Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 125 (CAL)

Nag Narayan Singh v. Union of India

2001-03-07

AMITAVA LALA

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is made in effect for the purpose of quashing the charge-sheet and enquiry proceeding as against him on the three grounds. 2. Firstly, Mr. Majumdar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended before this Court that the charge-sheet as given to the petitioner bears its stigma which cannot be treated as an appropriate charge-sheet. I find from the original of charges which is as follows ;- "Const.8335 N.N. Singh of RIG by his above acts exhibited lack of integrity and conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby, violated Rule 3 (i), (ii) and (iii) of Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966." "Thus, by his above act, he exhibited lack of integrity and conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby violated Rule 3(i), (ii) and (iii) of Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966." 3. The case of the petitioner is supported by two judgments. One is Division Bench of this Court reported in (1) 1980(2) CRN 35, Bimala Kanta Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal and another is (2) 1984 (2) CHN 185 , Bharat Process & Mechanical Engineers & Ors. In both the cases, it was held that prejudging the issue at the stage of framing charges cannot be an outcome of Justice, equity and fair-play but outcome of a closed mind in such case, cannot be treated as an appropriate chargesheet in the eye of law. I have no doubt, although not referred hereunder, the position of law is much more specific in respect of the same by now. From a letter dated 13/16.11.92, it also appears that disciplinary authority was very much eager to know the progress of the proceeding before the enquiry who is an independent person. 4. The second point as taken by Mr. Majumdar is in respect of a provision being sub-rule 8 of Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 whereunder it was directed that the petitioner can call upon his friend to represent the case on his behalf to appear with him before the Inquiry Officer but such "friend" will be member of the Force or holding the rank of and below the rank of Sub-Inspector. Moreover, such "friend" shall, however, not be allowed to address the Inquiry Officer nor to cross-examine the witnesses. According to me, there cannot be any restriction as regards the choice of the friend. Moreover, such "friend" shall, however, not be allowed to address the Inquiry Officer nor to cross-examine the witnesses. According to me, there cannot be any restriction as regards the choice of the friend. My such observation has been supported by two unreported judgments of this Court. One is C.O. No. 6694 (W) of 1991 delivered on 4.12.91 and another is (3) C.O. No. 2600 (W) of 1992, Sri Vijoy Kumar Singh v. Dr. D.P. Saha & Ors., delivered on 10.5.96. It was held that right to defend by a person of his choice cannot be restricted. Such judgment will not only have a binding effect but also given principle of law which is very much forceful in this respect. 5. Thirdly, Mr. Majumdar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted before this Court that two copies of the document of which were called upon as very much relied upon by the Inquiry Officer have not been given to the petitioner to defend the case. In such aspect he has also relied upon a Supreme Court Judgment reported in (4) 1998 (5) SLR 43, State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal & Anr., where it has held that one of the principles of natural Justice is that a person against whom an action was proposed to be taken has to be given an opportunity of hearing. This opportunity has to be an effective opportunity and not a mere pretence. In departmental proceedings where charge-sheet is issued and the documents which arc proposed to be utilised against that person are indicated in the charge-sheet but copies thereof are not supplied to him in spite of his request, and he is, at the same time, called upon to submit his reply, it cannot be said that an effective opportunity to defend was provided to him. 6. Under such circumstances, I do not find any inappropriate submission has been made by the learned Counsel in support of the petitioner for the purpose of quashing the entire departmental proceeding including the charge-sheet. Since nobody appeared in the Court on behalf of the respondent, it is my primary duty to go into affidavit-in-opposition, if at all filed on their behalf. I have gone through it and I find that it is very criptic and there in no such specific denial. No positive case has been made out in opposing the contention of the writ petitioner. I have gone through it and I find that it is very criptic and there in no such specific denial. No positive case has been made out in opposing the contention of the writ petitioner. As a result whereof, I cannot accept the same. 7. Therefore, taking into totality of the matter, I am of the view that the entire disciplinary proceeding including charge-sheet has to be quashed and declared by the Court as quashed and set aside. However, if the authority is interested to take any proceeding afresh they can initiate the same from the stage from which it has been quashed by this Court. 8 Thus, the writ petition stands disposed of. Interim order will continue till one week after finalisation of the fresh proceeding if any. There will be no order as to costs. Copy of the affidavit-in-opposition be kept with the record.