Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 960 (CAL)

Subhas Das v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010-08-11

SYAMAL KANTI CHAKRABARTI

body2010
JUDGMENT Syamal Kanti Chakrabarti, J. 1. IN the instant writ petition a direction has been sought for upon the respondent no. 3 to comply with the order passed by his superior officer regarding use of government vehicle already placed in the department instead of use of hired vehicle for performing official duties. 2. THE petitioner Subhas Das claims that he is a driver under the Assistant Engineer, Calcutta Canals Sub-Division of the Government of West Bengal and is entrusted to drive a government vehicle being registration no. WBB-8639. From May, 2006 the respondent no. 3 has introduced a hired vehicle being no. WB-19C/3169 for the use of department ignoring the government circular and since then the petitioner, though attending office of the respondents, is sitting idle being the only driver of the department. He made several representations to the respondent no. 3 for use of the said government vehicle for the interest of the respondents but to no effect. It is further claimed that by government order dated 22.06.2006 being memo no. 2125 issued by the Sub-divisional Officer, Calcutta Canal Sub-Division, the use of hired vehicles of Calcutta Canal Sub-Division, Tally Nala Canal Sub-Division and Dabu Sub-Division have been discontinued and specific instruction was given to use government vehicle allotted to the departments. In total defiance of the said government order dated 22.06.2006 the respondent no. 3 is using the hired vehicle keeping both the driver and government vehicle idle. Therefore, he has preferred this writ petition seeking a direction in the nature of Mandamus upon the respondent no. 1 to look into the grievances of the petitioner and to consider and dispose of the same by giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the parties and to pass a reasoned order within a specified period of time and to direct the respondent no. 3 to use the government vehicle instead of hired vehicle till the decision is being given by the respondent no. 1 over this issue. 3. IN the supplementary affidavit filed on 08.03.2010 the petitioner has annexed a copy of his complaint before the Vigilance Commission, Bikash Bhaban, Kolkata 700 091 dated 25.02.2004. IN memo no. 275 dated 15.02.2010 the Superintending Engineer, Eastern Circle has intimated the petitioner that the information sought for by him under RTI Act with reference to his letter regarding vigilance matter is under investigation and he will be informed in due course. IN memo no. 275 dated 15.02.2010 the Superintending Engineer, Eastern Circle has intimated the petitioner that the information sought for by him under RTI Act with reference to his letter regarding vigilance matter is under investigation and he will be informed in due course. 4. IN course of hearing the learned lawyer for the petitioner has intimated that the petitioner has been maltreated by the departmental officer and he has also admitted that show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner in memo no. CON 1792 dated 02.08.2007 as to why disciplinary action shall not be taken against him for his non-cooperation and on account of his denial to receive Log Book for its proper maintenance in accordance with service rule. He has also admitted that after due consideration of show-cause filed by the writ petitioner on 13.08.2007, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Calcutta Canal Sub-Division by memo no. 2070 dated 28.12.2007 has already decided the matter and intimated the following: "Sub: Govt. Duty Ref: His letter dt. 24.12.2007. His prayer vide his letter cited above to excuse him for his previous activities is noted. His prayer is considered. However it is to remind him that he has to carry out all official instructions, abide by govt. rules, regulations, obligations and maintain discipline, norms, decorums." IN the said communication there is further endorsement to the effect that as the vehicle in question remained idle for a long time, its body, metal floor and brake have been damaged to some extent as per version of the driver. The vehicle is required to be repaired before its further use/ run. It is further admitted that though the driver is sitting idle he is receiving his salaries and is getting other service benefits as per rule. 5. LEARNED lawyer for the petitioner has verbally submitted that the petitioner has been deprived of his Career Advancement Scheme which is not, however, mentioned in his averment. If it be so its remedy lies before appropriate forum. From the documents furnished by the petitioner it also appears that his allegations have already received due attention of his higher authorities and he has been assured that the decision taken by the authority will be communicated to him in due course. He has placed before me photocopy of the said Log Book. From the documents furnished by the petitioner it also appears that his allegations have already received due attention of his higher authorities and he has been assured that the decision taken by the authority will be communicated to him in due course. He has placed before me photocopy of the said Log Book. Verification of such document si a pure question of fact which cannot be decided by this Court and the writ court cannot investigate into the matter. 6. IT has been further contended that the Executive Engineer, Canals Division is not obeying the order dated 22.06.2006 being memo no. 2125 issued y the Sub-Divisional Officer of Calcutta Canal Sub- Division. In the said order the plying of rented car/ hired vehicles in the department was prohibited and direction was given to use government vehicle. IT has already been pointed out that the allegations of the petitioner is now under consideration of the vigilance department of the Government of West Bengal and pending their decision the Writ Court cannot come to a conclusion regarding merit of such allegation and from this point of view I hold that the instant writ petition is premature because as much as in the said communication it is clearly stipulated that the decision taken by the vigilance department will be communicated to him in due course and if he is dissatisfied with such enquiry report or recommendation of the vigilance department he may come for redress before judicial forum. Moreover, in course of hearing it is submitted on behalf of the learned lawyer for the petitioner that both the parties were directed to appear before the Vigilance Commission on 23.07.2010 in connection with an enquiry into the above allegations and as such it is evident that the matter is now under active consideration of the Vigilance Commission. I hold that where the appropriate authority is looking into the allegation made by the writ petitioner no judicial review of administrative action is tenable at present. Therefore, at this stage I cannot decide the merit of the allegation made by the writ petitioner before the Vigilance Commission. I also hold that the government circulars and orders relied upon by the learned lawyer for the petitioner and placed before me will be of no use for me to decide the merit of the allegations now under administrative enquiry. I also hold that the government circulars and orders relied upon by the learned lawyer for the petitioner and placed before me will be of no use for me to decide the merit of the allegations now under administrative enquiry. So after careful consideration of aforesaid circumstances I hold that there is no cause of action for preferring this writ petition which is premature as his service is not affected in any way for the use of hired vehicle instead of departmental government vehicle by his superior officer since it is solely an administrative policy decision of the department concerned without violating any principle of natural justice or affecting any fundamental right of the writ petitioner. This frivolous writ petition is the outcome of revenge motive of the petitioner against disciplinary action to be taken against him for his non-cooperation and defiance to receive Log Book as detailed in paragraph 5 above. Under the circumstances I hold that the instant writ petition is devoid of any merit and as such dismissed.