JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. State as the writ petitioner has assailed the order dated February 4, 2020 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in OA 142 of 2019.

2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has set aside the entire departmental proceedings initiated against the respondent No. 1 holding, inter alia, that the finding of the enquiry officer was vitiated due to breach of principles of natural justice and that, the quantum of punishment was in violation of Rule 8 (ii) of the West Bengal Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971.

3. Learned senior advocate appearing for the State has contended that, the respondent No. 1 during his incumbency as Executive Engineer committed grave irregularities while discharging his duties by deviating from the tender/contract conditions which resulted in loss to the State exchequer. Consequently, a departmental proceeding had been initiated against respondent No. 1 by a charge-sheet dated May 25, 2016 which was amended on August 1, 2016. The respondent No. 1 had submitted a written Statement of defence with regard to the charges levelled against him. He had been granted requisite opportunity to substantiate his defence.

4. Learned senior advocate appearing for the State has contended that, the respondent No. 1 was afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself. He has contended that, the enquiry proceeding was conducted in strict compliance with the principles of natural justice and/or procedural justice. The respondent No. 1 had admitted that he had relaxed the tender conditions and therefore, the respondent No. 1 had admitted a deviation from the tender conditions without the approval of the competent authority.

5. Learned senior advocate appearing for the State has contended that, the enquiry officer did not commit any irregularity in arriving at the findings as noted in the enquiry report dated August 3, 2016. The departmental authority had passed an order dated November 10, 2018 and issued a second show cause notice to the respondent No. 1 as to why the punishment of withholding two annual increments without cumulative effect and debarment of promotion during the period of undergoing penalty in terms of Rule 8 (ii) of the Rules of 1971 should not be imposed. The respondent No. 1 had been given an opportunity to reply thereto along with any additional documents that he wished to rely upon. The respondent No. 1 had submitted a letter dated January 22, 2017 in response to the second show cause notice. He had stated that, he did not want to submit any documents.

6. Learned senior advocate appearing for the State has contended that, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of withholding of two annual increments without cumulative effect and debarment of promotion during the period undergoing penalty. Before imposing such sentence, the Public Service Commission was communicated with the proposed punishment by a Memo dated March 9, 2017 which was approved by the Public Service Commission by their letter dated June 1, 2017.

7. Learned senior advocate appearing for the State has contended that, the respondent No. 1 did not exhaust the right of statutory appeal before approaching the Tribunal. He has contended that in view of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1971 the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the issue since under Rule 15 (9) of the Rules of 1971 there is an appellate authority prescribed. He has referred to section 20 (1) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 which provides that a Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of the advances. He has pointed out that the Rules of 1971 not only provides for an appeal against an order of punishment but also provide for second appeal or a revision. He has relied upon 1995 volume 6 Supreme Court Cases 749 (B.C Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and Others) and 1989 volume 4 S