Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Cal) 976

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
MADHURESH PRASAD, SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, JJ.
Union of India and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Pijus Kanti Ghorai – Respondent
W.P.C.T. 111 of 2025
Decided On : 18-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Souvik Nandy, Mr. Arijit Majumdar
For the Respondent: Mr. Jagadish Ranjan Das.

Disciplinary proceedings must be supported by adequate evidence, and a lack of procedural compliance can lead to judicial intervention.

Headnote:(A) Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Charges of misconduct against government employee, including illegal solicitation of bribes and unauthorized possession of official stamps - Tribunal quashed the disciplinary proceedings due to lack of evidence, emphasizing that charges must be supported by sufficient material (Paras 30, 32).

(B) Judicial review standards in disciplinary inquiries: The findings of the disciplinary authority must be based on evidence, and procedural irregularities may warrant interference by the Tribunal (Paras 14, 24, 30).

(C) The duty of the inquiry officer to consider material evidence and the principle that the burden of proof lies with the employer (Paras 24, 25).

Facts of the case:
The respondent faced multiple charges of misconduct including acceptance of bribes for job promises and misuse of rubber stamps reportedly without substantial evidence, particularly lacking the complainant's testimony (Paras 4-6, 21).

Findings of Court:
The disciplinary proceedings were quashed due to no substantive evidence supporting the charges despite the charge memo being deemed valid (Paras 30, 34).

Issues: The main issues included whether the charges were substantiated by evidence and whether due process was followed in the disciplinary proceedings (Paras 16, 31).

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the absence of the complainant's testimony undermined the validity of the charges. Furthermore, the disciplinary authority exhibited a lack of due consideration to the evidence and representation from the respondent (Paras 27, 30).

Result: The writ petition is disposed of with observations regarding the need for proper procedure in disciplinary actions.

JUDGMENT :

Supratim Bhattacharya, J.

1. The respondent herein was the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ ) was an employee of the Gun & Shell Factory, Cossipore, Kolkata (hereinafter to be referred to as the ‘Factory’ ).

2. A complaint was lodged by one Subinay Kar against the said respondent which was received by the said Factory alleging that the said respondent had demanded sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lieu of providing a job to the said Mr. Kar in the Factory.

3. On receipt of the said complaint, a vigilance inquiry was directed by the competent authority and on the basis of the report filed by the vigilance authority the said respondent was suspended with effect from 17.07.2015.

4. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated by a Memorandum of Charge dated 21.08.2015 containing the following:

“ARTICLE OF CHARGE-I

That Shri Pijus Kanti Ghorai, Hy. Skilled Gr. 1 (Machinist), Ticket No.130/ Tool Room, Per. No. 006710 of Gun & Shell Factory, Cossipore, Kolkata - 2 is charged with gross misconduct of illegally making money by giving false assurance of Govt. job in Gun & Shell Factory, Cossipore to the outsiders and tarnishing the image of Factory Management. Thus, the said Shri Ghorai has indulged himself into an act of gross indiscipline and a conduct unbecoming of a Govt. Servant in violation of Rule-3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE - II

That Shri Pijus Kanti Ghorai, Hy. Skilled Gr. 1 (Machinist), Ticket No.130 / Tool Room, Per. No. 006710 of Gun & Shell Factory, Cossipore, Kolkata - 2 is charged with gross misconduct of unauthorizedly possessing rubber stamps of doctors & headmaster and misusing them with malafide intention for his personal gain. Thus, the said Shri Ghorai has indulged himself into an act of gross indiscipline and a conduct unbecoming of a Govt. Servant in violation of Rule - 3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE - III .

That Shri Pijus Kanti Ghorai, Hy. Skilled Gr. 1 (Machinist), Ticket No.130 / Tool Room, Per. No. 006710 of Gun & Shell Factory, Cossipore, Kolkata - 2 is charged with gross misconduct of fraudulently issuing call letters for pre- employment medical examination using pseudonymous name and signature with malafide intention for his personal gain. Thus, the said Shri Ghorai has indulged himself into an act of gross indiscipline and a conduct unbecoming of a Govt. Servant in violation of Rule -3(1)(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE - IV

That Shri Pijus Kanti Ghorai, Hy. Skilled Gr. 1 (Machinist), Ticket No.130 / Tool Room, Per. No. 006710 of Gun & Shell Factory, Cossipore, Kolkata - 2 is charged with gross misconduct of unauthorizedly possessing two EARS-cum- Smart Identity Cards of Gun & Shell Factory, Cossipore with malafide intention for his personal gain. Thus, the said Shri Ghorai has indulged himself into an act of gross indiscipline and a conduct unbecoming of a Govt. Servant in violation of Rule -3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”

5. Against the aforementioned Articles of Charge the respondent filed his Statement of Defence whereby and wherein he denied all the charges levelled against him.

6. A court of inquiry was constituted through an order dated 06.10.2015 which enquired into the charges and submitted an enquiry report dated 04.06.2016 and held that all the charges have been established against the employee.

7. A copy of the enquiry report was sent to the employee who submitted his representation on 18.07.2016.

8. The Disciplinary Authority imposed major penalty of removal from service upon the employee on 11.09.2016 and also ordered that the employee will be entitled to receive 30% of his pensionary benefits.

9. Against the said order of the Disciplinary Authority the respondent preferred a writ before the Hon’ble High Court without preferring any appeal before the Appellate Authorty.

10. T