A public employer may issue a fresh charge memo after abandoning a procedurally defective initial memo, as the abandonment of such technical errors does not extinguish the right to proceed with disciplinary action and is not restricted by legal principles governing the withdrawal of civil suits.

Judgment :

Madhuresh Prasad, J.

1. The writ petitioner was the applicant before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 307 of 2023 seeking the relief of quashing of the charge memo dated 22.04.2022. The petitioner also sought consequential relief. The Tribunal dismissed the original application by an order dated 15.05.2025 which was put to challenge by the writ petitioner in the present writ proceeding.

2. Heard the learned advocate for the parties.

3. The writ petitioner herein was proceeded against by way of a departmental proceeding in accordance with the provisions contained in West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1971 Rules’]. A charge memo dated 08.08.2014 was served on the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal. The O.A. No. 282 of 2017 thus came to be instituted. The authorities realized that a draft article of charge was enclosed with the charge memo dated 08.08.2014. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority issued proper article of charges by a fresh charge memo dated 07.09.2015.

4. The first Original Application was thereafter taken up by the Tribunal. It was submitted by the State that the draft articles of charges was enclosed alongwith the charge memo dated 08.08.2014 due to inadvertence. On realizing the mistake, the authorities have served a proper articles of charge by a subsequent communication dated 07.09.2015, which was opposed by the applicant/present writ petitioner.

5. It was contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that the communication dated 07.09.2015 was not served on the writ petitioner. The State rather than going into the issue regarding service of the communication dated 07.09.2015, made a submission before the Tribunal that they do not want to proceed with the charge memo dated 08.08.2014 containing the draft articles of charges as well as the subsequent communication dated 07.09.2015 but want to give fresh chance to the applicant by issuing a fresh charge sheet.

Such submission was also opposed by the applicant. The Tribunal proceeded to pass an order dated 31.03.2022 in the first Original Application in the following terms:

“Heard both the parties and perused the records. It is noted that the applicant had initially challenged the impugned draft Charge Sheet dated 08.08.2014 on the ground that the said charge sheet was issued in a draft stage. Further it has been submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the subsequent final Articles of Charges and Statement of misconduct was not received by him. However, the respondents have themselves submitted that they do not want to proceed with the impugned Charge Sheet dated 08.08.2014 as well as communication dated 07.09.2015. Thus, subsequent issuance of Second Show Cause Notice proposing punishment (dated 30.11.2021 as well as the impugned Charge Sheet dated 08.08.2014 and communication dated 07.09.2015 has become infructuous. accordingly, OA is disposed of being infructuous with no order as to costs.

Since the circumstances beyond control, the Registry is unable to furnish plain copies of this order to the learned advocates for the parties, the Registry is directed to upload this order on the website of the Tribunal forthwith and parties are directed to act on the copies of the order downloaded from the website.”

6. The petitioner thereafter was s