Service Rules in his case. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the instant appeal has been preferred by the petitioner. 9. Mr. Nani Coomar Chakravorti, appearing for the appellant has contended that a look at the chargesheet issued on the petitioner will disclose at the very outset that the same was issued by the disciplinary authority with a closed mind. The disciplinary authority it ha, been submitted, has formed opinion that the petitioner had acquired a definite amount of assets which is disproportionate to his known source of income and which he failed to account for leaving nothing to be decided and a, such the issue of such a chargesheet is bad being in breach of the principles of natural justice. Dealing with this submission of Mr. Dealing with this submission of Mr. Chakravorti, it is necessary to recite herein the relevant extract of charge No. 1 and the statement of imputation with respect to that charge: Charge I: That the said Shri Bimala Kanta Mukherjee while functioning as Professor of chandernagore Government College during the period from 1958 to 1965 failed to maintain a high standard of integrity inasmuch as while during this period he earned Rs. 72,200/- as income from salary and also procured H. B. Loan of Rs. 235440/- from the Government and thus the total amount of money available to him wad Rs, 95,640/- he acquired immovable and immoveable assets during the period to the extent of Rs. 54,860/- and his expenses during the period amounts to Rs. 189,768/- and so he had acquired Rs. 148.997/- in excess of his known Sources of income for which he was unable to give any satisfactory explanation. Thus the said Shri Bimala Kanta Mukherjee violated Rule 3 of the West Bengal Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1959. Charge I: The total emoluments drawn by the officer from 1958 to 1965 as a Professor was Rs. 72,200/-. In March, 1964 he got a H.B. Loan of Rs. 13,440/- and in March 1965 he get another H.B. Loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the Govt. The officer owned merger paternal landed property (about 1 acre of cultivable land and thatched house i village Anur, as describe in his D.As. During the charge period he acquired the following assets : a) House at Chandernagore Rs. 43,000.00 b) Land for the house at Chandernagore ” 5,099.00 c) Private Car ” 4,800.00 d) N.D.C. ” 1,620.00 e) Tank purchased at Anur ” 350.00 His expenditure during the period was as follows : a) Maintenance of the family of 7 members on a rough calculation of Rs 50/- per head per month Rs. 33,6000.00 b) Maintenance of the Car from March, 1963 to 1965 inclusive office wages paid to the driver Rs. 5,000.00 c) Loan to Anur Higher Secondary School Rs. 17,669.00 d) Loan to Sri Ramkrishna Sarada Vidya Mahapitha, Rs .1,15,932.00 Kamalpukur e) Donation to above said college Rs. 8,000.00 f) Payment of L.I.C. Premium Rs. 10,667.00 Total Rs. 1,89,768.00 and thus the acquisition of assets and expenses total to Rs. 2,44,637.00 whereas the income was only Rs. 95,640.00 and hence Rs. 17,669.00 d) Loan to Sri Ramkrishna Sarada Vidya Mahapitha, Rs .1,15,932.00 Kamalpukur e) Donation to above said college Rs. 8,000.00 f) Payment of L.I.C. Premium Rs. 10,667.00 Total Rs. 1,89,768.00 and thus the acquisition of assets and expenses total to Rs. 2,44,637.00 whereas the income was only Rs. 95,640.00 and hence Rs. 1,48,997.00 was acquired in excess of the known means of the officer. His explanation that he was financially helped by his son is not worthy of belief a, the son Benay Krishna Mukherjee was married in 1959 and living in another place and was not in a position to financially help his father. The further explanation of the officer that he got some usufruct from his mother's land is also not satisfactory as the mother is still living and the impugned officer is not the only child of his mother. 10. It is evident from the expressions in the chargesheet “he earned ..................................and his expenses during the period............... and as he acquired Rs. 1,48,997.00....................' that the disciplinary authority has framed these charges with a closed mind inasmuch as he has come to a finding that the petitioner acquired a definite sum of money which is in excess of his known sources of income this also appears from the statements of imputations relating to the said charge I. It also appears that the expenses have been estimated to a confirmed sum and after deducting the same from the estimated income, of the petitioner. It was stated that he acquired a definite sum of money in excess of his known means of income. This shows that the charge was framed with a closed mind and the disciplinary authority who will consider the said charge sheet and the statements of defence against the same to be filed by the petitioner had already formed a bias against the petitioner and he had already come to a definite and confirmed opinion as to a particular amount of a set acquired by the petitioner in excess of his known source of inc me. This clearly show that the chargesheet was framed with a closed mind and as such the principles of natural justice have been violated. This clearly show that the chargesheet was framed with a closed mind and as such the principles of natural justice have been violated. The learned Single Judge relying on the decision reported in AIR 1972 Calcutta 401 held that the authorities concerned used these expressions only to pinpoint issues to these charges and as such use of those words would not make the chargesheet void or had without considering the language in which the chargesheet in that case was couched. The chargesheet in the above case was in the following terms Shri Biswanath Mukherjee....................was found to be in possession of assets...................giving rise to a presumption..................' It was held that the two words 'found' and 'giving rise to the resumption are not, in our judgment enough by themselves to make charge in this case in limine bad and void on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, It was further held that the word 'found' is a general word and whether that expression meant a bias or no depended on the context in which it was used, It was also held that the words 'giving rise to the presumption' should not be taken as a conclusive finding of the disciplinary authority. The expressions used in the chargesheet in the present case are quite different from those used in the case cited above. The expressions used in the present case ‘acquired’ and also in the statement of imputation relating to the said charge the same expression 'acquired' was also used. Considering this there is no room for holding that the chargesheet was not framed with a closed mind, We are supported in our view by a bench decision of This Court reported in 1977 Calcutta High Court Notes 1014, Sunil Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal & ors. The language used in the said chargesheet is in pari materia with the words used in the charge sheet of the present case. In the said chargesheet it was mentioned that during the period from 1965 to 1967 the delinquent employee was found in possession of assets .................... to a definite sum. It was held that in view of the wording of the chargesheet the officer concerned had a closed mind at the stage of faming the charge and the chargesheet was held bad as violating the principles, of natural justice. to a definite sum. It was held that in view of the wording of the chargesheet the officer concerned had a closed mind at the stage of faming the charge and the chargesheet was held bad as violating the principles, of natural justice. In the present case the chargesheet also show that the delinquent officer was found to have acquired a specific amount which was arrived at on a derailed calculation of income and expenditure during a particular period. In our opinion, the chargesheet was issued with a closed mind even at the stage of framing the charge and this by itself renders the chargesheet void and bad in limine as the same has violated the principles of natural justice. 11. It has been urged on behalf of the respondents that the expressions used in the chargnsheet should not be strictly construed and the same should be fairly and reasonably interpreted in a common sense to see what the plain statement had meant. Reference has been made in this connection to the decision in 1976(1) CLJ page 483 Sudhir Chandra Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal. In that case there was a proposal of punishment in the chargesheet and it was urged that the same violated the principles of natural justice. It was observed that the enquiry was held in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the enquiry was not initiated by reason of any bias of the appointing authority. As such considering all the attending circumstances and acts of the case it was held that the chargesheet could not be held to be bad. The facts of this case is distinguishable from the facts of the present case and as such the decision is not applicable to the instant case. 12. In view of our finding that the chargesheet was wholly had and void it is not necessary for us to consider and decide the submissions as to the competence of the disciplinary authority to issue the chargesheet under the West Bengal Services Rules as well as other allied submissions. The appellant during the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding retired from the service on April 3, 1974 after attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., 60 years of age, We, therefore, allow the appeal. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is hereby se aside. 13. The appellant during the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding retired from the service on April 3, 1974 after attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., 60 years of age, We, therefore, allow the appeal. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is hereby se aside. 13. Let a writ of certiorari be issued to quash the Chargesheet dated 7th June, 1973 and the appointment of the enquiry officer dated 7th June, 1973 to enquire into the proposed charges as mentioned in annexure, E and F to the writ petition. This will not, however, prevent the respondents from taking any other steps or proceedings against the appellant in accordance with law. Banerjee, J.- I agree. Proceeding quashed; Appeal allowed.