The Lieutenant Governor And ORS. v. Markanday Tiwari And ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...

WP.CT/17/2022 The Lieutenant Governor and others ... petitioners Vs.

Markanday Tiwari and another ... Respondents Mr. Shatardu Chakraborty Mr. Ramendu Agarwal ... for the petitioners Mr. P.C.Das Mr. Arul Prasanth ... for the respondent no.1 July 21, 2022 [SR] Item No.1 Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the present challenge has been preferred against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the entire matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority primarily on the ground that extraneous materials were considered by the Appellate Authority.

It was also recorded in the impugned order that it has not been elaborated by the Appellate Authority as to why the penalty initially granted to the respondents had to be enhanced. Although learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/Administration quite ably argued to the effect that enough opportunity was given to the respondents to respond to the additional charges which were brought against them, it does not appear in the initial order dated October 19, 2021 that the

same disclosed any particulars of the allegation of tampering of documents on the basis of which, inter alia, the respondents' penalty was enhanced.

It is well settled that in case of allegations in the nature of fraud and/or tampering, particulars and details of the specific acts of fraud have to be disclosed in order to enable the respondents to controvert such charges. The same having not been done, for some unknown reason, the Appellate Authority treated the CBI report in that regard to be sacrosanct. We are yet to hear of any law which lends such sanctity to the CBI report, that the same need not even disclose any particulars to be relied upon for penalizing a person with capital punishment of dismissal.

That apart, the nexus between the alleged unsubstantiated extra marital relationships of the respondents and the enhancement of penalty is not clear to this Court. It was recorded by the Appellate Authority in the impugned order dated October 21, 2021 that the respondents had extra marital affairs, without any complaint having been lodged in that regard by anyone concerned. Mere information from the 'grapevine' cannot be a source of charging a person with additional allegations, after he has already been penalized with a lesser penalty.

As such, we do not find any irregularity or patent illegality in the order of the Tribunal for this Court to interfere in judicial

review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As such, WP.CT/17/2022 is dismissed on contest without any order as to costs.

It is, however, made clear that the findings rendered in this order shall not unduly influence the Appellate Authority in any manner on the merits of the case. It will be open to the Appellate Authority to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the direction of the Tribunal, without being prejudiced with any of the observations made herein.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties upon compliance of usual formalities. ( Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. ) ( Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. )