Disposed

Dr U N Choudhary v. the Union of India and Others

Calcutta HC17 Dec 2021WP.CT/190/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench of Calcutta High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge against the Central Administrative Tribunal's order. The Tribunal had allowed disciplinary proceedings to continue but prevented a final order pending adjudication, while directing immediate provisional pension. The Court found no error in reasoning.

What did the court decide?

Left the Tribunal's order intact; directed the Tribunal to dispose of the underlying application within six months.

Dr U N Choudhary Vs the Union of India and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]

…

WP.CT/190/2021

Dr.U.N.Choudhary

… Petitioner

Vs.

The Union of India & others

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

Mr.Gopala Binnu Kumar, Advocate … for the petitioner Mr.S.Chakraborty, Mr. Ramendu Agarwal, Advocates … for the respondents

¶10

December 17, 2021 [GNC] Item No.2

¶11

The order dated November 18, 2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata in OA/351/1564/AN/2021 is under challenge in the present writ application.

¶12

It appears from the records that the Tribunal considered the grant of interim relief in the original application and passed the impugned order on the prayer for interim relief.

¶13

By the impugned order, the Tribunal observed as follows:-

¶14

“9. As none of the judicial fora have quashed the transfer order, the scope of entering into the illegality of such transfer order on grounds of incompetency of the transferring authority which is a new ground brought forth by the applicant 7 years after the issue of such transfer order, cannot stand in the way of continuation of the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, as that would tantamount to granting him the final relief. We would, however, make it clear that no final order in the disciplinary proceedings shall be passed in such proceedings without the leave of this Tribunal which is yet to adjudicate this application on merit.

¶15

The second interim prayer for grant of provisional pension, however, should be considered by the respondent authorities as per law. Given that the applicant has superannuated in September, 2021, if nothing else stands

¶16

¶17

in the way, the authorities shall initiate sanction and disbursal of the provisional pension within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is being unnecessarily harassed at the instance of the authorities. He submits that all issues relating the service of the petitioner prior to the issuance of the impugned memorandum dated August 27, 2021 were settled. The services of the petitioner was regularized. He was paid his salary. It is only out of the inimical disposition of the authority against the petitioner that memorandum dated August 27, 2021 which is the subject matter of challenge in the original application before the Tribunal, was passed against the petitioner. He submits that, the initiation of the proceedings is by an authority who is incompetent to do it. Moreover, he highlights the delay in initiation of the proceedings by the impugned memorandum dated August, 27, 2021. He submits that by the impugned memorandum dated August 27, 2021, events happening six years prior to the memorandum were sought to be made subject matter thereof.

¶19

He refers to the order of the High Court dated June 22, 2015 in this regard. He submits that his representation dated December 16, 2014 is yet to be disposed of finally. He refers to the information that the petitioner obtained under the Rights to Information Act, 2005. He submits that the petitioner is entitled to the interim relief as prayed for before the Tribunal.

¶20

¶21

The petitioner approached the Tribunal for an order quashing the memorandum dated August 27, 2021. In such Original Application, the petitioner also prayed for an interim order for stay the further proceeding pertaining to memorandum dated August 27, 2021.

¶22

By the memorandum dated August 27, 2021, the authorities proposed to hold an inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The substance of the imputation of the misconduct or misbehaviour in respect of which the inquiry proposed to be held was made over to the petitioner. Apart from the petitioner not complying with the order of transfer dated December 15, 2014, two other imputations are there against the petitioner. One of them is misconduct of the petitioner by acting in a manner unbecoming of a government servant. The other imputation against the petitioner is his failing to maintain absolute integrity, absolute devotion to duty and acting in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and contravening various provisions of the Rules of 1964.

¶23

The Tribunal, on consideration of the facts of the case, held that no judicial fora is yet to quash the transfer order. It also found that illegality of such transfer order on the ground of incompetency of the transferring authority was a new ground brought forward by the petitioner seven years after the issuance of such order. Therefore, the Tribunal opined that in the fact of

¶24

¶25

the present case, such stay of continuation of the disciplinary proceedings would tantamount to granting him the final relief.

¶26

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner relies upon two authorities in support of his contentions. He relies upon 1990 Suppl. (1) SCC 738 ( The State of M.P. vs. Bani Singh and another) in support of the contention that once there is a delay and latches on the part of the authorities, the same will affect the disciplinary proceeding. He relies upon (2000) 7 SCC 675 ( Rhone-Poulenc (India) Ltd vs. State of U.P. and others) in support of ground of incompetency of the authority issuing the transfer order.

¶27

With respect, we are unable to apply any of the ratio laid down in the two authorities since those authorities considered the final orders in the disciplinary proceedings. In the facts of the present case, an interim order of the Tribunal is under consideration. The Tribunal is yet to adjudicate upon the final relief that the petitioner may be entitled to.

¶28

As noted above, the Tribunal passed the impugned order dated November 18, 2021 by permitting the authorities to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings and not to pass final order without the leave of the Tribunal. The Tribunal also allowed the authorities to sanction and disburse provisional pension within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order of the Tribunal.

¶29

¶30

The petitioner was granted interim protection. The petitioner seeks interim stay of the disciplinary proceeding which the Tribunal did not grant, rightly. However, the Tribunal protected the petitioner by directing the authority not to pass a final order without the leave of the Tribunal.

¶31

The impugned order contains cogent reasons for granting of the interim orders in the manner as done and rejecting the prayer for interim stay of the disciplinary proceeding.

¶32

We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal.

¶33

It is made clear that the Tribunal will not be influenced by any of the observations made by us in this order. Since the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of the original application no doubt, the petitioner will not seek any adjournment before the Tribunal.

¶34

The Tribunal will endeavour to dispose of the pending Original Application as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order.

¶35

WP.CT/190/2021 is disposed of without any order as to costs.

¶36

(Debangsu Basak, J. )

¶37

(Jay Sengupta, J. )

Dr U N Choudhary v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr U N Choudhary v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghunath Mondal Vs the State

The Lieutenant Governor and Ors. Vs D.C.Subramanyam and Ors.

The Executive Engineer Vs C.v.Thomas

The Lieutenant Governor and Others Vs Hotel Seashell and Another

The Lieutenant Governor and Ors. Vs Hotel Seashell

Kartick Saha Vs the State