The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS v. Mr. Sameer Iqbal Bajaj And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ******** PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SUVRA GHOSH HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI WP.CT/18/2025 The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others ... Petitioner

Versus

Mr. Sameer Iqbal Bajaj and others ... Respondent For the Petitioner : Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr.Advocate (through virtual mode) Mr.Rakesh Kumar For the respondents : Mr. Rajinder Singh Ms. Archana Devi Heard on : 30.07.2025 Judgment on : 30.07.2025 MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.

(Per Court) 1.

The appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata, Circuit Bench at Port Blair. 2.

By the impugned order the learned Tribunal quashed and set aside the orders dated July 10, 2019 and July 17, 2019 as well as March 4, 2021. The learned Tribunal also directed the

respondent to reinstate the applicant to the post of Dental Technician from the date he was removed from the service with all consequential benefits immediately.

3.

It has been submitted on behalf of the learned advocate for the appellant that the learned Tribunal did not go into the merits of the appointment of the private respondent. It only decided on the issue that the authority which was acting as disciplinary authority also figured as a charge-sheeted witness. The learned Tribunal also held that the initiation of the proceeding was also not by a competent person. 4.

Learned advocate for the appellant also submits that reinstatement of the private opposite party will have huge financial obligations upon the authorities and the charges framed against him were of very serious nature. 5.

Learned advocate for the appellant submits that such order passed by the learned Tribunal should not stand in the way to initiate a proceeding against the private respondent in accordance with law if so advised.

6.

On the other hand, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party submits that the private respondent was duly appointed by the authorities far back in the year 2006. No question, whatsoever, was raised regarding his competence to

be appointed in such post. It is also submitted that appointment of the private respondent was quite legal and valid. 7.

The private respondent was appointed as a Dental Technician against a vacancy published on 03.04.2006. Pursuant to the said advertisement the private opposite party applied for and was recommended for being appointed for Dental Technician on May 02, 2006. By letter dated March 24, 2015 the Joint Director Health of North and Middle Andaman requested the Medical Faculty of West Bengal to ascertain the authenticity and genuineness and recognition of the certificate of Diploma in Dental Technique.

8.

In response to such letter, the State Medical Faculty by its letter dated April 06, 2015 stated that the Institute of Medical and Technological Research, 3, Bow, Street, Calcutta was not an affiliated/recognized instituted by the State Medical Faculty of West Bengal. It was also mentioned that the Diploma certificate and mark sheet produce by the private opposite party were not issued by such Faculty. In pursuance of such report and in order to further inquire the matter a Technical Committee was constituted on September 31, 2018. By a response dated April 01, 2019 the Registrar, West Bengal Dental Council informed that the Institute of Medical & Technological Research (IMTR),

3rd Bow Bazar Street, Kolkata is not recognized under Dental Council of India.

9.

Based on such correspondence, the technical committee in its report dated June 24, 2019 held that the qualification certificate of the private opposite party was not obtained from recognized university/institute. Pursuant to such view of the technical committee, the private opposite party was placed under suspension by the dint of order passed on July 10, 2019. 10.

Accordingly a charge-sheet was served upon the private opposite party on July 17, 2019. The departmental inquiry was conducted. The private opposite party was provided with all opportunity during the continuance of such inquiry. After the completion of the inquiry, the disciplinary authority i.e. one Omkar Singh holding the current duties charges of Director of Health Services, by his order dated March 04, 2021, imposed penalty, by passing an order, for removal of service of the private opposite party in terms of Rule 11 of Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965.

11.

Being aggrieved, the private opposite party carried an appeal before the appellate authority. In such appeal, appellate authority held that the charges were proved before the Technical Committee also before the inquiring authority. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the order dated September 01,

2021. Such order was assailed by private opposite party before the Central Administrative Tribunal when the impugned order was passed.

12.

By the impugned order the Central Administrative Tribunal, set aside and quashed the order under challenge being orders dated July 10, 2019, July, 17, 2019 as well as March 04. 2021. The learned Tribunal while disposing of the Original Application, held that the Director of Health Services could not have exercised the statutory power under the Central Civil Services (Control) Rule by issuing charge sheet against an employee, whom he could not have charge-sheeted by holding substantive post of Medical Superintendent. The learned Tribunal further held that the charge sheet issued against the private opposite party was not issued in accordance with law by a competent person authorized to issue such charge sheet. It was also held in the order impugned that the person who acted as a disciplinary authority imposed the punishment upon the private opposite party figured as a witness in the disciplinary proceeding. He, by reason of being a witness to the disciplinary proceeding was not authorized to act as a disciplinary authority and impose punishment.

13.

Upon hearing learned advocate for the appellant and considering all material placed before us, we find no reason to

interfere with the impugned order. Since the learned tribunal, by impugned order, did not go into the merits of the issue i.e. legality and validity of appointment we are not inclined to go into the merits of the case on such score. We affirm the impugned order.

14.

We, however, observe that the present appeal or the order impugned shall not preclude the authorities from taking any steps as against the private opposite party in accordance with law.

15.

Accordingly WP.CT/18/2025 is disposed of.

(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)