State of West Bengal and Others vs Manotosh and Another

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.—In 1973, the Respondent joined West Bengal Police as Constable. In 1992 he was promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector whereas in 1999 he was promoted as Sub-Inspector. In July 2005 he was posted as Sub-Inspector in SOG Unit at Kharagpur under CID department of West Bengal Police.

On or about December 13, 2005 Radhaballav Mahato of village Goaltore in the district Paschim Medinipur lodged a complaint to the Police that he had received a telephone call from a person claiming to be the CID Officer. Similar telephone call was received by another businessman Nandalal Ghosh of the same locality. The caller threatened them with dire consequence regarding their involvement with Naxalites in the area. The caller however did not disclose his name. They met at Reshma Lodge Midnapore on the next day at 1 p.m. pursuant to the complaint the Police led a trap and arrested the applicant with one Sital Banerjee Assistant Sub-Inspector CID Head Quarter, Bhavani Bhavan, Kolkata. They were subsequently released on personal bond. The authority initiated departmental proceeding against the applicant. They charged the officer on the allegation of extortion. The authority appointed enquiry officer who submitted his final report on February 16, 2007. The authority issued him a second show cause notice which he did not reply. He was asked to attend personal hearing which he failed. The authority passed a final order on March 15, 2007 proposing dismissal from service.

In this back drop, the Respondent No. 1 filed a tribunal application being O.A. No. 1319 of 2007. The Tribunal disposed of the application vide order dated July 3, 2009, directing the authority to withdraw the order of dismissal from service and treat him as retired compulsorily on and from the date of order of dismissal from service so recorded by the disciplinary authority. The Tribunal also directed extension of financial benefit due to retirement to be given to the Respondent within three months from the date of communication of the said order. Being aggrieved, the State filed the instant application before us.

Ms. Sukiran Biswas learned Counsel appearing for the State drew our attention to the pleadings as well as the enquiry report and contended that once the Tribunal was satisfied with the Final Report of the enquiry officer and agreed with the finding of the disciplinary authority the Tribunal erred in modifying the punishment which was beyond its competence. Ms. Biswas further contended that the concerned officer was posted at Kharagpur. He was on live. He did not make any G.D entry before proceeding to Medinipur. Moreover, he failed to assign any reason as to why he asked the complainants to meet him at Reshma Lodge. In absence of such clarification from the delinquent, the authority was right in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service as the delinquent was unbecoming of being member of the disciplined Force. She relied on the following decisions:

I) The Binny Limited Vs. Their Workmen,

II) (1994) 3 SCC 537 (State Bank of India and Ors. v. Samarendra Kishore endow and Anr.)

III) N. Rajarathinam Vs. State of T.N. and Another,

IV) The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. B. Ashok Kumar,

V) Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta and Others Vs. A. Gopalan,

VI) 2002 1 SCC 593 (State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Sri Pratap Roy)

VII Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Etawah and Others Vs. Hoti Lal and Another,

VIII) (2005) 8 SCC 764 (Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., Haldia and Ors.)

IX) (2006) 8 SCC 162 (M.P. Gangadharan and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.)

X) (2007) 15 SCC 206 (Farrukhabad Gramin Bank v. Ashok Saxena and Ors.)

XI) Director, Central Glass and Ceramic Research Institute and Another Vs. Sumilon Pal,

XII) (2009) 3 Cal HCN 97 (Ex- Constable Ramvir Singh v. Union of India and Ors.)

XIII) 2010 3 Cal HCN 77 (Airport Authority of India and Ors. v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee and Ors.)

Opposing the application Mr. Debasish Saha contended as follows:

i) Being a member of the special group to deal with Naxalites, the Respondent No. 1 was authorized to collect information without disclosing the source. So he did not commit any illegality by meeting the complainants.

ii) The allegation of extortion was not proved in the enquiry. Hence the charges were not proved.

iii) The enquiry report was based upon no evidence and the Respondent was entitled to exoneration from all the charges.

iv) The prosecution miserably failed to prove that any money was demanded form the complainants, hence the allegation of extortion failed.

Mr. Saha also contended that since alternative remedy was not a bar for moving the Tribunal the Respondent did not commit any illegality in approaching the Tribunal alleging violation of principles of natural justice. On the issue of quantum of punishment the learned Counsel contended that once the tribunal found the punishment disproportionate they were entitled to modify the punishment. He relied on the following decisions.

i) AIR 1975 SCC 661 (L. Michael and Anr. v. Johnson Pumps Ltd.)

ii) AIR 1977 SCC 1605 (Roshan Di-Hatti v. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi)

iii) B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others,

iv) Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others,

v) Union of India Vs. K.A. Kittu And Others,

Learned Counsel lastly contended the prosecution witness did not have any personal knowledge about any extortion or harassment as would appear from pages 62 and 67 of the Paper Book. He also contended that he had gone to Ghatshila in connection with official duty and had come back on December 13, 2005 and visited Midnapur on the next day. Hence, the allegation that he was supposed to attend Ghatshila and he did not do so was not correct.

Ms. Biswas, while replying, contended that the Respondent did not go to Ghatshila and was absent in his office on December 14, 2005. Hence, he was not authorized to visit Midnapur on December 14, 2005 being not on duty. She relied upon the Apex Court decision in this regard reported in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Nerbudda Valley Refrigerated Products Company Pvt. Ltd. and Others,

We have considered the rival contentions. We are of the view that the Respondent No. 1 was entitled to the benefit of doubt. He was admittedly working as Intelligence Officer in CID. He was posted at Kharagpur and Midnapur was within the said Zone, being considered as Naxalite zone. The evidence so led during enquiry could sufficiently prove neither the extortion nor harassment. Being an officer of an Intelligence Group, he had some liberty for collecting information with regard to the terrorist activities in the said Zone discretely. Whether he called those two persons to meet him at Reshma Lodge for collecting information or for terrorizing them with an ulterior motive for extraneous consideration, is not clear, at least no such evidence came out during enquiry. The Tribunal, being a fact-finding body, examined each and every aspect including the pleadings and ultimately modified the punishment. The Respondent accepted such punishment. Hence, we do not find any scope of interference in this regard. Even if we accept the contention of Ms. Biswas that the Trial was not competent to modify the punishment, being the highest Court of the State we are competent enough to approve such modification especially when we wish to give benefit of doubt to the delinquent who already accepted such modified punishment.

The Tribunal application fails and is hereby dismissed. There would be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat copy will be given to the parties, if applied for.