Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3233 (CAL)

Swadesh Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal

2025-02-12

Madhuresh Prasad, Supratim Bhattacharya

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner was the applicant before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the S.A.T.). He has been visited with a punishment withholding two of his annual increments that also with non-cumulative effect. The punishment awarded in the proceedings has been upheld in appeal as also by the S.A.T. in the proceedings arising out of O.A. No. 296 of 2012. 3. The brief factual background is being noted for easy reference. The petitioner, a Constable, was assigned duty near a market in Sealdah in the city of Kolkata along with one Assistant Sub-Inspector (A.S.I.). A complaint was received from the businessmen in the market in front of which the petitioner was posted along with the A.S.I. that they have indulged in demanding of illegal gratification from the trucks carrying the material to the market from other States. The same led to issuance of a charge memo dated 19.01.2010 against the petitioner and thereby initiation of proceedings. The charge memo clearly specifies that the petitioner is charged with asking the four truck drivers of trucks whose registration number has been specified in the charge memo to park their vehicles by the side of the road and that later the petitioner has demanded money from the drivers and intimidated them for initiating prosecution under grievous sections of law if they do not fulfil the demand for illegal gratification. 4. The petitioner filed a written statement denying the allegation of demand of illegal gratification. According to him, the persons sitting in the truck when asked for papers asked the petitioner to speak to one of the businessmen in the market area. The petitioner thereafter spoke with the person and left the place. He never demanded any illegal gratification nor did he take any money. 5. The Enquiry Officer has considered the evidence of 12 witnesses in support of the charge. The list of witnesses includes at least two persons sitting in two of the trucks said to have been stopped by the petitioner. P.W.4 and P.W.5 have thus deposed before the Enquiry Officer and supported the allegations. They have also identified the petitioner as being the charged officer (Constable) who demanded the illegal gratification. 6. The petitioner has been allowed full opportunity in the proceedings. He has also cross-examined the witnesses. P.W.4 and P.W.5 have thus deposed before the Enquiry Officer and supported the allegations. They have also identified the petitioner as being the charged officer (Constable) who demanded the illegal gratification. 6. The petitioner has been allowed full opportunity in the proceedings. He has also cross-examined the witnesses. Thereafter the petitioner has been visited with the order of punishment dated 02.11.2011. The punishment imposed by the final order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North & North Suburban Division, Kolkata is for withholding of two increments which were not to effect his future pay and service. 7. The petitioner has preferred an appeal against the punishment before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority (the Joint Commissioner of Police, Establishment, Kolkata) has affirmed the findings by his order dated 22.12.2011. 8. The petitioner thereafter has moved the S.A.T. The S.A.T. has taken note of the charges. It has also requisitioned the records of enquiry which have been examined by the S.A.T. The S.A.T. found that there was evidence of at least two persons P.W.4 and P.W.5 who have deposed and supported the charges of demand of illegal gratification. The S.A.T. did not find any procedural lapse in the proceedings either before the Enquiry Officer or before the Appellate Authority. 9. In the above circumstances, the S.A.T. has refused to interfere with the impugned order/s of punishment as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The S.A.T. in its order has limited its scope of review of the proceedings before the authorities, to the decision making process and having found the procedure being complied, and there being evidence on record has refused to interfere with the findings. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that prior to issuance of the charge memo a complaint was made by the leader of the association in the market in front of which the misconduct is alleged to have been committed. As per the complaint made by the complainant only the A.S.I. with whom the petitioner was attached for duty has been alleged to be indulging in misconduct. It is thus submitted that the charge memo itself against the applicant who was a Constable and not an A.S.I., was unsustainable against the petitioner. He has submitted that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse. 11. It is thus submitted that the charge memo itself against the applicant who was a Constable and not an A.S.I., was unsustainable against the petitioner. He has submitted that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse. 11. The learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that after the complaint was made by the leader of the market association, the issue was examined by the officers in the local police station and after a preliminary enquiry made from the local people the charges have been framed. The charges contained a specific allegation regarding demand of illegal gratification by the present petitioner also. The same has been supported by P.W.4 and P.W.5 in the proceedings. Even in cross-examination, the petitioner has only put a question as to whether money was paid or not. It is submitted that the allegation regarding demand of illegal gratification, therefore, has rightly been held proved by the Enquiry Officer. Proof regarding demand of illegal gratification is sufficient to sustain the punishment of stopping of two increments with non-cumulative effect, awarded to the present petitioner. 12. The petitioner being a member of a uniformed force is required to maintain a higher level of integrity, discipline and devotion towards duty and therefore, demand of illegal gratification, given the circumstances where a hue and cry was raised by the entire market and a road blockade has been set up, is sufficient for imposition of the punishment of withholding of two annual increments, that also with non-cumulative effect. The fact that the petitioner has fled away from the place on a hue and cry being raised, does not entitle the petitioner to claim that he has committed no misconduct. Given the entirety of the circumstances the authorities have consciously awarded a punishment, proportionate to the charge and therefore, there is no infirmity in the conclusions arrived at in the enquiry, by the Appellate Authority or by the S.A.T. in the proceedings arising out of O.A. No. 296 of 2012. 13. Having considered the rival submissions, we are inclined to accept the submission advanced on behalf of the respondents. 14. It is trite that members of uniformed service are expected to have a higher level of integrity, discipline and dedication towards their duty. The demand of illegal gratification by a member of uniformed service cannot be brushed aside lightly. 13. Having considered the rival submissions, we are inclined to accept the submission advanced on behalf of the respondents. 14. It is trite that members of uniformed service are expected to have a higher level of integrity, discipline and dedication towards their duty. The demand of illegal gratification by a member of uniformed service cannot be brushed aside lightly. Such demand has been established by way of evidence in the proceedings wherein the findings of the Enquiry Officer is sustained by the deposition of two witnesses, namely, P.W.4 and P.W.5 who were sitting in the vehicles from which the demand has been made. 15. We further find that the petitioner has been given due opportunity right from issuance of charge memo till passing of the order by the Appellate Authority. There is no allegation that he has been denied an opportunity to file his written statement, participating in the proceedings, cross- examining the witnesses or to submit his defence witnesses etc. 16. In such facts and circumstances, we are mindful of the limited scope of judicial review with regard to the departmental proceedings, where the Court is concerned with the correctness of the decision making process and not the decision itself. There is no procedural infirmity pointed out. On this score, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the S.A.T. 17. Insofar as the submission regarding there being any perversity in the charge memo or the findings in the proceedings, we find the same to be unsustainable. The charges have specifically been communicated to the petitioner. The same has been sustained by at least two witnesses of the department in the proceedings before the authority. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are also based on the deposition of the witnesses. 18. We, therefore, find no scope for sustaining the allegation of the petitioner that there is any perversity in the order passed by the Enquiry Officer, the Appellate Authority or the S.A.T. in O.A. No. 296 of 2012. 19. We consider it apposite to take note of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 wherein the contours of judicial review have been restated relying upon the earlier judgements in the following terms:- “19. 19. We consider it apposite to take note of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 wherein the contours of judicial review have been restated relying upon the earlier judgements in the following terms:- “19. The disciplinary authority, on scanning the inquiry report and having accepted it, after discussing the available and admissible evidence on the charge, and the Central Administrative Tribunal having endorsed the view of the disciplinary authority, it was not at all open to the High Court to reappreciate the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.” 20. The order passed by the S.A.T., therefore, within the limited scope and jurisdiction of judicial review requires no interference. 21. The Writ Petition is dismissed.