AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.—The petitioner in this WPCT under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India dated December 17, 2012 is questioning an order of the Calcutta Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated October 12, 2010 (sic) dismissing his OA No. 703 of 2007. The petitioner was working in the Gun & Shell Factory of the Indian Ordnance Factories at Cossipore in Kolkata as an Examiner/MCM. His disciplinary authority initiated disciplinary proceedings against him by issuing a charge-sheet dated June 18, 2007 (WPCT p. 103). It was alleged that he was found unauthorisedly taking away certain materials from the factory premises on March 30, 2007.
By an order dated April 4, 2007 (WPCT p. 101) the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Questioning the order suspending him and the charge-sheet he filed the OA dated August 24, 2007 (WPCT pp. 86-100).
During pendency of the OA the petitioner reached the age of superannuation and accordingly he was superannuated on April 30, 2008. For amendment of the OA by incorporating the events that happened during pendency of the OA he filed an MA No. 99 of 2008 (WPCT p. 150).
The Tribunal heard the OA on July 4, 2012 and by the order dated October 12, 2010 (sic) it dismissed the OA holding that there was no reason to interfere in the ongoing disciplinary proceedings. After the order the disciplinary authority concluded the disciplinary proceedings and passed the final order dated December 7, 2012 inflicting on the petitioner the penalty of reduction of pension by 10% for one year from May 1, 2008 to April 30, 2009.
The suspension order lost its utility with the petitioner''s superannuation on April 30, 2008. Hence at the date the OA was decided there was nothing to be decided concerning the suspension order. In any case, the Tribunal did not find any reason to say that the suspension was illegal, or without jurisdiction, or unjust, or unfair, or unreasonable.
The Tribunal did not find any reason to interfere in the disciplinary proceedings as well. The petitioner''s allegations were that he had not been given reasonable opportunity of defending himself in the sense that certain relied on documents were not supplied, opportunity to cross-examine witnesses was not given, etc.
The Tribunal did not find any reason to entertain contentions concerning these, and, in our opinion, rightly; for taking a cognizance of the allegations the Tribunal could not pass any order to conduct the inquiry in any specified manner. Such an order would have amounted to regulating the ongoing inquiry,-an act not permissible in the exercise of the power of judicial review.
Allegations making which the petitioner questioned the disciplinary proceedings were to be made to the disciplinary authority in the first instance. It was not for the Tribunal to examine their merits. The Tribunal has discussed them. We do not think it will be appropriate to express any opinion on their merits. The petitioner has a right to question the final order of the disciplinary authority.
Mr. Mallick appearing for the petitioner has, however, argued that the disciplinary proceedings initiated at a date when the petitioner was in employment could not be continued after the petitioner''s retirement from the service on April 30, 2008. We do not find any merit in the argument.
The provisions of sub-r. (2) of R. 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 clearly provide that in such a case as this the disciplinary proceedings instituted before retirement of a Government servant shall, after his retirement, be deemed to be proceedings under R. 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.
In view of the provisions, the proceedings were to be continued and concluded by the authority that commenced the proceedings, as if the petitioner had continued in service. This procedure was followed by the disciplinary authority and it is evident from his final order dated December 7, 2012, a copy whereof has been produced by Mr. Chatterjee appearing for the respondents. For these reasons, we dismiss the WPCT. Nothing herein shall prevent the petitioner from questioning the final order of the disciplinary authority dated December 7, 2012 according to law. No costs. Certified xerox.