Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Netai Mridha vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 10 June, 2024
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
Form No. J (2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
And
The Hon'ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
FMA 3594 of 2015
With
CAN 1 of 2015 (Old NO: CAN 10634 of 2015)
with
CAN 2 of 2024
Sri Netai Mridha
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Appellant : Mr. Ovik Sengupta,
Mr. Biplob Das, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Somnath Ganguli, AGP
: Mr. Bikash Goswami, Advocates
Heard and Judgement on: June 10, 2024
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
1. CAN 2 of 2024 is an application for restoration. For the ends of
justice, CAN 2 of 2024 is allowed on the basis of the averments made in
the application for restoration.
Signed By :
DEBABRATA
DAS
High Court of
Calcutta
11 th of June
2024 02:50:49 PM
FMA 3594 of 2015
2. The appeal and the connected application are restored to its file and
number.
3. Appeal is directed against the order dated July 9, 2015 passed in WP
13318 (W) of 2015.
4. By consent of the appearing parties, the appeal is treated as on day's
list and it is taken up for final hearing.
5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant draws the attention of
the Court to the Article of Charge against the appellant. He submits that,
the appellant was working as 'Summon Bailiff' attached to the Sub-
divisional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Sealdah. He submits that, the
Article of charge principally related to the alleged offence of the appellant
in trying to assist a person participating in the Railway Recruitment
Examination. He submits that, subject matter of the Article of Charge is a
subject matter of criminal proceeding. The criminal proceeding is yet to
come to finality. He draws the attention of the Court to the Inquiry report
dated April 29, 2015. He submits that, Inquiry Officer observed that, at the
stage of the inquiry, no conclusion as to the guilt or otherwise of the
appellant can be drawn. He submits that, in view of such conclusive
finding of the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary proceeding was required to
be dropped, if not stayed till the dismissal of the criminal proceeding. He
submits, in all fairness that, the order of dismissal premised upon the
inquiry report dated April 24, 2015 should be kept in abeyance till at least
the disposal of the criminal proceedings. According to him, since there are
similarities between the charges levelled in the disciplinary proceedings
and the criminal proceedings, the finding of the criminal Court will affect
the disciplinary proceeding.
6. State is represented.
FMA 3594 of 2015
7. We perused the materials on record placed on record. The entire
writ petition along with annexures are part of the stay application itself.
8. We find from the records that, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated
against the appellant. Two articles of charge were framed as against the
appellant.
9. The first article of charge relates to the discharge of duties of the
appellant as 'Summon Bailiff'. In the first Article of Charge he was charged
with an offence of cheating in respect of Railway Recruitment Examination
and thereby, the duty assigned to him from the period November 16, 2014
to November 27, 2014. Such conduct was charged to be unbecoming of a
public servant amounting to dereliction of duty and violation of Article 3(1)
of the West Bengal Services (Duties Rights & Obligations of the
Government Employees) Rules, 1980.
10. The second Article of Charge again relates to the performance of
duties of the appellant as 'Summon Bailiff'. He was charged of engaging
himself in corrupt practice and offence of cheating as result of which the
appellant was arrested in connection with Madhyamgram P.S. Case No.
834 dated November 16, 2014 under Sections 420/120B of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 66D/72A of the Information Technology Act, 2008
and detained in custody from November 22, 2014 to December 2, 2014.
11. Appellant was given an opportunity to file written statement.
Appellant filed written statement. Prosecution examined witnesses in the
proceedings. Appellant declined to cross-examination such witnesses.
12. Inquiry Officer, on perusal of the evidence placed, submitted a report
dated April 29, 2015. In course of discussions of the evidence placed
before the Inquiry Officer, he took into account the pending criminal
proceedings. He opined that, in the inquiry proceedings it was not possible
FMA 3594 of 2015
to arrive at a finding as to the guilt, if any, of the appellant so far as the
criminal proceeding is concerned.
13. An action of an employee, at times, may result in both criminal
offence as well as a civil liability. Two forai will obviously decide the
respective liabilities of such employee. Pendency of a criminal proceeding
or even a judgment in a criminal proceeding may not resonate in the
disciplinary proceeding of the same delinquent employee in the event the
issues in the two proceedings are different although they emanate out of
the same incident.
14. In the facts of the present case, the appellant before us was working
as 'Summon Bailiff'. During his tenure of such employee, he was found to
be indulging in practices which was unbecoming of a Government
employee. Two articles of charge were framed as against the appellant. In
both the Articles of Charge, he was found guilty on appraisal of evidence.
The appellant before us was found to be assisting a person participating in
the Railway Recruitment Examination while the appellant was working as a
'Summon Bailiff' with the Court.
15. The appellant was also facing a criminal case in respect of his action.
The issue in the criminal case was his criminal liability of cheating. The
issue in the disciplinary proceeding was one of actions that were
unbecoming of a Government employee.
16. The issues in the two proceedings are not absolutely similar as to
prompt the Court to hold that, the decision in one will materially affect the
other in the disciplinary proceedings. The issue in the disciplinary
proceeding was whether, the action of the appellant was unbecoming of a
Government employee or not. He was found to be guilty.
FMA 3594 of 2015
17. As noted above, the appellant was given an opportunity of hearing.
He was heard. The quantum of punishment is obviously in the domain of
the Disciplinary Authority. Given the materials as against the appellant and
the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the decision of dismissal cannot be said
to be shocking the conscious of the Court.
18. The learned single Judge considered such aspects of the present
matter and arrived on the finding that, the punishment imposed was
commensurate with the offences proved.
19. In such circumstances, we find no merit in the present appeal.
20. FMA 3594 of 2015 along with connected application are dismissed
without any order as to costs.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
21. I Agree
(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
Dd
