Sanjay Pant v. Union Territory Of Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WP.CT/19/2023 Sanjay Pant Vs.

Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the respondent nos.1 to 4 & 6 to 8 Mr. Tulsi Lall ... for the respondent no.5 March 14, 2024 [SR] Item No.1 Heard Shri Gopala Binnu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4 and 6 t0 8 and Shri Tulsi Lall, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.

This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief(s):- "A. (i) A writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 11.01.2023 passed in OA No.350/920/2022 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata which was pronounced on 27.02.2023 whereby without entering the merits of the case directed to consider the representation dated 01.04.2022 submitted by the petitioner within a time frame.

(ii) A writ in the nature of mandamus setting aside the memorandum dated 14.03.2022 issued by the respondent No. 2 and all consequential orders passed on the basis of the said memorandum including Order No. 430 dated 15th/17th February, 2023.

(iii) To regularize the leave period of the petitioner on and from 06.10.2020 to 04.04.2021 by granting leave due and permissible to the petitioner.

(iv) An order be passed directing the respondent No. 2 to immediately issue necessary promotion order of the petitioner to the post of Research Officer (Group-A) as per the recommendation of the Departmental Promotional Committee meeting held in the office of the Union Public Service Commission and to give all consequential service benefits to the petitioner."

It is undisputed that while the disciplinary proceedings were in progress, the petitioner filed OA/350/920/2022 which was decided by the Tribunal by an order dated 11.01.2023. The relevant portion of the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 11.01.2023 is reproduced below:- "9.

In view of the aforesaid dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would not be proper on the part of the Tribunal to interfere with the pending disciplinary proceeding started against the applicant for his unauthorized absence from duty. However, at the same time, this Tribunal cannot ignore the undisputed fact that after receipt of charge memorandum the applicant has submitted his detailed representation dated 1.4.2022 wherein he had explained the unavoidable circumstances for him to attend duty and the difficulties faced by him during COVID pandemic and had requested the authorities to withdraw/ drop the charges of his unauthorized absence.

The said representation is pending before the disciplinary authority till date. Not only that, this Tribunal vide order dated 16.06.2022 had directed the respondents to dispose of the representation of the applicant dated 1.4.2022. It appears that the respondents have not taken any decision on the representation of the applicant till date though they were well aware that he would retire on 28.02.2023. It is not understood why the respondents have not taken any step to decide the representation of the applicant as per order of this Tribunal dated 16.06.2022 and conclude the disciplinary proceeding as per rules before his retirement. Therefore, the contention and apprehension raised by the Ld.

Counsel for the applicant that the applicant will not receive his terminal benefits upon his retirement until and unless the disciplinary case is decided finally. Had the respondents taken appropriate steps to decide the representation and conclude the disciplinary proceeding against the applicant, such inconvenience/suffering caused to the applicant could have been avoided. We find substantial force in the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the applicant.

10.

IN view of the aforesaid discussion, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the applicant dated 01.04.2022 keeping in view the aforesaid observations and pass a reasoned and speaking order expeditiously not later than a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the decision goes in favour of the applicant and he is exonerated from the charges, the respondents shall be entitled to all his retiral dues immediately thereafter.

11.

Accordingly the O.A. stands disposed of. No order as to cost."

From a perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal, it is evident that the aforesaid order does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner.

The grievance of the petitioner is that a final order was passed by the disciplinary authority on 15.02.2023 awarding punishment upon him while the copy of the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 11.01.2023 was issued subsequently, on 27.02.2023 and as such the order of the Tribunal deserves to be quashed. We find that for the reasons best known to the petitioner, the petitioner has not challenged the order of punishment dated 15.02.2023, although the order of punishment, prima facie, appears to be in breach of the final order passed by the Tribunal dated 11.01.2023. It is further evident that the said order of the Tribunal has not been even considered by the disciplinary authority while passing the order of punishment dated 15.02.2023. In the circumstances, we do not find any good reasons to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal which is not against the petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the final order of punishment being Order No.430 date 15.02.2023 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. In the event, the petitioner files an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal to challenge the punishment order No.430 dated 15.02.2023, within four weeks from today along with an application for interim relief, the said OA shall be decided by the Tribunal expeditiously on merit without raising any objection as to the limitation. The application for interim relief shall be considered and disposed of by the Tribunal within two weeks of its filing. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case of the petitioner.

(Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.) (Kausik Chanda, J.)