IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that disciplinary actions must adhere to principles of natural justice and proportionality, especially when imposing severe penalties like dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.

1. A procrastinated legal battle pertaining to a disciplinary proceeding initiated under the provisions of the All India Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 1969 Rules) which culminated in an order of dismissal from service dated 12th February, 2013 was assailed before the learned Tribunal by the original applicant/ the writ petitioner in an original application (hereinafter referred to as OA), being OA 146 of 2013. The order of dismissal of the said OA dated 25th July, 2014 is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

2. It is the petitioner’s case that he belongs to the 1977 batch of the Indian Police Service (hereinafter referred to as IPS). After due selection through the Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as UPSC), he was allocated the West Bengal Cadre and he served in various capacities under the State Government (hereinafter referred to as SG) and also under the Central Government (hereinafter referred to as CG). For the period from 1993 to 1998 he was the Deputy Inspector General (hereinafter referred to as DIG), CISF on deputation under Ministry of Home Affairs. He returned to his parent cadre, West Bengal, on 31st March, 1998 and was posted as DIG Armed Police, North Bengal. He was eligible for his next promotion to the post of Inspector General of Police (hereinafter referred to as IGP) in the year 2001, however, while other DIGs were promoted as IGPs on 28th December, 2001, his name was not considered. In response to the representations submitted thereafter, the SG vide memo dated 17th January, 2002 intimated that the memo no. 224/P/A/R (VIG) dated 12th June, 1980 was not applicable to him and he was refused promotion. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred OA 245 of 2005 which was disposed of by an order dated 18th November, 2005 directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s claim towards promotion. As the said order was not complied with, the petitioner preferred a contempt petition being CPC 54 of 2006 and during pendency of the same, the petitioner was issued a charge sheet dated 29th March, 2006 under the provisions of Rule 8 of the 1969 Rules. Challenging the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings (hereinafter referred to as DP), the petitioner preferred OA 348 of 2006 with MA 241 of 2006 seeking a direction upon the respondents not to give any effect to the decision of initiation of a fresh DP till he is promoted in terms of the order of the learned Tribunal dated 18th November, 2015. The said OA was disposed of on 24th April, 2006 directing the respondents to conclude the hearing and enquiry expeditiously. The petitioner thereafter submitted his written statement of defense on 11th May, 2006. The Inquiring Authority (hereinafter referred to as IA) submitted his report on 23rd October, 2006 and forwarded the same to the Vigilance Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as VC), who vide memo dated 2nd November, 2006 agreed with the findings of the IA and recommended a punishment of compulsory retirement. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority (hereinafter referred to as DA) agreed with the views of the VC on 16th November, 2011. At that stage, the petitioner preferred OA 466 of 2007 challenging the DP. The said OA was dismissed on 7th August, 2009 with liberty to come upon exhaustion of departmental remedies observing inter alia that the secret inquiry report (hereinafter referred to as PIR) of VC was not a relied upon document (hereinafter referred to as RUD) and that no intervention was called for at that stage. The said order was challenged in a writ petition being WPCT 320 of 2010. The same was dismissed on 7th February, 2011 observing inter alia that if report of VC is considered by the DA, without giving opportunity to controvert, it may be a ground to agitate after finality of the proceedings. The special leave petition (hereinafter referred to as SLP) preferre