Back
2022 Supreme(Cal) 179
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
HARISH TANDON, RABINDRANATH SAMANTA, JJ.
Union of India & Others – Appellants
Versus
Dr. Goutam Roy & Others – Respondents
WPCT. Nos. 79 & 64 of 2021
Decided on : 28-04-2022
R.N. Bag, Shankar Ranjan Sen, Indranath Mitra, Subhankar Das, Arun Kanti Chattopadhyay, Advocates.
The court established that if the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar facts, and the charge in the criminal case involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.
Headnote:
Disciplinary Proceedings - Railway Servants - Rule 10(3) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 - The court quashed the entire disciplinary proceedings right from its initiation vide charge memo dated 10.07.2003 with liberty to the respondents to act in accordance with law.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent Dr. Goutam Roy was dismissed from railway services after being charged with demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 100 for issuing a fit certificate. The court quashed the entire disciplinary proceedings based on the charge sheet, citing procedural irregularities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary proceedings were based on identical and similar facts as the criminal case, where the respondent was acquitted. It held that the entire departmental proceedings, including the charge, inquiry report, and decision by the disciplinary authority, should be quashed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law, considering the respondent's acquittal in the criminal case based on similar facts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Rule 10(3) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, and the legal principle that if the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar facts, and the charge in the criminal case involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.
Final Decision: The writ petition challenging the order to quash the disciplinary proceedings was dismissed, and the respondent's petition seeking reinstatement and back wages was allowed. The Railway Authorities were directed to reinstate the respondent and clear all arrear pay/salary and consequential service benefits.
JUDGMENT :
Rabindranath Samanta, J.
1. These two writ petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 06.04.2021 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Kolkata (hereinafter be referred to as the Tribunal) in O.A 350/1135/2014. The respondent filed the tribunal application seeking the following reliefs:
“a. An order do issue setting aside and/or quashing the memorandum of charge bearing no. 269/D&A/GR dated 10th July, 2003 issued by the General Manager, Eastern Railway, forthwith.
b. An order do issue setting aside and/or quashing findings of the Inquiring Authority forthwith;
c. An order do issue setting aside and/or quashing the opinion and/or advice dated 28.07.2010 of the Union Public Service Commission, forthwith.
d. An order do issue setting aside and/or quashing the order of dismissal being memo No E(O)I-2007/PU-2/SECR/71 dated 28.09.2012 passed by order and in the name of the President, forthwith.
e. An order do issue directing the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service, forthwith;
f. An order do issue directing the respondents to allow the applicant to resume his duties, forthwith;
g. An order do issue directing the respondents to release the back wages and other consequential services benefits to the applicant, forthwith;
h. An order do issue directing the respondents to release the salary and arrear salary of the applicant, forthwith.”
2. The learned Tribunal by the order as impugned disposed of the application with the following observations and direction:
“The General Manager having referred the matter to the President for imposition of major penalty proves that the General Manager had no power to impose a major penalty yet he assumed the role of a disciplinary authority to issue a major penalty charge memo, which is bad. Going by the maxim “Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus” (where the foundation has been removed the structure collapses), the entire proceedings based on such charge sheet gets vitiated and hence liable to be quashed.
Further, the respondents have also failed to substantiate the following:-
Non supply of documents as asked for by the applicant did not amount to violation of principles of natural justice;
The demand and acceptance of bribe money of Rs.100/- by the applicant from the complainant;
Penalty of removal from service is commensurate to the allegation of demanding and accepting bribe money of Rs.100/-
We have given our anxious consideration to the facts, records, rival contentions and the implication of the decisions cited.
In view of the glaring omissions as noted supra, we would quash the entire proceedings right from its initiation vide charge memo dated 10.07.2003 with liberty to the respondents to act in accordance with law.
The O.A stands disposed of. No costs.”
3. As the facts emanate, the respondent Dr. Goutam Roy in W.P.C.T 79 of 2021 was dismissed from railway services by the concerned railway authorities vide memo No. E(O)I-2007/PU- 2/SECR/71 dated 28.09.2012 after the charge framed against him in connection with a disciplinary proceeding was proved.
4. The facts as depicted in W.P.C.T 79 of 2021 and which are necessary for adjudication of the issues involved may be summarised as under:-
The respondent Goutam Roy while working as Senior Divisional Medical Officer, Health Unit, Naihati under Eastern Railway demanded bribe of Rs. 100/- for issuing fit certificate. A trap was laid by the S.P.E/CBI/AB, Kolkata on 11.04.2002 and he was caught red handed and arrested for allegedly demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs.100/- from Shri Ratan Kumar Ghosh (R.K. Ghosh), Electric Fitter, Eastern Railway, Sealdah for issuing of a medical fit certificate to him. With regard to such incident a case was filed against the respondent in the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI Court at Alipore, South 24 Parganas under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corrup
