Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR
AMRITA SINHA, ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, JJ.
The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others - Petitioners
Versus
Pradeep Chanda - Respondent
WP.CT No. 37 of 2023
Decided On : 25-08-2023
Natural Justice - Disciplinary Proceeding - CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Indian Penal Code - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - [MISAPPROPRIATION] - [DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING, CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, IPC, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988] - The court discussed the violation of natural justice in the disciplinary proceeding and the compliance with the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It highlighted the employee's conflicting stands before the Court and the employer, and the need for granting further opportunity to the employee to defend his case.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, an employee of the Department of Tourism, A & N Administration, was charged with misappropriation of Government money. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him while a criminal case was also ongoing. The respondent approached the Tribunal to defer the disciplinary proceeding till the conclusion of the criminal case. The High Court directed the trial court to conclude the criminal case within a stipulated time frame. The employer proceeded with the disciplinary proceeding, and the respondent participated in the same. The employee alleged bias at the fag end of the inquiry and did not attend the hearings. The Administration imposed a major penalty of dismissal from service, which was challenged by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that there was no violation of natural justice and reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to the employee at each stage. The employee's voluntary act of not attending the hearing cannot be construed as a violation of natural justice. The order of dismissal was set aside, and the Administration was directed to revisit the proceeding from the stage of forwarding the inquiry report to the employee. The disciplinary authority was directed to grant opportunity of hearing to the employee and conclude the proceeding within forty-five days.
Issues: Violation of natural justice, compliance with CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, employee's conflicting stands before the Court and the employer, imposition of major penalty of dismissal from service.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that there was no violation of natural justice and reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to the employee at each stage. The employee's voluntary act of not attending the hearing cannot be construed as a violation of natural justice. The order of dismissal was set aside, and the Administration was directed to revisit the proceeding from the stage of forwarding the inquiry report to the employee. The disciplinary authority was directed to grant opportunity of hearing to the employee and conclude the proceeding within forty-five days.
Final Decision: The order passed by the Tribunal quashing the inquiry report was set aside, and the order passed in the application for review became inconsequential. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs.
JUDGMENT :
Amrita Sinha, J.
1. The instant writ petition has been filed at the instance of the Administration challenging two orders passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’. First is the order passed in the Original Application filed by the respondent employee quashing the inquiry report and the penalty order, second is the order dismissing the application for review of the said order filed by the administration.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
(b) A separate criminal case under the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was also initiated against him.
(c) A disciplinary proceeding was initiated and the respondent was charge-sheeted on 30th October, 2015.
(d) An Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charges.
(e) As the criminal case and the disciplinary proceeding was continuing simultaneously, the respondent approached the Tribunal by filing OA No. 10/AN/2017 with a prayer for deferring the disciplinary proceeding till the conclusion of the criminal case as the charges in respect of the disciplinary proceeding and the criminal case were the same.
(f) The respondent being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal approached the High Court by filing WP.CT/189/2017. The Hon’ble High Court by order dated 16th June, 2017 disposed of the aforesaid writ petition with a request to the learned Special Judge trying the criminal case to conclude the trial and pass an order and sentence, if warranted, within fifteen months from date.
(g) The Hon’ble Court made it very clear that the inquiry and the disciplinary proceeding shall continue without any hindrance but hearing should only be concluded after the criminal case is disposed of. The said direction was passed relying upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in case the criminal case results in an acquittal or honourable acquittal it may have some repercussions on the departmental proceedings.
(h) In compliance of the direction passed by the Hon’ble High Court, the employer proceeded with the inquiry in accordance with the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
(i) On 30th November, 2018 the respondent submitted a representation before the disciplinary authority clearly mentioning that the inquiry officer fixed date of departmental inquiry on 01st June, 2017, 14th June, 2017, 20th July, 2017, 04th August, 20017, 16th August, 2017, 24th August, 2017, 25th September, 2017, 06th November, 2017, 28th December, 2017, 18th January, 2018, 14th March, 20418, 04th June, 2018, 02nd July, 2018, 06th November, 2018, 13th November, 2018, 16th November, 2018 and 21st November, 2018 and alleged that even after hearing conducted on so many dates, the departmental inquiry was yet to be concluded and was kept pending by the Inquiry Officer.
(j) In the aforesaid representation the respondent highlighted the various circulars issued by the Central Vigilance Commission for timely completion of the disciplinary proceeding and as the disciplinary proceeding could not be concluded within the mandatory time limit prescribed by the Central Vigilance Commission, the respondent prayed for dropping the said proceeding.
(k) As the criminal case could not be concluded within the time limit specified by the Hon’ble High Court, accordingly, an interlocutory application was filed by the Administration being CAN No. 125 of 2018 in WP.CT/189/2017. By order dated 12th December, 2018 the Court was pleased to extend the time for a further period of twelve months for concluding the pending criminal trial.
(l) The respondent thereafter approached the Tribunal with OA 351/1948/2018 praying for a direction upon the authority to drop
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the employee in a disciplinary proceeding and the need for compliance with the CCS ....
The principles of natural justice require that a delinquent employee be given a copy of the preliminary enquiry report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the ....
Disciplinary proceedings invalidated due to violations of natural justice, including denial of assistance and bias of inquiry officer, necessitating reinstatement and fresh inquiry.
Disciplinary proceedings can proceed despite a parallel criminal trial, provided due process is followed, and an employee's non-cooperation may negate claims of denied natural justice.
The Tribunal held that an inquiry conducted without violating natural justice, providing adequate opportunities for defense, and adhering to procedural rules is valid, affirming the dismissal of the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the violation of natural justice in the termination of the petitioner's service, particularly in relation to charge no.8, and the court's decision ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
