The Honble Lt.Governor And ORS. v. Shri.P.S.Saboo

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/24/2025 IA No.CAN/2/2025 The Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor and others Vs.

Shri P. S. Saboo Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr.Adv.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ...

for the appellants Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ...

for the respondent 02.07.2025 [SR] Item No.2 This appeal has been filed at the instance of the Administration, challenging the judgment and order dated December 16, 2024, passed by a Single Bench of this Court, whereby the learned Judge set aside an order of dismissal passed by the authorities in respect of the petitioner, who was employed as a Work Charged Mazdoor.

It appears that five charges were framed against the petitioner, and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges had been proven, and the Disciplinary Authority held the petitioner guilty of the charges. An appeal was preferred before the Lieutenant Governor, who, however, set aside the dismissal order and remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for further consideration.

Despite the dismissal order being set aside by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner was not reinstated in service, in terms of the Appellate Authority's order. The Disciplinary Authority, however, in compliance with the Appellate Authority's order, conducted a fresh enquiry. Upon considering the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority once again found the petitioner guilty of all the charges, and earlier the order of dismissal was upheld.

Challenging these two orders-one passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the other by the Appellate Authority-the present writ petition was filed before this Court. The learned Judge set aside the dismissal order, primarily on the ground that the evidence did not substantiate any of the charges leveled against the petitioner. In fact, in respect of certain charges, there was no evidence at all. The learned Judge further held that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner contained only two charges, whereas the Articles of Charges framed against the petitioner contained five charges. The learned Judge opined that the authorities ought to have confined the disciplinary proceedings to the charges mentioned in the show cause notice and should not have expanded the scope of the enquiry by adding more charges without granting the petitioner an opportunity to respond.

We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge that warrants interference by this Court. It is settled law, and as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, that a writ court, while exercising its power of review over disciplinary proceedings, does not re-appreciate the evidence or substitute its satisfaction for that of the disciplinary authority. However, it does not mean that when an order of punishment is imposed without evidence, the Court cannot intervene. The learned Judge specifically found that almost all the charges framed against the petitioner were deemed proven by the Disciplinary Authority, despite the lack of any supporting evidence on record.

Since we agree with the findings and reasoning of the learned Judge, we do not find the need to assign separate reasoning to interfere with the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned senior advocate, has expressed reservations regarding the observations made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 35 of the impugned order. Paragraph 35 of the said order is quoted below: "35. The Court is left wondering as to whether the petitioner has been penalized only because he pointed fingers at the misdeeds and wrongdoings of some officers of the Administration. Steps have been taken against him for exposing corruption in the Administration. The law provides for the protection and safeguarding of whistleblowers who bring to light the wrongdoings and illegal activities in the workplace. The Administration ought to appreciate the efforts of anyone who speaks the truth and has an honest intention to fight corruption. The

employer ought not to adopt retaliatory measures and tactics to suppress the voice of the protesters. Instead of penalizing such persons, they should be protected, their work appreciated, and at the same time encouraged." We are of the view that these are general observations made by the learned Single Judge. These observations are not directed at any specific officer of the government or the petitioner, nor do they make any adverse comment regarding any particular government officer, nor do they praise the petitioner.

It has been submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the respondents that the petitioner has not yet been reinstated in service. Therefore, we direct the Administration to allow the petitioner to resume his duties within a period of seven days from the date of this order. Consequential benefits shall also be extended to the petitioner, in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, within eight weeks from the date hereof.

With the above observations and directions, MAT/24/2024 and the connected application CAN/2/2025 are accordingly disposed of ( Kausik Chanda, J. ) ( Krishna Rao, J. )