The main legal point established in the judgment is that inordinate delay, non-supply of documents, withdrawal of charge sheet, and lack of reasoning in dismissal orders can vitiate departmental proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Jay Sengupta, J.

1. This application is directed against a judgment and order dated 19.02.2018 passed by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Branch in OA No. 1851/2015, thereby affirming an order dated 04.07.2011 issued by the disciplinary authority as affirmed by the appellate authority on 02.09.2015.

2. On 15.10.1985 the applicant was appointed as an unapproved substitute at the Taherpur Station under the Eastern Railway. On 26.02.1992 he was promoted to the post of commercial clerk in September 2003. The applicant was appointed as Goods Guard and was posted at Naihati. On 22.06.2005 the petitioner was placed under suspension and a charge-sheet was issued to him on 28.12.2005. The alleged charged related back to the year 1994. It was alleged that the petitioner had adopted unfair means while entering into railway service. The petitioner got the employment in the railway as a gang man by virtue of AEN/BT/S letter number EG/2/BT dated 15.09.1994 (RUD-I), but the authority as mentioned in the said letter which was also mentioned in the service record of the concerned staff was fake. Senior DPO/SDAH confirmed that no such letter as indicated in the office order had been issued from his office. The front page of the service record of the petitioner revealed that he was appointed by an office order dated 21.10.1993. The front page of the same bore the signature of the petitioner, that he had been appointed on the basis of such order of senior DPO/SDAH. On 11.06.2006 the petitioner prayed for revocation of suspension order. On 01.09.2006 during the course of enquiry the charge memorandum dated 28.12.2005 was withdrawn. But, on 10.10.2006 a second memorandum of charge was issued. The petitioner again prayed for revocation of suspension order on 26.10.2006. On 19.04.2007 he prayed for a change of the enquiry officer. He again made a representation for stay of the departmental proceeding on 17.05.2007. On 04.02.2008 the suspension order was revoked. During the course of enquiry the petitioner prayed for an adjournment on 10.03.2008 but the same was turned down. On 24.03.2008 the enquiry proceeding was held and the enquiry was declared closed. The petitioner challenged the decision before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal by filing OA No. 263/2008. On 02.04.2008 the said application was disposed. On 22.05.2008 the disciplinary authority requested the enquiry officer to supply documents to the petitioner and thereafter to start enquiry. On 18.06.2008 the enquiry officer intimated the disciplinary authority that the question of further enquiry did not arise since he had already submitted charge-sheet on 29.04.2008. The applicant submitted his reply before the enquiry officer in 2008 and then again representation before the disciplinary authority in 2009 he finally submitted his reply on findings of the enquiry officer on 16.06.2011. On 04.07.2011 the disciplinary authority passed an order of the petitioner’s dismissal with immediate effect. The applicant preferred before the learned appellate authority in terms of leave granted by the learned tribunal in OA No. 729/2011. On 14.08.2012 the appellate authority confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority. The revisional authority rejected the prayer of the applicant. On 09.07.2015 the learned tribunal passed the impugned order disposing of petitioner’s application. Pursuant to this, the petitioner submitted notes of arguments before the appellate authority. On 02.09.2015 the appellate authority passed an order of affirmation of the dismissal. On 19.02.2018 OA No. 1851/2015 filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the appellate authority was dismissed. Being aggrieved by such order the petitioner preferred a writ application being WPCT 49/2018. On 24.07.2018 the application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh with proper annexure. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present application cha