IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present :

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL &

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMITA DAS DE FMA 818 of 2019 Union of India & Ors.

Vs.

Jagadish Chandra Laskar With FMA 819 of 2019 Jagadish Chandra Laskar Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

For the UoI : Mr. S.N. Dutta Mr. Saikat Karmakar For the Respondent : Mr. Achin Kr. Majumder, /Writ Petitioner Ms. Ananya Adhikary.

Heard On : 17.09.2025 Judgment On : 24.09.2025 Sujoy Paul, J.

1. These intra Court appeals take exception to the order of Learned Single Judge dated 7th July, 2017 thereby the writ application filed by the employee was disposed of with certain directions. The employee and department both are aggrieved by this order and therefore both the matters were analogously heard.

Factual background:

2. The appellant employee was working as Assistant Security Commissioner with Northern Railway and till his retirement, he remained posted at Patiala. The employee retired on attaining the date of superannuation on 29th February, 2012. On 27th of February, 2012 a charge sheet was issued to him mainly alleging that in 2010, he had misused the privilege travel pass issued by railways by travelling with a women who was not his wife. In view of initiation of disciplinary proceeding, his gratuity and leave encashment benefits were withheld by railways. The employee sent an application dated 27th February, 2012 for releasing his Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) and commutation money. This application was replied by communication dated 3rd March, 2012 which was addressed to the employee at his permanent residential address under police station Bongaon, District North 24- Parganas, West Bengal. The employee filed WP 27412 (W) of 2012 assailing the charge sheet dated 27th February, 2012 and the aforesaid communication dated 3rd March, 2012. In paragraph 28 of writ petition, it was pleaded that petition is maintainable before Calcutta High Court because petitioner is residing within territorial jurisdiction of this Court and is also drawing pensionary benefits within the same territory. Apart from that, all correspondence have been made with the department from his permanent residence which is also within territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Much emphasis is laid on the impugned communication dated 3rd March, 2012 Annexure “P-3” which is addressed by the department to his permanent address at West Bengal. Lastly, it is pleaded that as a retired employee, his permanent residence is at West Bengal and therefore he has a right to get his grievances redressed under Article 226 of Constitution from this Court.

3. In the aforesaid writ petition filed by the employee, the learned Single Judge recorded the contention of learned counsel for the employee that disciplinary proceedings are being held at Chandigarh. It will be difficult for the employee who is resident of Bangaon in West Bengal to travel to Chandigarh to contest the disciplinary proceeding. After considering the rival contentions, the learned Single Judge directed the disciplinary authority to conclude disciplinary proceeding at the earliest but not later than 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order even without participation of the petitioner. It was further directed that disciplinary proceedings be concluded by computing the pecuniary loss caused to the railways by misutilizing the privilege travel pass by the employee. It was clearly directed that no other action should be taken against him. The amount of loss may be deducted from gratuity/leave travel benefits of the appellant.

Contention of employee:

4. Learned counsel for the employee submits that for the purpose of disciplinary action, the service conditions of employee are governed by Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (D&A Rules) whereas for pensionary benefits and other aspects Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (Pension Rules) are applicable. The disciplinary proceeding and impugned order of lea