Amit Dasgupta vs Union Of India & Ors

By consent of the parties, the appeal and the application are taken up together and disposed of by this order.

The appeal is arising of an order dated 28th November, 2019 in a writ petition filed by the appellant challenging an order dated 5th August, 2014

whereby the major penalty of compulsory retirement has been imposed upon the appellant.

The appellant was the Deputy Manager (Finance & Accounts) in the respondent no.2 company. A charge-sheet has been filed against the appellant

for having connived and colluded with the other officers and the then C.M.D. of the respondent no.2 thereby causing substantial financial losses to the

organization. In the enquiry, the connivance was not proved.

Even the disciplinary authority has not arrived at any finding that there has been any collusion and connivance of the appellant with other officers.

However, a major punishment by way of compulsory retirement has been imposed upon the appellant on the ground that he is guilty of negligence.

Whether a case of negligence would invite a major punishment is a matter, we feel, should be left to the discretion of the appellate authority, although

we may feel that if the charges substantiated are not proved, a mere case of negligence may not always attract a major punishment. Once the

respondent no.2 has failed to prove in the enquiry as well as before the disciplinary authority that there has been collusion and connivance of the

appellant with any of the officers, we feel that the order of the disciplinary authority requires to be re-visited.

The first sentence of the order dated 2nd June, 2014 gives an indication that if the appellant is found guilty of negligence, the disciplinary authority

would be free to decide on the quantum of punishment and the extent of back wages that the appellant would be entitled to. The disciplinary authority

having not found the appellant guilty of connivance and collusion, in our view, may not have been justified in imposing a major punishment by way of

compulsory retirement. However, the views expressed by us shall not prevent the appellate authority to consider the quantum of punishment on the

basis of the proven charges.

The appellant shall prefer an appeal against the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority within two weeks from date and the appellate

authority shall dispose of the appeal within four weeks thereafter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, by passing a reasoned order

to be communicated to the appellant within one week from the date of such order. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight

weeks from date. In the meantime, the respondent no.2 shall release all admissible retiral dues to the petitioner within two weeks, if the same has not

been released in the meantime. The Provident Fund authority shall also release the provident fund dues of the appellant within four weeks, upon

compliance of all necessary formalities, if not done in the meantime.

The order of the learned Single Judge stands modified to the aforesaid extent.

We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the order of the disciplinary authority.

The appeal and the application stand disposed of.