AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[1] Heard Mr. D. K. Daschoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-TTAADC.
[2] This is a petition filed under Article-226 of the Constitution of India before this Court challenging the order dated 01.02.2016 in DP Case No. 02 of 2015 / AA (CEO) / ADC / 21501, wherein, one increment was withheld with cumulative effect against the petitioner. Mr. Daschoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has assaulted with one staff, namely, Dilip Kumar Nandi, Head Clerk of office of the Inspector of Schools, Raiyabari (respondent No. 6 herein).
[3] However, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the said incident was settled and compromised between the petitioner and Sri Dilip Kumar Nandi. Mr. Daschoudhury, learned counsel has also submitted that a complaint was lodged by Sri Dilip Kumar Nandi against the petitioner and police registered a case against the delinquent employee. The matter was investigated by the Investigating Officer and being prima facie satisfied, the final report was submitted to the competent court of jurisdiction. Trial was conducted after charge being framed however, the dispute was compounded as compromised.
[4] Learned counsel further asserted that since the matter was compromised and settled between the complainant and the petitioner in the criminal case, the disciplinary authority being the competent authority should have taken a lenient view in imposing the penalty upon the petitioner.
[5] On the other hand, Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-TTAADC, has submitted that the criminal case and the departmental proceeding are independent to each other. The finding and result of the criminal case will not affect the departmental proceeding in any manner whatsoever. The departmental authority has ample jurisdiction to decide the charge levelled against a delinquent employee on the basis of preponderance of probability.
[6] Mr. Majumder, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the disciplinary authority has the jurisdiction to proceed independently irrespective of the fact that as to whether the charged officer is acquitted in criminal case or not.
[7] I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner having due regard to the fact that the matter was compromised between the petitioner and the victim, namely, Sri Dilip Kumar Nandi. I have given my due consideration to the penalty imposed upon the petitioner. The disciplinary authority has imposed penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect upon the petitioner.
[8] In my considered opinion, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner appears to be disproportionate since the matter was compromised between the writ petitioner and the complainant. Thus, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner may be modified to the extent that the order of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect may be modified to withholding of one increment without cumulative effect. Accordingly, I direct the respondents not to give effect to the order of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect as it would be without cumulative effect.
[9] Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-TTAADC has submitted that the order of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect was passed by the appellate authority and as such, the order of the appellate authority stands modified as indicated above.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands partly allowed to the extent as indicated above.