Union of India and Ors. v. Smt a Rajeswari and Anr.

Calcutta HC3 Jul 2025WP.CT/128/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Union of India; Smt. A Rajeswari; W.P.C.T. 128 of 2025; contempt proceedings; C.P. 86 of 2019; O.A. No. 962 of 2014; Tribunal compliance report; revision of punishment; removal from Railway Service; compassionate allowance; 2/3rd compassionate allowance; pensionary benefits; death of delinquent employee; lesser punishment to others in misconduct; Tribunal travelling beyond Original Application order; reconsideration direction; Madhuresh Prasad; Supratim Bhattacharya; decision dated 03.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Tribunal order dated 08.04.2025 in C.P. 86 of 2019 set aside as unsustainable; writ petition accordingly disposed of; liberty reserved to the private respondent to assail the authorities' order dated 09.12.2024, and liberty granted to the petitioner to avail the benefits of that order without prejudice. ¶¶19

Union of India and Ors. Vs Smt a Rajeswari and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal, in contempt proceedings enforcing compliance with its order in O.A. No. 962 of 2014, could direct the authorities to reconsider the matter beyond the Original Application order once they had already complied by revising the punishment. +1 more

¶¶15

Court's answer

Once the order passed in the Original Application is complied with by revising the punishment, the Tribunal has no occasion to travel beyond the order passed in the Original Application and pass an order directing reconsideration.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

The Tribunal's order dated 08.04.2025 passed in C.P. 86 of 2019 is unsustainable and is set aside.

¶¶19

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the private respondent to take appropriate steps to assail the order dated 09.12.2024 passed by the authorities revising the punishment.ratio¶¶20
Liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail the benefits of the order dated 09.12.2024 without prejudice to his rights and contentions.ratio¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition by the Union of India against the Tribunal's order dated 08.04.2025 in C.P. 86 of 2019, contempt proceedings arising from O.A. No. 962 of 2014 (decided 20.02.2019). In the Original Application the Tribunal had held that no proceedings could be conducted against the delinquent in view of his demise, that others allegedly part of the misconduct had received lesser punishment, and had directed the authorities to suitably revise the punishment of removal from service issued against the private respondent's husband. The authorities complied by order dated 09.12.2024, reducing the punishment to removal from Railway Service with 2/3rd compassionate allowance (only pensionary benefits), subject to fulfilment of other criteria as per extant rules. The Tribunal, still dissatisfied with the extent of revision, directed filing of a compliance report. Held: once the Original Application order stands complied with by revision of punishment, the order stands substantially complied with and the Tribunal has no occasion to travel beyond that order or direct reconsideration; the order dated 08.04.2025 is unsustainable and is set aside. Liberty reserved to the private respondent to assail the 09.12.2024 order, and to the petitioners to avail its benefits without prejudice; writ petition disposed of.

¶1

03.07.2025 (D/L-5) Ct. No.4 (B.K.N.)

¶2

W.P.C.T. 128 of 2025

¶3

The Union of India & Others Vs. Smt. A Rajeswari & Another

¶4

Mr. Partha Ghosh, Sr. Counsel, Mr. Debashish Basak

¶5

...for the Petitioners (S.E.R.)

¶6

Mr. Kedareswar Chakraborty

¶7

...for the Respondents

¶8

Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶10

We find that the present case arises out of the orders passed in the contempt proceedings by the Tribunal seeking compliance of the order passed in O.A. No. 962 of 2014 on 20.02.2019, wherein the Tribunal was of the view that no proceedings could now be conducted against the delinquent in view of his sad demise; and also that others who were allegedly part of the misconduct have been given a lesser punishment. The authorities were thus directed to suitably revise the punishment of removal from service earlier issued against the private respondent’s husband.

¶11

¶12

The authorities thereafter have passed an order dated 09.12.2024 in compliance with the said order which reads:

¶13

“5. After considering all the above aspects, I have decided to take lenient view on humanitarian ground and financial hardships of Ex-Employee’s family members, and reduce the punishment from “You are hereby removed from Railway Service with immediate effect as a measure of Disciplinary action without any compassionate allowance” to “you are hereby removed from Railway Service with 2/3^rd Compassionate allowance (only Pensionary benefits)” subject to fulfilment of other criteria as per extant rules, purely as an act of compassion to Ex-employee’s family members.”

¶14

Even thereafter the Tribunal has directed for filing a compliance report since it was not satisfied with the extent of revision of punishment accorded by the authorities pursuant to the order passed by in the Original Application.

¶15

We find the order of the Tribunal in this regard dated 08.04.2025 passed in C.P. 86 of 2019 to be unsustainable. Once the authorities have complied with the order passed by the Tribunal in Original Application and passed an order dated 09.12.2024, revising the punishment by awarding a lesser punishment, the order of the Tribunal stands substantially complied with.

¶16

It is a different matter that the petitioner may still not be satisfied with the lesser punishment, and under such circumstance it is always open to her to assail the order. Once the order passed in the Original

¶17

¶18

Application is complied by revising the punishment order there is no occasion for the Tribunal to travel beyond the order passed in the Original Application and pass an order directing them to reconsider the matter.

¶19

The order of the Tribunal dated 08.04.2025, in our opinion, therefore, is unsustainable. We set aside the same.

¶20

Having regard to the submissions advanced on behalf of the private respondent, as recorded above we reserve his liberty to take appropriate steps to assail the order passed by the authorities on 09.12.2024.

¶21

The petitioner’s counsel submits that liberty may also be granted to the petitioner to avail the benefits of the order dated 09.12.2024 without prejudice to his rights and contentions. Such liberty is allowed.

¶22

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶23

(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)

¶24

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)

Union of India and Ors. v. Smt a Rajeswari and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Ors. v. Smt a Rajeswari and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Chief General Managaer Bharat Sanchar Nigan Limited and Others Vs Bharati Saha and Others

Gayatri Balmiki Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Anath Bandhu Ghosh Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Kanishk Sinha and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Ganesh Choudhary Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union of India and Anr. Vs Utpal Pandit and Ors.