Back
2004 Supreme(Cal) 776
High Court Of Calcutta
NURE ALAM CHOWDHURY, ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE
UNION OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
SHRI JAG JEEVAN RAM - Respondent
M. A. T. 15 Of 2004
Decided On : 12/17/2004
B.K.DAS, D.Sivabalan
An authority cannot act with bias and delay in proceeding against an employee, and such actions will vitiate the proceedings.
Headnote:
NEHRU YUVA KENDRA - REMOVAL FROM SERVICE - CCS/CCA RULES, 1965, RULE 10(1) - SERVICE JURISPRUDENCE - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - DELAY IN PROCEEDING - STALE CHARGE - BIASED AUTHORITY - REINSTATEMENT WITHOUT BACK WAGES.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, an employee of Nehru Yuva Kendra, was removed from service for unauthorized absence and involvement in other employment. The respondent challenged the removal order, contending that the proceedings were vitiated by serious infirmities, including a four-year delay in proceeding against him and a biased authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authority had acted with bias and that the proceedings were vitiated by serious infirmities. The court held that the respondent was entitled to reinstatement without back wages.
Issues: 1. Whether the proceedings against the respondent were vitiated by bias and serious infirmities? 2. Whether the respondent was entitled to reinstatement?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the authority had acted with bias, as evidenced by the fact that it had initially charged the respondent with a grave offence of moral terpitude, but later dropped the charge without explanation. The court also noted that the authority had delayed for four years in proceeding against the respondent, and that the respondent had not been paid any subsistence allowance during the period of his deemed suspension. 2. The court held that the respondent was entitled to reinstatement, as the proceedings against him were vitiated by serious infirmities.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was ordered to be reinstated without back wages.
( 1 ) THE instant appeal was filed by the union of india being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated july 12, 2004 passed in W. P. No. 174of 2003 filed by the respondent abovenamed.
( 2 ) THE respondent/petitioner was an employer of Nehru yuwa kendra kamorta. The writ petitioner was on leave for the period from february 12, 1996 to February 25, 1996. He applied for extension up to 22nd March 1996. He joined on 23rd March, 1996 and saved the appellant till 20th may, 1996. The appellant by an order dated 19th April, 1996 asked the writ petitioner to hand over charge. According, the writ petitioner handed over charge on 20th May, 1996. However, he was neither assigned a memorandum duty after 20th May, 1996 nor he was paid salary since january, 1996 on November 5, 1996 the appellant authority issued a mmorandum where in it was stated that a disciplinary proceeding was contemplated as against the writ petitioner/respondent for long unauthorised absence the authority observed that the request for regularization of such unauthorized absence would be considered after receipt of appropriate documents. However, this was without prejudice to the displimary proceeding 'already initiated" against him by the head office.
( 3 ) THE writ petitioner immediately replied by his letter dated 8th november, 1996 and submitted relevant doucument regarding his ailments for consideration of the authority. The authority remained silent on the issue for about 3 and 1/2 years and ultimately issued a show cause on 10th November, 2000. The principal allegations as against the writ petitioner/respondent were as follows: (i) The writ petitioner/respondent had relationship with one ms. shanti, a coemployee, who became pregarant due to such illicit reationship and the writ petitioner/respondent was responsible for the same. (ii) Since March, 1996 the writ petitioner/respondents was running his own business at Port Blair and absented from duty with out obtaining prior permision.
( 4 ) THE writ petitioner/respondent immediately reaplied to the sad show cause by giving bis explanation on 17th February, 2000 After a lapse of about seven months, the authority by a Memorandum dated September 8, 2000 submitted a charge sheet Although the said charge sheet was dated 8th September, 2000, the same was served on 10th October, 2000. In the charge sheet, the first charge which was initially made with regard to illicit relationship with a co-employee was conspicuously absent. The authority proceeded to hold enquiry principally on two aspects i. e. for unauthorized absence and involvement in other employment for the said period. The authority thereafter proceeded, and held an enquiry after recipt of the reply from the writ petitioner/respondent. Ultimately, the authority passed the order of removal on 12th April, 2002. On 24th May, 2002 the writ petitioner/respondent preferred an appeal to the chairperson of Nehru Yuva Kendra, the appellate authority, prescribed therefor. The appeal was rejected on 10th July, 2003.
( 5 ) THE writ petitioner /respondent approached this court as against the arder of removal dated 12th April, 2002 as well as the order of rejection of the appeal dated 10th July, 2003. The appellant filed Affidavit-in-opposition inter alia contending that on 20th May, 1996 when the petitioner/appellant was asked to hand over charge he did hand over charge on that day, since then he was placed under deemed suspension and the authority thereafter proceeded against him and ultimately awarded punishment of removal.
( 6 ) THE learned Single Judge by His Lordship's well-versed judgment and order dated 12th July, 2004 allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order of punishment and directed reinstatement of the writ petitioner/respondents however, without any back wages.
( 7 ) I have carefully perused the said judgment and order of His Lordship. His Lordship considered each and every aspect of the matter as well as the ev
