Point of Law: Doctrine of unreasonableness is giving way to the doctrine of proportionality and on certain aspects even judicial review of fact is permissible.

JUDGMENT :

SOUMEN SEN, J.

1. The writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench on July 17, 2019, in connection with an original application filed by Shyama Prasad Chattopadhyay (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Respondent’) in which the Respondent had, inter-alia, challenged the imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement and rejection of his appeal by the Appellate Authority.

2. Pithily put, the facts are thus:

Shri Shyama Prasad Chattopadhyay, the Respondent herein, was a Senior Audit Officer in the office of the Director-General of Audit, Central, Kolkata. The respondent while working, as such, had come across an advertisement in the website of the Asiatic Society inviting applications for the post of Controller of Finance on deputation. As he was interested in the said post, he made an application on September 9, 2013, to the Director General of Audit, Central under the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (in short ‘CAG’) requesting the said Authority to forward his name to the Asiatic Society on deputation. The competent Authority accepted the request for deputation and his bio-data was accordingly forwarded by a letter dated September 24, 2013, to the Asiatic Society for consideration.

3. The Asiatic Society accepted the said application and the letter of appointment dated October 30, 2013 clearly states that the appointment was made on Foreign Service terms and conditions. The initial appointment to the said post was initially for one year which may be extended for such period as may be decided by the authority of the Society. The respondent was requested to join the post immediately within a fortnight from the date of receipt of the said letter.

4. Consequent upon the selection of the respondent to the post of Controller of Finance in the Asiatic Society, Calcutta, the Director General of Audit, Central, Kolkata on deputation basis, released the respondent from his office with effect from the afternoon on November 11, 2013. The period of deputation was initially for one year which may be extended and, thereafter the appointment was made on Foreign Service terms and conditions. The Respondent joined the Asiatic Society on November 11, 2013.

5. On completion of the period of deputation of one year, the Asiatic Society, Kolkata vide office order no. 162 dated September 5, 2014, granted an extension of the deputation period of the Respondent up to the date of his retirement, i.e. on January 31, 2016. The said office order reads:

“Office Order No. 162

Dated: 05.09.2014

The Council of the Asiatic Society, Kolkata in its meeting held on August 29, 2014 considered the letter (No. Admn./C/Deptn./CIR/11-12/Vol-II/1085 dated 6.8.2014) from Sr. Audit Officer, Administration, Indian Audit & Accounts Department, Office of the Director General of Audit, Central, Kolkata, regarding extension of term of deputation of Shri S.P. Chattopadhyay, Sr. Audit Officer, working as Controller of Finance in the Asiatic Society and approved the extension of his deputation in the Society from 11.11.2014 till his superannuation.”

(Emphasis supplied)

6. The said office order was also forwarded to Senior Audit Officer (Administration) Indian Audit and Accounts Department, Officer of the Director General of Audit, Kolkata.

7. Prior to the aforesaid letter on August 6, 2014, the Senior Audit Officer of CAG issued a letter to the General Secretary, Asiatic Society regarding extension of the term of deputation of Shri Chattopadhyay requesting him to intimate if the service of the Respondent would be required in the Asiatic Society for a further term and in the event, the Society requires his service a proposal for further extension of his term on deputation could be sent to the CAG along with the willingness of the official concerned for necessary action. This letter was an internal communication between two offices and was not marked to the Respondent.

8. The petitioners in response to the office order