http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7

PETITIONER:

SURATH CHANDRA CHAKRABARTY

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF WEST BENGAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

14/12/1970

BENCH:

GROVER, A.N.

BENCH:

GROVER, A.N.

SHAH, J.C.

HEGDE, K.S.

CITATION:

1971 AIR 752 1971 SCR (3) 1

1970 SCC (3) 548

CITATOR INFO :

RF 1986 SC 995 (16)

ACT:

Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, F.R.

55-Rule requires in mandatory manner that particulars of

allegations should be supplied to person charged-If

particulars not supplied charge remains vague and official

is denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

HEADNOTE:

The appellant filed a suit in the Calcutta High Court

challenging his; removal, after a departmental enquiry, from

the post of Assistant Director of Fire Services and Regional

Officer Calcutta Industrial Area. The suit was decreed in

his favour,by the Civil Judge but the Division Bench

reversed the decree. In appeal to this Court, by

certificate the question was whether the appellant had been

denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself inasmuch

as the charges were vague and no statement of allegations as

required by Fundamental Rule 55 of the Central Service

(Classification Control & Appeal) Rules was furnished to

him.

HELD: The appeal must be allowed:

The appellant repeatedly and at every stage brought to the

notice of the authorities concerned that he had not been

supplied the statement of allegations and that the charges

were extremely vague and indefinite. In spite of this he was

not informed of the facts and Circumstances and particulars

relevant to the charges. The entire proceedings showed a

complete disregard of Fundamental Rule 55 in so far as it

lays down in an almost mandatory manner that the charges

must be accompanied by a statement of allegations. There

could be no doubt that the appellant was denied a proper and

reasonable chance to defend himself by reason of the charges

being altogether vague and indefinite and the statement of

allegations containing the material facts and particulars

not having been supplied to him. [6 H; 7 D]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7

JUDGMENT:

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1258 of 1966.

Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 16, 1965

of the Calcutta High Court in First Appeal No. 146 of 1960.

C. B. Agarwala, P. K. Chakravarty, Prodyot Kumar Chakra-

varty and Uma Mehta, for the appellant.

B. Sen, S. P. Mitra, S. N. Mukherjee, G. S. Chatterjee

for, Sukumar Basu, for the respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Grover, J.-This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment

of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court reversing the

judgment and decree of a learned Single Judge made in exer-

cise of original jurisdiction in a suit filed by the

appellant.

2

The record of the case is voluminous and apparently that led

to very lengthy judgments both by the Single Judge and the

Division Bench. A host of facts have been introduced out of

which it is necessary to state only those which are relevant

for the purpose of the disposal of the points before us.

The appellant was appointed Station Officer in the Bengal

Fire Service in 1943. In March 1949 he was appointed to act

as Assistant Director of Fire Services and Regional Officer,

Calcutta Industrial Area until further orders. S. Bose, who

was appointed Director ,of Fire Service on or about the same

date, received some complaints against the appellant. He

made certain preliminary enquiries. In the beginning of May

1949 Bose informed the appellant that the post of Assistant

Director Fire Service would be treated as abolished with

effect from the date of the appointment ,of the appellant as

Assistant Director. This led to protests by the appellant

against the abolition of that post. A lot of acrimonious

dialogue started between Bose and the appellant; the former

made his final report to S. K. Gupta, Secretary Local Self

Government, as to the charges which were to be preferred

against the appellant. On July 12, 1949 the appellant was

suspended. On July 19, 1949 a communication containing the

charges against the appellant was sent to him by S. K.

Gupta, Secretary Local Self Government. It is necessary to

reproduce it in extenso

"Charges.

Whereas it has been made to appear to the Government of West

Bengal--

(1) that you, Sri S. C. Chakravarty,

Regional Officer, Calcutta Industrial Area,

West Bengal Fire Service incited the

subordinate staff of the said service by

circulating false rumours regarding the

retrenchment policy of the Government, thereby

spreading insubordination and discontent

within the Force;

(2) that you, Sri S. C. Chakravarty,

Regional Officer, Calcutta Industrial Area,

West Bengal Fire Service, took an active part

in a conspiracy to implicate the present

Director of Fire Service West Bengal in a

false case by planting firearms in his office

and to injure him by planting a time bomb in

his car when he might be going on inspection;

3

(3) that you, Sri S. C. Chakravarty,

Regional Officer, Calcutta Industrial Area,

West Bengal Fire Service, have been guilty

of--

(a) wilful disobedience of Government Order

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7

directing you to stay at your headquarters at

Barrackpore and of the order of the Director

Fire Service to produce the petrol log book of

your inspection car;

(b) grave negligence of duty, failure to

attend office on many days and irregular

attendance even on the days when you came to

office, resulting in accumulation of work;

(c) fabricating false entries in the cash

book by putting signatures on dates when you

did not attend office;

(d) taking illegal issue of petrol from the

accounts of different fire stations in addi-

tion to the quota allotted to you for your

use. and

(e) cooking up false complaint against some

members of the staff of the West Bengal Fire

Service whom you tried to rope in into the

conspiracy but failed and refusing permission

to them to see the Director, Fire Service,

apprehending a disclosure.

AND whereas these acts of indiscipline, conspiracy

negligence in the performance of your duties and other

irregularities were committed by you while you were holding

the responsible, position of the Regional Officer, Calcutta

Industrial Area, in a disciplined Organisation like the West

Bengal Fire Service and which, therefore, amounted to an

abuse or misuse of the position so enjoyed by you.

Now, therefore, you are directed to show cause why you

should not be dismissed from the service of the Government

or otherwise suitably punished departmentally.

The enquiry will be conducted by the undersigned Sri'S. C.

Chakravarty is directed to put in a written statement of his

defence by the 8th August, 1949, and to state within the

time aforesaid whether he desires to be heard in person.

Sd. illegible.

Local Self Government Department Secy. to the Govt. of

Calcutta.

The 19th July, 1949 West Bengal

4

It is common ground that a statement of the allegations on

which each charge was based was never sent to the appellant.

He sent a letter dated August 5, 1949 with reference to the

communication containing the charges. He emphatically

denied what had been alleged against him and described the

charges as false and actuated by mala fides. What is worth

noticing is that the appellant in categorical terms stated

that the charges and allegations were vague, indefinite and

lacking in material particulars and pointed out that "unless

the charges are made specific to the point and contain full

details with date, time, place, and person etc.. it is

impossible for me to meet them properly." No further

particulars or details were supplied at that stage or

subsequently. S. K. Gupta submitted his report on May 1,

1950. He found charges 1, 2 and 3 (b) as having been proved

against the appellant. Charge 3 (a) was dropped. As

regards charges 3 (c) and 3 (d) it was found that there had

been gross negligence on the part of the appellant in

attendance as well as in carrying out all his ordinary

duties, vis., checking and signing of the cash book and

disposal of current work including grant or refusal of leave

applications. The appellant was not found guilty of charge

3 (e) On June 10, 1950, the Deputy Secretary to the

Government, West Bengal, sent a notice to the appellant in

which it was stated that in view of the findings of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7

Enquiry Officer he was considered to be unsuitable for

retention in service and it was proposed to remove him. A

summary of the findings of the Inquiry Officer was sent and

the appellant was directed to show cause why he should not

be removed from the service of the Government. The

appellant wrote a long letter on July 1, 1950 in which he

once again pointed out that according to law he was entitled

to have a statement of allegations on which each charge was

based before the enquiry started. But he was not given any

such statement with the result that he could not defend his

case properly. On June 16, 1950 the Director of Fire

Services communicated an order of dismissal to the appellant

who filed an appeal to the Government without any success.

In August 1951 the appellant moved the High Court under Art.

226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of dismissal.

In April 1952 the High Court acceded to the appellants

prayer and quashed the order of dismissal on the sole ground

that the punishment which had been tentatively proposed in

the show cause notice was removal and therefore an order of

dismissal could not have been made.' On May 15, 1952 the

appellant called upon the Government to reinstate him in his

post. On May 31, 1952 an order was made by the Governor,

West Bengal, removing the appellant from service. A

memorandum was sent by the Joint Secretary, Local Self

Government, along with a copy of the order of the Governor.

It was stated therein that after a careful considera-

5

tion of the report of the Enquiry Officer and the

representation submitted by the appellant the Government, in

consultation with the Public Service Commission, West

Bengal, had decided that he should be removed from service.

In September 1952 the appellant filed a suit in the Calcutta

High Court challenging the order of his removal from service

and asking for various reliefs including a declaration that

lie was still in government service and a decree for arrears

of pay and allowances from the date of suspension till

institution of the suit and interim pay and allowances till

the disposal of the suit together with interest etc. We

need refer only to para 19(a) of the plaint in which it was

pleaded that the enquiry was vitiated because under the

rules and procedure for holding such enquiry the appellant

was entitled to be furnished with definite charges. But the

charges and allegations were vague, indefinite and lacking

in material particulars and in spite of repeated requests

these, were neither made specific nor material particulars

like, day time, place and persons were supplied. In the

written statement filed by the respondent it was denied that

the charges or allegations were vague, indefinite or lacking

in material particulars as alleged. It is unnecessary to

set out the other pleadings but the issues which were

settled would indicate the points which the trial court was

called upon to decide. These issues were:--

1. Is there a valid contract of employment

between the plaintiff and the defendant under

the Government of India Act ?

2. Was the suspension order dated 12th July

1949 mala-fide, wrongful and ultra vires ?

3. Was Mr. S. K. Gupta in a position to

exercise unbiased mind in the matter of

enquiry ?

4. Was the order dated 16th September 1950,

illegal, void and ultra vires in the

Constitution and it cannot operate to

terminate the service of the plaintiff ?

5. Was the order of removal dated 31st May

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7

1952 illegal, void in law and ultra vires in

the Constitution of India and the Civil

Service Rules for grounds stated in paragraph

29 and 30 of the plaint ?

6. Was the plaintiff no longer in

suspension and was unable to be reinstated in

service to his usual pay and allowances from

the date of his suspension in view of the

order dated 24th April 1952 ?

6

7. To what relief, if any, is the

plaintiff entitled ?

Some additional issues were framed out of

which we may only refer to those which were

settled on June 8, 1959 and which were in

these terms :-

1. Was the enquiry made by Mr. Gupta

vitiated on the grounds as alleged in

paragraph 19 of the plaint ?

3. Is the Court debarred from trying issue

Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and the additional issues

settled today by reason of res-judicata ?

The learned Judge, found that the Enquiry Officer S. K.

Gupta was biased against the appellant before he held the

enquiry. It was further found that no particulars and other

necessary details were given in the charges and they were

vague resulting in noncompliance with Rule 55 of the Civil

Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and the

necessary particulars were not supplied in spite of the

repeated objections of the appellant to the charges being

vague and indefinite. In the opinion of the learned Judge

the trial was vitiated for want of definite charges. It was

held that the appellant had been duly appointed as member of

the Fire Service of the State and that a contract in terms of Ar

t. 299 of the Constitution was not necessary. Issues

2 and 4 were not pressed. Reading the prayer in the light

of the averments in the plaint the learned Judge granted a

declaration that the purported removal of the appellant was

void and inoperative And he remained or was still in

government service. He was held entitled to salary and

other benefits from the date of his suspension till the date

of the judgment. It was particularly mentioned that the

parties had worked out the figures of the salary and

allowances etc. at Rs. 69,636/- for which a decree was

granted together with interest at 6% per annum till the date

of realisation. The respondent filed an appeal to the

Division Bench of the High Court. We do not consider that

we need refer to all the points dealt with by the Division

Bench. In our judgment the Division Bench was wholly in

error in reversing the decision of the learned Single Judge

on one of the crucial points, namely, non-compliance with

Fundamental Rule 55 and complete vagueness and

indefiniteness of the charges on which no proper enquiry

could be held. It is incomprehensible how the details as to

date, time, place and person etc. would not have made the

charges more definite as appears to have been the opinion of

the Division Bench. We are unable to agree that the details

without which a delinquent servant cannot properly defend

himself are a matter of evidence. In this connection

reference may be made to Fundamental Rule 55 which provides,

inter

7

alia, that without prejudice to the provisions of the Public

Servants Enquiry Act 1850 no order of dismissal removal or

reduction shall be passed on a member of service unless he

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7

is informed in writing of the grounds on which it is

proposed, to take action and has been afforded an adequate

opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it

is proposed to take action have to be reduced to the form of

a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated

to the person charged together with a statement of the

allegations on which each charge is based and any other

circumstance which it is proposed to be taken into

consideration in passing orders has also to be stated. This

rule embodies a principle which is one of the basic contents

of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending

oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely

what the allegations are on which the charges preferred

against him are founded he cannot possibly, by projecting

his own imagination, discover all the facts and

circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the

authorities to be established against him. By way of illus-

tration one of the grievances of the appellant contained in

his letter dated March 24, 1950, to the Enquiry Officer may

be mentioned. This is what he said though the language

employed is partly obscure and unhappy :-

"Regarding the first charge I beg to submit

that the allegation is vague. In the charge

it has not been specifically stated as to

where, when and before whom I circulated false

rumours, regarding retrenchment policy of the

Government and thereby spread

insubordination.In fact if one goes through

the statements of P.Ws. made to D.F.S. as

submitted before my suspicion, it will

appear that no specific case could have made

with all material particular as to date, time

and person. Having been able to take

deposition and to conduct enquiry keeping me

in dark and finally put me out of office, Sri

S. Bose was able to win over the witnesses and

was able to shape his case to suit his pur-

pose. "

Now in the present case each charge was so bare that it was

not capable of being intelligently understood and was not

sufficiently definite to furnish materials to the appellant

to defend himself. It is precisely for this reason that

Fundamental Rule 55 provides, as stated before, that the

charge should be accompanied by a statement of allegations.

The whole object of furnishing the statement of allegations

is to give all the necessary particulars and details which

would satisfy the requirement of giving a reasonable

opportunity to put up defence. The appellant repeatedly and

at every stage brought it to the notice of the

8

authorities concerned that he had not been supplied the

statement of allegations and that the-charges were

extremely vague and indefinite. In spite of all this no one

cared to inform him of the facts, circumstances and

particulars relevant to the charges. Even if the Enquiry

Officer had made a report against him the appellant could

have been given a further opportunity at the stage of-the

second show cause notice to adduce any further evidence if

he so desired after he had been given the necessary

particulars and material in the form of a statement of

allegations which had never been supplied to him before.

This could undoubtedly be done in view of the provisions of

Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution as they existed at the

material time. The entire proceedings show a complete

disregard of Fundamental Rule 55 in so far as it lays down

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7

in almost mandatory terms that the charges, must be accom-

panied by a statement of allegations. We have no manner of

doubt that the appellant was denied a proper and reasonable

opportunity of defending himself by reason of the charges

being altogether vague and indefinite and the statement of

allegations current findings against the respondent on that

point. The resupplied to him. In this situation, for the

above reason alone, the trial judge was fully justified in

decreeing the suit

A faint attempt was made by the learned counsel for the

respondent to assail the decision of the trial court on

issue No. 1 Both the single Judge and the Division Bench had

given con-current finding against the respondent on that

point. The respondent cannot be permitted to reagitate the

matter before us.

We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and

decree of the Division Bench and restore that of the trial

,court. The appellant will further be granted a declaration

that he is entitled to the salary and allowances for the

period subsequent to the date of the decree of the learned

Single Judge of the High Court to the date of his

superannuation. The appellant will be entitled to his costs

in this, Court.

G.C. Appeal allowed

9