The Administrator (Lt.Governor) And ORS. v. Shri. M.Ebrahim

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WP.CT/28/2025 The Administrator (Lt. Governor) and others Vs.

Shri M. Ebrahim Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr.Adv.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ...

for the petitioners/ Administration Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ...

for the respondent 04.07.2025 [SR] Item No.1 The Administration challenges an order dated February 14, 2025, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Port Blair, whereby the Tribunal quashed the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent, who was the petitioner before the Tribunal. At the relevant point in time, when the alleged misconduct occurred, the petitioner was serving as a Lower Grade Clerk in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District, Port Blair. He subsequently retired as a Higher Grade Clerk on August 30, 2014, from the office of the Directorate of Shipping Services.

The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were initiated only on January 30, 2001.

The Tribunal set aside the disciplinary proceedings primarily on the grounds of inordinate delay in initiation of the

proceedings and the lack of competence of the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District, to issue the charge sheet.

We find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

It has, however, been submitted by the learned senior advocate appearing for the Administration that the Tribunal directed payment of the retiral dues admissible to the respondent, in accordance with law, within 120 days from the date of communication of the order.

Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned senior advocate appearing for the Administration, submits that a criminal case is pending against the respondent under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(a)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is submitted that the trial is yet to be concluded. He further submits that fresh disciplinary proceedings against the respondent are under contemplation by the Administration.

Mr. Chakraborty contends that unless vigilance clearance is obtained, the consequential benefits as directed by the Tribunal cannot be extended to the respondent. Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent, however, submits that no disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against the respondent long after his retirement. He argues, therefore, that there is no

justification for withholding the consequential benefits arising from the Tribunal's judgment.

We are only concerned with the propriety of the order passed by the Tribunal, and we have already observed that we find no infirmity in the same warranting interference. If there exists any valid justification for withholding the consequential benefits of the respondent-such as the pendency of vigilance clearance-those benefits need not be granted at this stage.

We make it clear that, insofar as the direction of the Tribunal to extend benefits to the respondent is concerned, such benefits shall be subject to vigilance clearance. It is clarified that we have not gone into the merits of the rival contentions advanced at the bar and have limited our examination to the propriety of the Tribunal's order. With the above observations, W.P.C.T. No. 28 of 2025 stands disposed of.

( Kausik Chanda, J. ) ( Krishna Rao, J. )