The Lieutenant Governor And ORS. v. Dr. Ramkanta Halder And ANR.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA WP. CT/9/2022 THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AND OTHERS ... PETITIONERS VS.
DR.RAMKANTA HALDER AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS For the petitioners : Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Ramendu Agarwal For the respondents : Mr. Arul Prasanth Hearing on : July 18, 2022 Judgment on : July 18, 2022 HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J (per court) 1.
Andaman and Nicobar Administration has challenged the order dated January 11, 2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Kolkata (for short "the Tribunal") in OA No.351/01294/2021 whereby the Tribunal stayed all further proceedings in connection with the disciplinary proceedings.
2.
Mr. Chakraborty, the learned Advocate appearing for the authorities/petitioners submits that the proceedings ought not to have been stayed by the Tribunal as the grievance of the respondent with regard to the manner of conducting the inquiry proceedings have been taken in the objection filed against the inquiry report before the disciplinary authority. He, thus, submits that the respondent can very well agitate all such grounds before the disciplinary authority. 3.
Mr. Chakraborty, also placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C.Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and others reported at 1995(6) SCC 749 to support his contention that the scope of interference by the Tribunal in a dispute of instant nature is very limited.
4.
Mr. Prasanth, the learned Advocate for the respondent submits that the inquiry proceedings were conducted in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as none of the complainants were allowed to the cross examined by the Charged Officer. He submits that the inquiry proceedings were thus vitiated.
5.
Mr. Prasanth, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank in Civil Appeal No.7431 of 2008 and submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognized the right of a Charged Officer to cross examine the vital witnesses in the inquiry proceedings and such
proceeding, without affording opportunity to cross-examine cannot be said to be a proceedings in accordance with law. 6.
In B.C.Chaturvedi (supra) relied upon by Mr. Chakraborty, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunal while exercising the power of judicial review cannot normally interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority in a disciplinary proceeding by substituting its own conclusion. Such stage is yet to be reached in the instant case as the respondent has approached the Tribunal alleging that there has been gross violation of the principles of natural justice while conducting the inquiry proceedings. It is well settled that the Tribunal can be approached by an aggrieved party in case of violation of the principles of natural justice.
7.
Therefore, this Court, without entering into the merits of the claim and counter-claim of the respective parties before the Tribunal, is of the view that the disciplinary authority may proceed with the disciplinary proceedings since it is not in dispute that points raised by the respondent herein before the Tribunal as well as others grounds were taken in the representation filed by the respondent to the inquiry report before such disciplinary authority. However, the disciplinary authority may not be allowed to take final decision without the leave of the Tribunal since the inquiry report is under challenge before the Tribunal.
8.
For the reasons as aforesaid, the impugned order is modified only by observing that the disciplinary authority may proceed with the disciplinary proceedings but shall not pass any final order without the leave of the Tribunal.
9.
It is expected that the Tribunal shall decide the pending O.A.No. 351/01294/2021 as expeditiously as possible 10.
With the above observations, this application being WP.CT/9/2022 is disposed of without, however, any order as to costs. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the claims and counterclaims of the respective parties. 11.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties upon compliance of usual formalities. (SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)