LexKAMINI KUMAR DAS CHOUDHURY versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
718
KAMINI KUMAR DAS CHOUDHURY
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
July 24, 1972
[A. N. RAY AND M. H. BEG, JJ.l
Comtitution of India, A.rt. 226-Lache.• in filing writ petition-Court
m., reflue discretionary rttntdy-Disputed questiom of fact arising out
of ,etitio,._Proptr remedy i.J a suit in a Civil Court,
The appllant whu was a Sub.Jnapector of polic~ in the Enforcemc;11
l'lranch of the Calcutta Police wa.• ordered by the Deputy Coinmissioner
of Police to lftl'Cb a houee. He wu found by the' Assistant Colnmissiooer
of Police awa:. from his place of duty.
A d,epartmental enquiry wu
illltituted against him and the 1ald Allistant Commissioner of )'ohce w11
appointed the Enquiry Officer. . After the report of the Enqujry Officer
t6e appellant was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police ott
1·8·1951. The appeal preferred· by the appellant to the Inspector General
of Police waa diamissed on 27-10.1951.
Thereafter the appellant aub-
mitted a memorial to the Government of West Bengal. · He filed a petition
in the High Court under Article 226 of the Ooristitution on 9th September
1953, The delay was explained b,- him bv saying that fearing harassment
l.lld oppression by the Police be had gone away to the Andaman Island•
in November. 1952.
A single judge of the High Court dismissed the
petition on the prelim: . ry grounds namely, (i) that there wasi inordinate
delay in ftpproaching 1i1e High Court, and '(ii) that the objection as to
the jurisdiction of the dismissing authority was not taken in the course
Qf departmental proceedings.
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal
principally on the ground of delay through it was disposed to hold that
during the Departmental enquiry the rules of natural ju,tice had been
violated.
With certificate appeal was filed in this Court.
HELD : (i) The question• whether there was b;a,, ill-will mala{id-..
or • due opportunity to be heard or to produce evidence, given in tbe
ooune of departmental proceedings, are so largely questions of fact that
it i•. difficult to decide them merely on conflicting assertions made by
aftidavits gLven by the t""' sides. The mere fact that the Deputy Com-
missioner's orders were alleged to have been disobeyed did not 'make. him
a complainant and a witness.
Therefore, quite apart from the ground
of delay in Jilin!! the Writ Petition, the assertions .and countcr-as.,,rtions
made on merits were of such a nature that, in accordanee with the rule
laid down bv this Court in Union of India v. T. R. Varma, the Writ Petition
rould have been dismissed on the ground that it is not the practice of
Courts to decide such dispute questions Qf fact.in proceedings under Art.
226 of the ('.onstitution.
[724 B.CJ
Union of India v. T. R. Varma, [1958] S.C.R. 499 applied.
(ii) The ,High Court w .. right in dismiasing the appellant's petition
012 the ground of delay.
A
B
c
0
E
F
G
Th' most that the High Court cool<l have done in the present cue
was to quash the order of dismissal and to leave the authorities free t<>
H
take proceedings against the appellant.
The appellant would then llftve
got another long period of years in front of him to go on contesting the
validity of proceedings against him until he had gone past the age of
retirement.
In such cases. it is imperative, if the petitioner wants to
c
D
G
H
K, K. DAS \I, WEST BENGAL (Beg, /,)
719
invoke the extraordinary remedies available under Art. 226 of the Coru.·
titution, that be should some to Court at the earliest reasonably p°""bt•
opportunity, If there. is delay in getting an adjudication, a suit for damage<
actually sustained by wrongful dismissal may become the more or C'I'!"'
the only appropriate means of redress.
Every case depends upon 1t•
own facts.
[725 F-Hl
Rubindra Nath Bo>e & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [19701 (2\
S.C.R. 697 applied.
S:ate of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhai!al & Ors., [1964] (6) S.C.R. 261 re-
ferred to.
·
Chandra Blwshan & Anr. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Regio/1111
U.P. cl Ors.,' [19671 (2) S.C.R. 286 distinguished.
[Dismissing the appeal on the above grounds the Court however ob-
•erved toot in such cases it was undoubtedly just and proper that the Cft·
quiry and punishme~t proceedings should have been entrusted to more
unbiased and independent officers.)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : c. A. No. 1162 of 1967.
Appeal by certificate under Article 133 of the Constitutlon
of India from the judgment and oExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.