IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
Dr. Bijaya Prasad Samantaray - Appellant
Versus
The Board Of Trustees For The Port Of Kolkata & Ors. - Respondents
WPO 408 of 2011
Decided on : 16-01-2025
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
1. The present writ petition has been preferred praying for direction upon the respondents and each one of them, their men, agents, assignees and subordinate to rescind, recall, revoke and/or withdraw the enquiry proceeding, findings of the Enquiry Officer, penalty order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority’s order.
2. The petitioner during his service tenure faced departmental enquiry which has been challenged in the present case. The charges as framed are as follows:
That the said Dr. Bijay Prasad Samantaray is charged with misconduct inasmuch as while working as Health Officer under Medical Department he issued G-20 Bill dated 30.09.2004 after more than three years from receipt of Sr. Accounts Officer (Pre-Audit)'s letter bearing No. 33 dated 27.09.2001 advising issue of pay order of Rs.17,608/- in favour of Sri Ganga Prasad, Safai Mazdoor, Item No.161 being the refund of past salary attached by the Court.
By the above act, the said Dr. Samantaray has exhibited gross irresponsibility and neglect of duty which is unbecoming of an Office of Kolkata Port Trust.
(PROVED)
ARTICLE OF CHARGE – II
That the said Dr. Bijay Prasad Samantaray is charged with misconduct inasmuch as while working as Health Officer under Medical Department he did not allow Sri Sumarilal, Safai Mazdoor, Item No.297 to resume duty on 16.08.2004 and unnecessarily caused harassment by deferring the resumption order upto 28.09.2004, despite the fact that Sri Sumarilal prayed for resumption of duty on 16.08.2004, on the ground that said Sumarilal was on unauthorized absence.
By the above act, the said Dr. Samantaray had exhibited gross irresponsibility and neglect of duty, which is unbecoming of an Officer of Kolkata Port Trust.
(PROVED)
ARTICLE OF CHARGE – III
That the said Dr. Bijaya Prasad Samantaray is charged with misconduct inasmuch as while working as Health Officer under Medical Department he had submitted Family Declaration Card bearing No. MO/0855 on 01.10.1983 declaring his parents as dependent on him and had availed the LTC benefits in the Block Year 1984-1987 in favour of his parents although they were never dependent on him.
By giving such false declaration and also by drawing financial benefits in unauthorized manner, the said Dr. Samantaray had exhibited lack of integrity violating Regulation 3 of CPT Employees" (Conduct) Regulations, 1987, which is unbecoming of an Officer of Kolkata Port Trust.
(PROVED)
3. The Enquiry Officer conducting an extensive enquiry in respect of all the charges framed against the petitioner and relying upon the evidence and documents, gave his findings as follows:-
i. the charged officer D. B.P. Samantaray the then Health Officer cancelled the pay order which was prepared by Sri Partha Chakraborty the concerned dealing clerk, MW-8 and was put before him on 08.10.2001 (Exbt. M-XVII) for refund of Rs.17,608/- to Sri Ganga Prosad, Item No.161 on the basis of the advice bearing No.33 dated 27.09.2001 (Exbt. M-XIII) from Audit Section (C), Finance Department was clearly stated by Sri Indra Nath Adhya, Asstt. Administrative Officer, MW-4 in his recorded statement (Exbt. M-XXV). As such no refund was made in 2001.
Instead of issuing pay order the C.O. unnecessary delayed it by issuing a letter No.HO/Insolve/II/161/2 dated 02.11.2001 (Exbt. M-XVIII) asking for reexamination of the case and according to MW-4 he did not take any action till 2004. On pursuance of Sri Indra Nath Adhya, MW- 4 with concerned officer/dealing clerk by issuing letters to Senior Accounts Office (Pre-Audit) the mater to refund Rs.17,608/- to Sri Ganga Prosad the safai Mazdoor the pay order dated 30.09.2004, G-20 bill was raised on 30.09.2004 and finally the payment was made to Sri Ganga Prosad on 30.09.2004.
It is not understood why the
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; courts defer to disciplinary authorities unless findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence.
Disciplinary authority's findings must be based on evidence; failure to adhere to natural justice principles renders proceedings void.
(1) Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the ....
Acquittal in a criminal trial does not automatically invalidate disciplinary proceedings, but substantial overlaps in evidence may necessitate reconsideration of the latter's findings. Procedural fai....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for the disciplinary authority to follow the principles of natural justice and impose proportionate punishment, considering the discretion....
Disciplinary proceedings require oral evidence for proving charges; failure to provide a witness list vitiates the inquiry, emphasizing adherence to natural justice standards.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.