JUDGMENT :

Jay Sengupta, J.

1. This application is directed against a judgment and order dated 04.05.2020 passed by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in Original Application No. 350/1434 of 2019 with Miscellaneous Application No. 350/112 of 2020, thereby, inter alia, refusing to interfere with the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the present petitioner and granting liberty to him to participate at the enquiry proceeding.

2. The petitioner has been employed as a Bungalow Peon (TADK) with the South Eastern Railway since 27.09.2016. On 25.01.2017 upon completion of 120 days of continuous service, the petitioner acquired temporary status. On 28.01.2019 the petitioner preferred an application under the Right to Information Act. On 17.05.2019 the petitioner filed a first appeal in respect of his application under the RTI Act. On 04.06.2019 the petitioner’s employer issued a show cause notice to him seeking explanation for the use of alleged intemperate language while preferring the first appeal under the RTI Act. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice on 06.06.2019. On 02.07.2019 he was issued major penalty charge memorandum alleging the same use of intemperate language while filing the first appeal under the RTI Act. On 15.10.2019 the petitioner preferred an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 before the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench challenging the initiation of the departmental proceeding through the major penalty charge memorandum. On 15.09.2019 the petitioner filed a miscellaneous application since the departmental proceeding had continued due to non grant of interim order at the motion stage before the learned Tribunal. On 04.05.2020 the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench was pleased to reject the original application along with the connected miscellaneous application.

3. After the petitioner moved the present application before this Court, by an order dated 24.06.2020, this Court directed that the disciplinary proceedings may continue subject to the result of the writ application, any major penalty intended to be awarded can only be so done upon obtaining leave of this Court and any minor penalty may be awarded subject to the result of this case.

4. It was submitted by the learned counsels for the parties that by an order dated 07.01.2021 the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment on the petitioner by downgrading the charge memorandum from major penalty to minor penalty. As a punishment, the petitioner was imposed a minor penalty of stoppage of increment for two years with non cumulative effect. A copy of the order as communicated to the petitioner and as filed on behalf of the petitioner was taken on record.

5. Mr. Samanta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted as follows. While continuing as a Bungalow Peon (TADK) under the South Eastern Railways, the petitioner filed an application under the RTI Act requesting the authority to furnish the duties and responsibilities of his said TADK in the railways service and querying whether a gazetted officer of Indian Railways can utilise a TADK for washing cloth, cooking food, cleaning residence of a gazetted officer under whose control the TADK was posted. To this, a belated and evasive reply was given by the CPIO of the Railway Board. The duties and responsibilities of TADK were not furnished on the purported ground that no such instruction had been issued from the office. The second question was not answered on a vague pretext. Being aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed an appeal on 17.05.2019 before the First Appellate Authority under the RTI Act. In the said application, the petitioner merely stated the obvious that the belated reply showed total negligence and irresponsible attitude of the CPIO. Moreover, the CPIO did not provide with any information and rather went on to dish out some misleading and irrelevant info