AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[1] Heard Mr. A. K. Pal, learned counsel along with Mr. T. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for State-respondents.
[2] The petitioner by way of filing the instant writ petition has challenged the order of dismissal vide order dated 2nd November, 2016 passed by the disciplinary authority which was subsequently affirmed by the appellate authority on appeal. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner framing the charge that during the subsistence of the first marriage he entered into second marriage. The name of the first wife is Smt. Gopa Devi Chakma (Sardar) and the name of the second wife is Smt. Sukla Nath.
[3] After completion of the proceeding, the petitioner had challenged the order of the disciplinary authority on the ground that no reasonable opportunity was afforded to him in course of proceeding. The Division Bench of this Court, [Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. Deepak Gupta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Talapatra], after hearing the parties to the writ petition bearing No. WP(C) No. 435 of 2004 on 06.05.2014 dismissed the writ petition with the following observations:
"11. Having held so, the impugned order of dismissal dated 01.11.2003 (Annexure-A/4 to the writ petition) and the Inquiry Report dated 30.05.2003 are interfered with and set aside. However, the respondents will be at liberty to recommence the disciplinary proceeding from the stage after the preliminary statement of the delinquent was recorded. Needless to say, all reasonable opportunities by satisfying the requirement of the principles of natural justice be afforded to the petitioner. The respondents would be at further liberty to re-frame the charge by purging the irrelevant provisions referred to in the Memorandum dated 25.01.2003 (Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition). The petitioner be reinstated in the service till the disciplinary proceeding is completed in consonance to the directions given herein. However, there shall be no direction as regards the payment of arrears of pay and allowances. Such payment shall remain subject to the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding, if any. If the respondents do not recommence the disciplinary proceeding from the day of placing the certified copy of this order to the respondent No.2, the respondents shall pay the petitioner arrear of pay and allowances within 3(three) months therefrom".
[4] After receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order dated 06.05.2014, the respondent had recommenced the proceeding on 20.07.2014.
[5] Necessary inquiry was conducted by the inquiry authority on the article of charges and according to the inquiry authority, the charge framed against the petitioner, has been proved that he entered into second marriage with one Smt. Sukla Nath during the subsistence of his first wife namely, Smt. Gopa Devi Chakma (Sardar).
[6] After receipt of the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority had passed a provisional order of dismissal from service upon the petitioner vide order dated 07.10.2016 and the report of the inquiry authority was also furnished. The petitioner was asked to submit representation on the report of the inquiry authority and the proposed provisional order of punishment.
[7] Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted a representation to allow him 5(five) days extra time beyond the statutory period of 15 (fifteen) days time which was given under the provisional order dated 07.10.2016. The disciplinary authority had allowed time as sought for by the writ petitioner, but despite that, the petitioner had failed to submit any representation challenging the legality and validity of the report of the inquiry authority and the proposed provisional order of punishment.
[8] Accordingly, the disciplinary authority after considering the evidence on record furnished in course of inquiry proceeding had passed its final order, imposing punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner under Section-12(1)(j) of TSR Act, 1983.
[9] Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal from service, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal on 09.11.2016. The appellate authority had considered the representation submitted by the petitioner and also took note of the findings of the inquiry authority and the disciplinary authority and ultimately, affirmed the punishment of dismissal from service as ordered by the disciplinary authority.
[10] On the basis of aforesaid facts, Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the judgment and order dated 06.05.2014 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 435 of 2004, was violated and the proceeding was not initiated in terms of the directions of the of the said judgment. Learned counsel has further submitted that this Court directed the respondents to recommence the disciplinary proceeding from the day of placing the certified copy of the said judgment and order to the respondent No. 2. But the proceeding was not initiated on the day the certified copy was produced before him and the respondent No. 2 had initiated the proceeding on 20.07.2014 just after a month. To a query, Mr. Pal, learned counsel submits that the certified copy was produced to the respondent No. 2 on 15.05.2014.
[11] This Court is of the considered opinion that there is no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, for the reason that the petitioner did not challenge the initiation of the proceeding. In my considered opinion, if the petitioner had any grievance about the initiation of the proceeding and if he feels that it was not in terms of the directions given in WP(C) No. 435 of 2004 by this Court, he could approach this Court on the same ground, but he did not do so.
[12] It is apparent from the record that the petitioner had actively participated in the proceeding; he was afforded all opportunities to defend himself; he did not engage any defence assistance despite being asked for by the inquiry authority; after completion of inquiry, the petitioner was furnished with a copy of the inquiry report and was asked to submit written submission on the findings of the inquiry authority as well as the proposed provisional order of punishment of dismissal from service.
[13] The petitioner submitted representation to the disciplinary authority for allowing extra 5 (five) days time apart from the statutory period of 15 (fifteen) days, which was mentioned in the provisional order dated 07.10.2016, but despite allowing sufficient time and opportunities, the petitioner had failed to submit any written submission on the findings of the inquiry report and the proposed provisional order of dismissal. After considering all aspects analyzed above, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment, dismissing the petitioner from service.
[14] After such order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner submitted representation to the appellate authority. The appellate authority had considered the grounds stated in the appeal and after careful consideration of the materials and substance on record, the appellate authority has upheld and affirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority.
[15] This Court in exercise of its judicial review under Section-226 of the Constitution of India will not re-appreciate or revisit the evidence as discussed and analyzed by the inquiry authority which was reconsidered by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. The only contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the judgment and order passed by this Court on 06.05.2014 was not complied with which submission has already been dealt with and repelled by this Court in the preceding paragraphs.
[16] After perusal of the records, this Court finds that all reasonable opportunities were provided to the petitioner; he appeared before the inquiry authority and participated in the proceeding. At no point of time he had raised any grievance about the conduct of the proceeding. It is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner was asked to appear in person but he neither appeared before the disciplinary authority nor he submitted any written submission. As such, the instant writ petition challenging the order of disciplinary authority and the appellate authority need no interference.
[17] In view of above discussion and observations, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.