Yashvi Prakash v. Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WP.CT/38/2024 Yashvi Prakash Vs.

Union of India and others Mr. Terence D' Cruz ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondents November 11, 2024 [SR] Item no. 1 1.

The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata dated 06.06.2024 in OA/351/00840/2023/AN.

2.

By the impugned order, the respondents were directed to consider the appeal of the petitioner within a period of three months of the order.

3.

The brief facts relevant in the case are that pursuant to the Disciplinary Proceedings initiated by charge sheet dated 31.03.2021, the Lieutenant Governor, being the Disciplinary Authority, conducted the departmental enquiry against the petitioner who was holding the post of Executive Engineer under the Andaman Public Works Department (APWD). 4.

The petitioner was dismissed from service on 23.07.2022 after due enquiry. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority after 115 days of receipt of a copy of the order of dismissal. The time for filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority is 45 days.

5.

Despite the above and section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Tribunal initially directed disposal of the appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copies of the Tribunal's order. The respondents could not do so. The Appellate Authority is admittedly, the President of India.

6.

An application was made before the Tribunal by the respondents for extension of time for disposing of the appeal. The application was rejected and the petitioner/appellant sought to revive the original application.

7.

However, in the impugned order, the Tribunal, while recording the recommendation of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was disproportionate to the charges proved and also recording the recommendation of the UPSC that the petitioner should be compulsorily retired withholding 30% of monthly pension, the Tribunal directed the respondents once again to dispose of the appeal.

8.

This Court is of the view that the Tribunal has acted in abdication of its responsibility. Once an application is filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 before the Tribunal, by reason of sub-clause 4 of Section 19 of the Act of 1985, all departmental remedies/ appeals automatically abate. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the same. The Tribunal ought to have either taken up the matter on merits or simpliciter follow the advise and opinion of the UPSC in so far the quantum of punishment imposed on the petitioner is concerned.

9.

This Court has offered to the petitioner through his counsel that the recommendation of the UPSC as recorded above could be granted by this Court if he agrees to the same which the counsel of the petitioner has declined. 10.

Therefore, the impugned order dated 06.06.2024 stands set aside.

11.

The Tribunal shall take up the matter on merits and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

12.

With the above observation and directions, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of without any order as to costs.

13.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all formalities. ( Rajasekhar Mantha, J. ) ( Partha Sarathi Sen, J. )