An employer cannot issue a charge-sheet to an employee for misconduct that occurred several years earlier, especially when the employee has been promoted and commended for his work in the meantime.

1. The petitioner was initially employed as an Assistant Engineer under the West Bengal Slate Electricity Board and ultimately on promotion was appointed on temporary basis to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer, (Electrical) in the said establishment. The charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority on 16th September, 1997. It may be mentioned herein that the petitioner was to retire in the afternoon of 30th September, 1997 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner by written representation dated 29th September, 1997 requested the Disciplinary Authority to allow inspection of certain documents mentioned in the said representation and also requested to grant 30 days time for preparation and submission of written statement of defence after inspection of the documents as mentioned in the said representation. The Disciplinary Authority, however, decided to hold an enquiry against the petitioner and for this purpose appointed Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer by two Office Orders both dated 13th December, 1997.

2. It was stated by the petitioner that in spite of repeated requests made to the Disciplinary Authority as well as to the Enquiry Officer inspections of the relevant documents were not given to the petitioner herein. However, the enquiry proceeding was concluded on 8th September, 1999 and pursuant to the direction of the Enquiry Officer petitioner also submitted his written arguments in defence on 22nd September, 1999.

3. Since, the respondent authorities did not publish the outcome of the enquiry proceedings for a considerable period a writ petition was filed earlier by the petitioner herein which was finally disposed of by a Single Judge of this Court on 12th June, 2000 whereby the respondent authorities were directed to serve the enquiry report on the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of the said order and the petitioner was given liberty to submit his representation before the respondent authorities within a week from the date of receipt of the enquiry report and the respondent authorities were directed to pass necessary order within a week from the date of receipt of the said representation from the petitioner.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the Disciplinary Authority forwarded a copy of the report of the Enquiring Authority to the petitioner herein by enclosing the same with the letter dated 16th June, 2000 written by the said Disciplinary Authority. In the said letter, the Disciplinary Authority also informed the petitioner about the reasons for non-accepting the findings furnished by the Enquiring Authority and opined that a re-enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner should be held by the Enquiring Authority.

5. The petitioner, thereafter, made a representation to the Disciplinary Authority on the point of the disagreement as recorded by the Disciplinary Authority in his earlier communication. The Disciplinary Authority, thereafter, decided to re-enquire the charges levelled against the petitioner and for this purpose appointed the Enquiring Authority and Presenting Officer. The said decision of the Disciplinary Authority was duly communicated to the petitioner herein. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the aforesaid decision of the Disciplinary Authority to re-enquire the charges levelled against the petitioner and mentioned in the charge-sheet in view of non-acceptance of the findings of the Enquiring Authority by the said Disciplinary Authority. In spite of the specific direction passed earlier by this Court no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Board in the present proceeding.

6. Mr. Swapan Kumar Dutta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not only stale but also the same deemed to have been condoned in view of granting promotion to the petitioner first to the post