K Aashish Minj v. Union Of India And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPCT/5/2025 K Aashish Minj Vs.
The Union of India and others Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr. Adv Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondents July 04, 2025 [Manoj] Item No. 5 One Kuldeep Minj, since deceased, was dismissed from service on July 11, 2014, while serving as an Inspector (Executive) under the Police Department of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
The allegations against him were twofold: that he was a chronic alcoholic and a habitual unauthorized absentee. Kuldeep preferred an appeal against the dismissal order dated July 11, 2014. The rejection of his appeal was communicated to him on March 30, 2016.
During his lifetime, Kuldeep did not challenge the order of the Appellate Authority, either before the Revisional Authority or the Central Administrative Tribunal. He passed away on October 2, 2017.
Kuldeep was survived by his wife and two sons. It appears that, after his death, the present petitioner-his sonmade a representation to the President of India on November
10, 2020, seeking interference with the dismissal order. The matter was referred to the Police Department of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, which, by an order dated October 28, 2021, rejected the prayer.
Subsequently, after a lapse of nearly three years, the younger son approached the Tribunal challenging the dismissal order imposed on the deceased employee. By an order dated September 5, 2024, the Tribunal dismissed the application. Hence, the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the Tribunal's order.
The only question that arises for consideration is whether, in this case where a dismissed employee did not challenge the order of punishment during his lifetime, his legal heirs could subsequently be permitted to do so. In our view, the answer must be in the negative. In the present case, it is evident that the deceased employee did not challenge the order of the Appellate Authority during his lifetime. There was a gap of nearly one year and six months between the date of the Appellate Authority's order and the date of his death.
In such circumstances, it must be presumed that the deceased employee had accepted the punishment and did not consider himself aggrieved by the order. Accordingly, his legal heirs cannot now be permitted to initiate legal proceedings challenging the order of the Appellate Authority.
The situation, however, would have been different had the employee initiated legal proceedings challenging the dismissal during his lifetime, and had he died during the pendency of such proceedings. In that event, the right to sue would have survived to the legal heirs, as they would have been entitled to the consequential reliefs arising from the possible setting aside of the dismissal order.{See: 1994(1)Supreme Court Cases 292 Rameshwar Manjhi VS Sangaramgarh Colliery} In the present case, as already noted, the employee chose not to challenge the order of the Appellate Authority within the period of limitation, either before the Tribunal or before the Revisional Authority.
We are, therefore, of the considered view that the Tribunal rightly held that the much belated petition filed by the younger son, in exclusion of the other legal heirs of the deceased employee, was not maintainable.
Accordingly, W.P.C.T. No. 5 of 2025 is dismissed. ( Kausik Chanda, J. ) ( Krishna Rao, J. )