TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (9) TMI 201
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a chargesheet, The charges mainly were; (1) the petitioner collected certain amounts form the salaries of the staff on the pay day for depositing in the respective Cumulative Deposit Accounts (Savings Bank and Postal) of each person but the same were not deposited promptly and kept the same with him and when the irregularity was brought to the notice of the authorities the deposits were made by the petitioner long afterwards whereby the said depositors were put to loss on account interest, (2) the said amounts which were not duly deposited by the petitioner were monies belonging to the Government of India, and therefore the petitioner had no right to keep the money in his hand without duly accounting for the same and the amount was unauthorisedly and without the consent and knowledge of the Officer-in-charge of Collectorate was held by the petitioner, (3) the conduct of the petitioner in non-complying with the rules gave rise to the suspicion that the petitioner temporarily defalcated Government money. The petitioner was asked to show cause why he should not be dismissed from his service or otherwise dealt with. In reply to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted a wri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... show cause notice any representation which the petitioner might wish to make on the penalty proposed to be imposed on him, that is, penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner was supplied with a copy of the report of the Enquiring Officer. The petitioner made representation against the same and submitted his explanation thereto and also called upon the respondent No. 1 to revoke, cancel or withdraw the said second show cause notice and not to give effect to the punishment proposed either by the Enquiring Officer or by the said show cause notice. " 2. Mr. Kashi Kanta Maitra, learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the chargesheet was bad inasmuch at the same was not issued by the disciplinary authority. It was issued by the respondent No. 2 who was at the time discharging the functions of the respondent No. 1 as a stopgap arrangement. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by Sri Sankar Mukherji, Collector of Calcutta, the respondent No. 1 affirmed on 28th March, 1978 it is admitted that the respondent No. 2 was acting in the position of the respondent No. 1 because of the absence of the respondent No. 1 at the relevant time. Mr. Maitra also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cannot be issued except by an authority which can punish and which calls upon a delinquent to explain his conduct with a view to inflict punishment if the explanation is insufficient or unsatisfactory. It is unthinkable that any self-chosen champion can take upon himself to investigate the commission and omissions of a civil servant although be might have no power to inflict any punishment......". 3. Mr. Maitra next contended that the chargesheet was also bad and liable to be set aside and quashed inasmuch as the same was based on suspicion. A suspicion of guilt cannot be made the basis of an offence and a man cannot be punished on suspicion nor can his position be jeopardised on mere suspicion. In support of his contention Mr. Maitra cited a decision of the Supreme Court in Nand Kishore Prasad v. State of Behar and ors, reported in 1978 Lab IC 1106, where the Supreme Court observed as under:-- "Disciplinary proceedings before domestic tribunal are of a quasi-judicial character; therefore, the minimum requirement of the rules of natural justice is that the Tribunal should arrive at its conclusion on the basis of some evidence, i.e. evidential material which with some ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollowing decisions:-- (1) State of Assam v. Bimal Kumar Pandit, reported in AIR (1963) SC 1612 here the Supreme Court observed as under:-- "In issuing the second notice, the dismissing authority naturally has to come to a tentative or provisional conclusion about the guilt of the public officer as well as about the punishment which would meet the requirement of justice in his case, and it is only after reaching conclusion in both these matters provisionally that the dismissing authority issues the second notice. The second opportunity enables the public officer to cover the whole ground and to plead that no case had been made out against him for taking any disciplinary action and then to urge that if he fails in substantiating his innocence, the action proposed to be taken against him is either unduly severe or not called for". (2) Union of India v. H.C. Goel, reported in AIR (1964) SC 364. Here the Supreme Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed as under:-- "Now, in this state of the evidence, how can it be said that the respondent even attempted- to offer a bribe to Mr. Rajagopalan. Mr. Rajagopalan makes a definite statement....