K. M. YUSUF, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petitioner is a lady victim of the worth of a Judicial Officer of the State of West Bengal. Her case, in short, is that she was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the office of the District Judge, Howrah, on 13th September, 1962 and was posted as Money Suit Clerk in the Court of the learned Third Munsif there and worked from 3rd December, 1974 to 14th June, 1976. For six days, i. e. 27th February, 1975 to 4th March, 1975 she was Sheristadar-in-Charge of the Third Court of the learned Munsif in place of one Smt. Jyoti Prova Chatterjee who was on leave. Mr. S. P. Mitra, Munsif, Third Court, informed the District Judge about missing of a large number of court-fee stamps filed by different parties in different proceedings which were found missing in course of casual inspection of the office and a criminal case being Howrah P. S. No. 40 dated 27th March, 1976 (C. R. Case No. 843 of 1976) for criminal breach of trust by public servant etc. was started against six persons including the petitioner. Thereafter on 22nd May, 1976 a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner and others to which the petitioner submitted a reply on 2nd June, 1976. Mr. S. P. Mitra, learned Munsif, conducted enquiry and submitted a report and after considering the said preliminary enquiry the District Judge directed the learned Munsif , Third Court, to frame charges against 8 persons including the petitioner. On 13th September, 1976 the petitioner was allowed to cross the efficiency bar with effect from 1st September, 1976 by an order No. 171 M. By an order dated 5th June, 1979 the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate of Howrah discharged P. S. Case No. 40 dated 27th March, 1976 because of inordinate delay in completing the investigation. In January 1980 the District Judge of Howrah issued a notice to the petitioner directing her to show cause within 15 days why the proceeding regarding the responsibility of causing loss of court-fees and revenues should not be initiated against her and a reply was thereto given to by the petitioner. On 12th May, 1981 three disciplinary proceedings were started against three different persons excluding the petitioner and all the three proceedings were dropped. On 12th May, 1981 three disciplinary proceedings were started against three different persons excluding the petitioner and all the three proceedings were dropped. On 12th May, 1981 the benefit of New Intermediate Selection Grade was granted to the petitioner and it was treated as promotion. Thereafter on 9th December, 1981 the benefit of higher scale of pay was granted with effect from 1st,april, 1981. Then comes on 20th July, 1983 a charge-sheet against the petitioner relating to the incident which occurred as far back as in 1975 being Disciplinary Proceeding No. 2 of 1983. A show cause was submitted. The disciplinary Proceeding commenced and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 24th January, 1984 exonerating the petitioner from the charges. There after the District Judge, Howrah, by his Memo dated 31st January, 1984 amended those charges upon which the enquiry had taken place and the petitioner was exonerated. This amended charge is the subject matter of the writ petition. ( 2 ) THE State has produced the records in original and from the report of the departmental proceeding the following conclusion of the Enquiry Officer appears:-"i hold that the Administration is miserably failed to bring home the charge against any of the present delinquents. I, therefore, find them not guilty to the charge that has been brought against them". ( 3 ) THE Enquiry Officer has further observed in his report that on considering of the entire facts and circumstances he was of the firm opinion that the court-fees which were found missing from the records, had actually been filed, but had been specifically removed before they had been punched and defaced. As the Enquiry Officer was not concerned with the said charge against the delinquents, the inevitable result was that the delinquents could not be found guilty in the proceedings. ( 4 ) MR. Bose, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that as the petitioner was allowed to cross the efficiency bar from 13th September, 1976 and got the benefit of New Intermediate Selection Grade as promotion from 12th May, 1981 and also got the benefit of higher scale pay of Rs. 340-570/- which is known as 18 years service benefit granted from 9th December, 1981, as such, the departmental proceeding for an alleged incident which occurred in the year. 340-570/- which is known as 18 years service benefit granted from 9th December, 1981, as such, the departmental proceeding for an alleged incident which occurred in the year. 1975 cannot take place in accordance with law because that should be considered as bad in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court. In this connection, he cited the case of The State of Punjab vs. Dewan Chuni Lal reported in A. I. R. 1970 2086. Here the Supreme Court said that the earlier report should not have been considered at all inasmuch as the delinquent was allowed to cross the efficiency bar. It was unthinkable that if the authorities took any serious view of the charge of dishonesty and inefficiency contained in the confidential reports of 1941-42 they could have overlooked the same and recommended the case of the officer as one fit for crossing the efficiency bar in 1944. The Supreme Court further pointed out that there was no specific complaint in either of the years and at best there was only room for suspicion regarding his behaviour. On principle I and that this as what exactly appeared in this case. The petitioner was allowed to cross the efficiency bar in September 1976 and given the N. I. S. Grade in May 1981 and was favoured with higher scale benefit in December 1981, all after the alleged incident which occurred in 1975. ( 5 ) MR. Bose further cited the decision in the case of the Regional Manager and Anr. vs Pawan Kumar Dubey reported in A. I. R. 1976 S C. 1766 (at page 1772) where the Supreme Court was more specific and said that there were some old adverse entries against the respondent but they must be deemed to have been washed off by his promotion on ad hoc or officiating basis. On the basis of this judgment the writ petitioner's adverse entries were washed off simply by jetting ad hoc or officiating arrangements then in the instant writ petition the lady got as many as three benefits of crossing of efficiency bar, of N. I. S. Grade as well as of higher scale benefit and the allegations against her of 1975 must be treated as completely vanished. The learned Advocate has also referred to a decision of K. R. Deb vs. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, reported in A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 1447 which I shall deal with afterwards. ( 6 ) MR. BASU Chowdhury, learned Advocate, appearing for the State Respondents, put up a forceful defence by placing the records and making submissions that the authorities have full right to amend the charge-sheet in view of the provisions contained in Rule 10 (10) (i) (ii) of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971. He emphasised that under (i) and (ii) of the said Rule the disciplinary authority shall consider the record of the enquiry and record its findings on each charge. It is further provided that the disciplinary authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall, thereupon, proceed to hold further inquiry, as far as possible, according to the provisions laid down in this Rule. To further strengthen his argument, the learned Advocate submitted that under Section 216 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. He further reinforced Section 216 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 16 of the General Clauses Act which relates to power to appoint as well as power to suspend or dismiss. The said section says that the authority having power to make the appointment shall also have power to suspend or dismiss any person appointed in exercise of that power. ( 7 ) MR. Basu Chowdhury even cited the Commentary under Article 311 (2) of the Shorter Constitution of India by D. D. Basu at page 918 (10th Edn.) where the learned author says with reference to Article 20 (2) that neither the constitutional provision nor the principle of res judicata is applicable to departmental proceedings so that prima facie there is nothing to prevent the government to proceed against a government servant departmentally even where he has been exonerated on the same charge by a departmental proceeding previously but no case-law is cited in support of this contention. The learned Advocate further submitted that considering all these factors the District Judge w-as absolutely within his jurisdiction to frame additional charges against the petitioner and directed the Enquiry Officer to proceed with them afresh. ( 8 ) CONSIDERING all the facts of the ease and submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties, it appears to me that the plea of the State Government does not hold good in the face of the facts and circumstances of the case. The reliance of the State upon Rule 10 (10) (i) (ii) of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 in no way helps the State respondents in jumping to the conclusion on the plea of framing additional charges. The Rule referred to above in no way authorizes the disciplinary authority to frame or reframe the additional charges in view of the decision reported in A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 1447 at page 1449. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the State that the aforesaid Rule 10 of the State Government is based upon Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and according to him once the proceedings initiated under Rule 14 or Rule 16 are dropped, the disciplinary authority would be debarred from initiating fresh proceeding against the delinquent. Here the question of dropping of the proceedings does not arise. In the instant case the Enquiry Officer has come to the finding that the administration has miserably failed to establish its case against the petitioner. In the aforesaid Supreme Court decision of K. R. Deb (supra ). Their Lordships specifically took up Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules and observed with emphasis that there is no provision in Rule 15 for completely setting aside the previous enquiry on the ground that the report of the Enquiry Officer or Officers does not appeal to the disciplinary authority and further adds that the disciplinary authority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion. The edifice built by the State upon Rule 15 of the said Central Rules and Rule 10 of the said West Bengal Rules collapses on the basis of this Supreme Court decision. The eminent jurist Dr. D. Basu in the 10th Edition of his Commentary. The edifice built by the State upon Rule 15 of the said Central Rules and Rule 10 of the said West Bengal Rules collapses on the basis of this Supreme Court decision. The eminent jurist Dr. D. Basu in the 10th Edition of his Commentary. On the Shorter Constitution of India at page 909 observed on the basis of this Supreme Court judgment (K. R. Deb's case) that if in view of the finding of not guilty by the Enquiry Officer the disciplinary authority goes on directing fresh enquiry, evincing an intention to somehow get a report against the Government servant in question, the proceedings would be quashed. ( 9 ) IN the light of the aforesaid discussions, I find that the District Judge, Howrah, was wholly unjustified in amending the charge-sheet by his Memo dated 31st January, 1984 when he found that the delinquent has been exonerate as the administration miserably failed to prove any charge against her by the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer dated 24th January, 198,4. The act of the District Judge cannot be sustained and as such the Memo dated 31st January, 1984 issued by the District Judge is hereby set aside and quashed and the findings of the Enquiry Authority (Additional District Judge, First Court, Howrah) dated 24th January, 1984 is confirmed that the administration has miserably failed to bring borne the charge against any of the delinquents. ( 10 ) MR. Dutta, learned Advocate appearing for the added respondent Nos. 8 to 13 submits that his clients must not be the victims 6f the interim order granted by this Court. I want to make it clear that the added respondents Nos. 8 to 13 shall not in any way be prejudiced because of the delay caused during the pendency of this writ application and the orders passed by this Court. The same principle shall apply to the petitioner as well. ( 11 ) THE Rule is accordingly made absolute. There will be no orders to costs. ( 12 ) IF any urgent certified copy of this judgment is applied for, let the same be granted expeditiously. Liberty is given to the learned Advocates on record for the parties to take down note of the operative portion of the judgment for communication and compliance. Rule made absolute.