Allowed

Mahesh Ram v. the Union of India

Calcutta HC18 Aug 2021WP.CT/172/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a petition challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order that quashed a major penalty and remanded a disciplinary matter, the court allowed the petition, directing the disciplinary authority to re-visit the issue within four months, keep the petitioner under suspension, and grant subsistence allowance.

What did the court decide?

Directed disciplinary authority to keep petitioner under suspension, decide within four months, grant subsistence allowance from May 2021, and reinstate if proceedings are not concluded on time.

Mahesh Ram Vs the Union of India — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

Sl August 18, 3. 2021

¶2

Circuit Bench at Port Blair Through Video Conference

¶3

W.P.C.T. 172 of 2021

¶4

Sri Mahesh Ram Vs.

¶5

Union of India & ors.

¶6

Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, …for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Arul Prasanth, …for the Union of India.

¶8

This writ petition is directed against an order passed by

¶9

the Central Administrative Tribunal on April 12, 2021 in connection with an application filed by the writ petitioner for quashing of the disciplinary inquiry as also for setting aside the order passed by the appellate authority.

¶10

The tribunal arrived at a finding that the proceeding against the writ petitioner was concluded even without examining the independent witnesses of the Trap Team which lead to initiation of the departmental proceeding inasmuch as non-examination of the complainant was another material defect that vitiated the departmental proceeding.

¶11

It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that in view of the aforesaid findings, the decision of the tribunal to remand the matter to the disciplinary authority to consider the quantum of punishment was inherently contradictory.

¶12

We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the

¶13

¶14

parties.

¶15

The tribunal quashed the penalty imposed upon the writ petitioner which is major in nature after taking into consideration the aforesaid two factors amongst many and has rightly, in our view, remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority to re-visit the issue after taking into consideration the observations made by the tribunal in paragraph 14 of the order impugned. However, it will be open to the disciplinary authority to arrive at a finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not even proved against the petitioner and to completely exonerate the writ petitioner from all charges. In our view, the order of the tribunal in no manner prejudices the writ petitioner.

¶16

In view of the fact that the writ petitioner was not allowed to join and/or not kept under suspension, we direct the disciplinary authority to keep the petitioner under suspension and decide the matter within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order by either of the parties. The writ petitioner shall be entitled to subsistence allowance since May 2021 till the matter is decided by the disciplinary authority. In the event, the disciplinary proceeding is not concluded within the time limit, as aforesaid, the petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith.

¶17

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of without, however, any order as to costs.

¶18

( Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. )

¶19

dns

¶20

Mahesh Ram v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Ram v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swastika Banerjee Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Kalyan Chandra Das Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Koushik Chatterjee Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Nirmal Kumar Chatterjee Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Arun Kumar Jana Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Ranjit Banerjee Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.