Disciplinary proceedings initiated by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority do not violate Article 311; the standard for punishment must align with proven misconduct.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. In this writ petition as filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 20.07.2015 as passed in OA No. 476 of 2012 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Kolkata, hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Tribunal’ in short is impugned.

2. By the impugned order the said Tribunal declined to interfere with the order of punishment dated 14.09.2011 as passed by the Respondent No. 3 authority as has been affirmed by the Respondent No. 2 authority being the appellate authority by its order dated 13.08.2012.

3. For effective adjudication of the instant lis some relevant facts leading to filling of this writ petition are required to be dealt with in a nut shell which are as under:-

(i) At the time of alleged incident, the writ petitioner/original applicant was posted as Staff Car Driver, Grade II, DCO, West Bengal.

(ii) On 02.09.2010 under cover of a memo he was served with a charge- sheet dated 02.09.2010 containing four numbers of articles of charges including imputations of misconduct in support of those articles of charges by the Respondent No. 3 authority.

(iii) On 16.11.2010, the Respondent No. 4 authority recalled the earlier charge-sheet dated 02.09.2010 and by the self-same memo the writ petitioner/original applicant was again served with a memorandum of charge-sheet containing 4 numbers of articles of charges including statements of imputation of misconduct, serious negligence and dereliction of duty in view of theft of office vehicle from his custody resulting to consumable loss to the Government.

(iv) On 27.08.2010 the respondent authorities appointed an Enquiry Officer.

(v) The writ petitioner participated in the disciplinary proceeding.

(vi) On 15.06.2011 the Enquiry Officer submitted its report whereby and whereunder he found that all the charges against the delinquent have been proved.

(vii) The disciplinary authority after considering the enquiry report and the representation of the delinquent/writ petitioner/original applicant against the enquiry report found no substance in such representation and thus imposed penalty of removal from Government service with immediate effect which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government.

(viii) The delinquent preferred an appeal before the Respondent No. 2 authority and the said appellate authority by its order dated 13.08.2012 found no merit in such appeal of the delinquent and thus affirmed the order of the disciplinary authority.

(ix) The writ petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the decisions of the enquiry authority, disciplinary authority and the appellate authority before the said Tribunal and hence, the instant writ petition.

4. In course of his argument Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Shit appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners/original applicant at the very outset submits before this Court that the second charge- sheet dated 16.11.2010 is itself defective inasmuch as such charge-sheet was submitted by an authority who is neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority of the delinquent. It is further argued by Mr. Chakraborty that since the Respondent No. 4 authority which issued the charge-sheet dated 16.11.2010 is much below the rank of the Respondent No. 3 authority being the alleged disciplinary authority of the delinquent, the charge-sheet dated 16.11.2010 suffers from material irregularity and/or illegality in view of the