Dismissed¶18

Kartick Chatterjee v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC29 Jul 2024WP.CT/151/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPCT 151/2024 Kartick Chatterjee v. Union of India & Ors. — disciplinary proceeding; vigilance inquiry; conduct rules; charged official cannot demand Vigilance Department inquiry; OA 350/00495/2024 dismissed by Tribunal (order dt. 18th April, 2024) upheld without correction; writ petition dismissed 29.07.2024; no costs.

What did the court decide?

A disciplinary proceeding, once instituted, is to be conducted as per the laid down procedure in the conduct rules, and there is no provision for the charged official to demand an inquiry by the Vigilance Department; the Court opined that the learned Tribunal rightly so concluded, there being no obligation on the respondents to complete a vigilance inquiry before concluding the disciplinary proceeding. ¶14

Kartick Chatterjee Vs Union of India and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents bore any obligation to complete the vigilance inquiry sought by the petitioner (representation dated 6th March, 2024, forwarded 11th March, 2024) before concluding the disciplinary proceeding against him. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The Court found no error, least to say any patent error of law, in the specific findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal upon dealing with the factual issues.

¶17

Key takeaways

No interference with the Tribunal's order was called for; the present writ petition was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition WPCT 151 of 2024 (Kartick Chatterjee v. Union of India & Ors.), decided 29.07.2024 and dismissed without costs. The petitioner, implicated in a disciplinary proceeding for alleged defalcation said to have been committed by a substitute engaged by him — a proceeding he attributed to a conspiracy hatched at the instance of respondent no. 5 and others — had by representation dated 6th March, 2024 sought initiation of a vigilance inquiry; the representation was forwarded to the competent authority by memo dated 11th March, 2024, but no further steps followed and the vigilance inquiry remained in abeyance while the disciplinary proceeding continued. His OA 350/00495/2024, praying that the disciplinary proceeding be quashed, was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 18th April, 2024, which held that a proceeding once instituted must be conducted as per the conduct rules and that there is no provision for a charged official to demand an inquiry by the Vigilance Department. Reviewing that order, the bench of Partha Sarathi Chatterjee and Tapabrata Chakraborty, JJ. endorsed the Tribunal's conclusion, found no error in its factual findings, least to say any patent error of law, declined interference and dismissed the writ petition; there was no order as to costs.

¶1

6 29.07.2024 Ct. No. 11 rrc

¶2

WPCT 151 of 2024 (Kartick Chatterjee Vs Union of India & Ors.)

¶3

Mr. Debasis Sur Mr. Angshuman Patra

¶4

….. For the petitioner

¶5

Mr. Rajendra Banerjee Mr. Suchit Talukdar

¶6

…. For the respondents

¶7

Affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner be kept on record.

¶8

The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 18^th April, 2024 passed by the learned Tribunal in the original application (in short, OA), being OA 350/00495/2024.

¶9

Mr. Sur, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in a disciplinary proceeding. The allegation of alleged defalcation is against a substitute engaged by the petitioner and not against the petitioner. The respondents, at the instance of the respondent no. 5 and others hatched up an evil conspiracy to penalize the petitioner. In view thereof, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 6^th March, 2024 for initiation of a vigilance inquiry against the said delinquents. Though the said representation had subsequently been forwarded to the competent authority by a memo dated 11^th March, 2024, no further steps had been taken thereafter. On one hand, the respondents have kept the vigilance inquiry in

¶10

¶11

abeyance and on the other hand, are determined to penalize the petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding. Such issues, as urged, were glossed over by the learned Tribunal and no finding was returned on the same. Let the supplementary affidavit, as filed, be kept on record.

¶12

Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the respondents, however, denies and disputes the contention of Mr. Sur and submits that the petitioner failed to satisfy the learned Tribunal that there was any obligation on the part of the respondents to complete the vigilance inquiry, as prayed for, earlier before concluding the disciplinary proceeding. The respondents have not failed to discharge any statutory obligation. In view thereof, the learned Tribunal did not interfere in the OA.

¶13

We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.

¶14

The learned Tribunal, in our opinion, rightly concluded that the disciplinary proceeding once instituted is to be conducted as per the laid down procedure in the conduct rules and that there is no provision for the charged official to demand an inquiry by the Vigilance Department. In the said conspectus, the petitioner’s prayer to quash the disciplinary proceeding was refused and the OA was dismissed.

¶15

The learned Tribunal upon dealing with the factual issues had arrived at specific findings and we do not find

¶16

¶17

any error, least to say any patent error of law in the same.

¶18

Accordingly, no interference is called for in the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶19

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶20

All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶21