ORDER This writ petition is directed against the issuance of a charge-sheet as also the order of suspension. The petitioner was appointed as a trainee in Bird & Co Ltd in the year, 1967 and thereafter promoted to the post of Staff Supervisor and continued to remain in such post upto the year, 1969 when he was further promoted to the post of Assistant. During the period of service as Assistant, the petitioner was in receipt of increment from year to year and said to have an unblemish conduct. On and since 25th October, 1980 M/s Bird & Company turned out to be a Government of India Undertaking through under the name and style of "Bharat Process & Mechanical Engineers Ltd.". The petitioner however was continued in service on the same terms and conditions as were had with M/s. Bird & Co Ltd. 2. The petitioner's case is that in the month of July, 1983 the petitioner was asked to visit and visited on official work the State of Bombay. The petitioner stayed there till 7th August, 1983. Subsequently the petitioner was again asked to visit Bombay for official business on 10th October, 1983 and stayed there till 6th November, 1963. In accordance with the usual procedure the petitioner obtained the advance and said to have duly accounted for the same on his return to Calcutta. 3. On 14th May, 1984 the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet being Memorandum No. GH(W) CS/84/HKC dated 14.5.84 issued by the Central Manager (Works) on behalf of the respondent no. 1. It would be pertinent to set out the extract of the charge-sheet: "You have submitted two bills for reimbursement of Traveling expenses for the period of journey of 25/5/83 to 7/9/83 and 10/10/83 to 6/11/83. In your bill for 25/7/83 to 7/9/83 you have falsely claimed air fare from Bombay to Calcutta amounting to Rs.1135/- though the same has been paid by Bombay office vide their Debit Note No. CV/l082 dated 5/9/83 towards cost of Air Ticket No. 0581/6780644 from Bombay to Calcutta for journey on 7/9/83 and the said air ticket was received by you on 7/9/83 from our Bombay office. In your bill for 10/10/83 you have falsely claimed lodging charges for; Rs.1025.45 against Bill No. 19897 dated 19/10/84 of Y.W.C.A. International Guest House Bombay for the period from 15.10.83 to 21.10.83, though the same was paid by Bombay office of our Company vide Bill No. 002 dated 19.10.83 for Rs.1025.45 of Y.W.C.A. International Guest House your staying from 15.10.83 to 21.10.83. The Bill No....................... dated 19.10.83 bears your endorsement dated 24.10.83 for payment. By your above mentioned acts and commission you have committed fraud, dishonesty, cheating, breach of trust and misappropriation of Company's money." 4. The principal contention raised by Mr. Ajit Kumar Panja appearing for the petitioner is that the charge-sheet was issued with a closed mind Mr. Panja contended that the concerned authority have already decided the matter and the charge-sheet duly recorded the same. The conclusion in regard to the commission of fraud, dishonesty cheating, breach of trust and misappropriation of Company's money have already been arrived at by the authority. Mr. Biswaroop Gupta appearing for the respondents however contended that considering the charge sheet as a whole, the question of having a closed mind does not and cannot arise. Mr. Gupta contended that the charge-sheet itself shows that delinquent officer was asked to explain the conduct, which negates the plea of closed mind as raised by Mr. Panja, Mr. Gupta referred to the affidavit-in-opposition by the selfsame gentleman, who has issued the charge-sheet. In the said affidavit, the deponent has stated...............""I know of nobody in the respondent no. 1 interested in spoiling career of the writ petitioner. If the time given to show cause appeared to be too short to the petitioner, he could ask for time which would have been readily granted by me and I am still ready and willing to grant such reasonable extensions of time to which the petitioner may require." In the said affidavit the deponent further stated that the respondents no. 1 to 3 have no intention of victimising the petitioner. 5. Mr. Panja in support of his contentions lay strong reliance on the decision of this court in the decision of Sunil Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 1977 Calcutta High Court Notes 1014 and contended that the case under consideration falls squarely, within the ratio of the said decision. 5. Mr. Panja in support of his contentions lay strong reliance on the decision of this court in the decision of Sunil Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 1977 Calcutta High Court Notes 1014 and contended that the case under consideration falls squarely, within the ratio of the said decision. In that decision the court was considering the articles of charge to the following effect:- “Articles of Charge I That the said Sri Sunil Kumar Mukherjee, while functioning as M.V. Inspector (Technical), P.V. Department Calcutta, during the period from 1965 to 1967, was found in possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income to the extent of Rs.10,061.02 in 1965, Rs.2,203.46 in 1966 and Rs.8,252.80 in 1967 and that his conduct as such is unbecoming of a Government servant. Articles of Charge II That the said Sri Sunil Kumar Mukherjee, while functioning as above permitted his wife Sm. Bharati Mukherjee to purchase a car on 19.7.65 and sell the same on 9.1.67 without obtaining prior permission from his appointing authority and thus violated clause (h) of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 of the West Bengal Govt. Servants' Conduct Rules, 1959" 6. Upon consideration of the aforesaid charge, the Court came to a conclusion that in view of the wording of the charge it is clear that the officer concerned had a closed mind even at the stage of framing of the charge. The charge-sheet shows that the delinquent officer was found to be in possession of specific amount arrived at the detailed calculation which is a part of the charge during the period of 1965-1967. 7. Mr. Panja further relied on the decision of this Court reported in 1980 (II) Culcutta High Court Notes 35 (Bimalakanta Mukherji v. State of West Bengal) and submitted that the law as well as the facts of the said decision apply in-all force in the facts of the case under consideration. In that decision this court after considering the charge-sheet held that it is evident from the expressions in the charge-sheet. In that decision this court after considering the charge-sheet held that it is evident from the expressions in the charge-sheet. "He earned............and his expenses during the period..................and as he acquired Rs.1,48,97.00 p............' 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 and this also appears from the statement of imputation relating to the said charge. 8. Mr. Biswarup Gupta however submitted that the decisions cited by Mr. Panja are clearly distinguishable on facts and placed reliance on the decision of this court reported in AIR 1972 Calcutta 401 (Collector of Customs Calcutta v. Biswanath) in support of his contention. In the said decision the charge-sheet was as follows:- "That Biswanath Mukherjee who had been functioning as preventive officer Grade I during the period 20-12-58 and 31-12-59 was found on 1-1-60 to be in possession of assets which are disproportionate to his own sources of income to the extent of about Rs.61,000 giving rise the presumption that the aforesaid Sri Biswanath Mukherjee acquired the said disproportionate assets by obtaining pecuniary advantage to himself by corrupt and illegal means and thereby he had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to the duty as a Govt. servant." 9. In my view the said decision is clearly distinguishable on facts. The user of the expression "giving rise to the presumption" makes the position very clear. The user of the said expressions cannot be said to be the resultant effect of a closed mind. 10. Mr. Gupta further relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1965(2) LLJ 102. In my view the said decision also is of no assistance to Mr. Gupta inasmuch as the issue for consideration before the Supreme Court was not the same as is involved in this case under consideration. The said decision is clearly distinguishable on facts. 11. Mr. Gupta further relied on the decision of this court reported in 1983(II) CLJ 406 (Kalipada Roy v. District Controller, Food & Supplies, Hoogly & Ors.) In that decision Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. held that the question in regard to bias is to be decided in the light of the relevant disciplinary rules and the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Gupta further relied on the decision of this court reported in 1983(II) CLJ 406 (Kalipada Roy v. District Controller, Food & Supplies, Hoogly & Ors.) In that decision Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. held that the question in regard to bias is to be decided in the light of the relevant disciplinary rules and the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In my view the facts and circumstances are to be considered in its entirety and if the court comes to conclusion that there exists a reasonable basis of apprehension on the part of the delinquent officer that the charge-sheet have been issued with a closed mind or that there exists a bias on the part of the disciplinary authority, the Court should not hesitate to strike down the charge-sheet as being bad and void. The law laid down in the aforesaid decision cannot be said to be in any way substantiating the contention of Mr. Gupta more so by reason of the facts and circumstances of this case. 12. In my view and considering the language used in the charge-sheet it is clear that the officer concerned bad a closed mind at the stage of even framing of charge. The insertion of the paragraph namely "by your abovementioned acts and commission you have committed fraud, dishonesty, cheating, breach of trust and misappropriation of Company's money" unmistakably goes to show the state of mind prevalent at the time of the issuance of the charges-sheet. 13. The authorities have prejudged the issue even at the stage of framing of charge. The language used in the charge-sheet cannot simpliciter be termed to be unhappily worded. It shows a state of mind, which is opposed to justice, equity and fair-play. 14. In that view of the matter the memorandum being charge sheet and the order of suspension, dated 14th May, 1984 being GMW/CS/84/HKC is quashed. 15. The application, therefore, succeeds. There will however be no order as to costs. This order however would not prevent the respondent from proceeding against the writ petitioner in accordance with the law after issuance of a fresh charge-sheet on the same cause of action. Application allowed ; charge-sheet quashed.