IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty &

The Hon’ble Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra MAT 1751 of 2024 +

IA No. CAN 2 of 2024 Dibyajyoti Ghosh Versus The Coal India Ltd. & Ors.

For the Appellant : Mr. Soumya Majumder, Ld. Sr. Adv., Mr. Partha Ghosh, Mr. Amal Kumar Datta, Ms. Simran Sureka, Mr. Debashis Das, Mr. Bratin Suin.

For the Respondents : Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee, Mr. Abhishek Chakraborty.

Hearing is concluded on : 21^st April, 2025. Judgment On : 30^th April, 2025.

Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.

1. This appeal carried by the writ petitioner/appellant takes exception to the judgment dated 27.09.2022 passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition being WPA 24815 of 2016.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that a disciplinary proceeding (hereinafter referred to as DP) was initiated against the appellant by a chargesheet dated 27.11.2013 to which the appellant replied on 10.12.2013. In the said DP, the disciplinary authority (hereinafter referred to as DA) passed an order of penalty of withholding increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect vide memo dated 03.02.2014. The appellant thereafter preferred a statutory appeal on 03.02.2014 which was disposed of by the appellate authority (hereinafter referred to as AA) vide memo dated 23.03.2015 ordering for moderation of the penalty imposed by the DA to Censure. The appellant thereafter submitted a representation dated 06.04.2015 demanding promotion with effect from 24.12.2013 in view of moderation of penalty to Censure without indicating any duration of time and as he was the second senior most in Grade E-4. Upon considering the said representation, the competent authority vide memo dated 08.04.2015 approved his promotion with effect from 24.08.2014 with notional seniority and notional fixation at par with those promoted in August, 2014. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred a writ petition being WPA 24815 of 2016 challenging the chargesheet and claiming promotion with effect from 24.12.2013. The said writ petition was disposed of by a judgment dated 27.09.2022 without interfering with the chargesheet but directing the respondents to consider the appellant’s claim for promotion as contained in his representation dated 05.01.2016. In the midst thereof, the appellant was promoted to E5 to E6 grade on 17.03.2018. The respondents thereafter considered the appellant’s representation and passed an order on 16.11.2022. Challenging the said order the appellant again preferred a writ petition being WPO 1348 of 2023 which was dismissed by an order dated 05.03.2024. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred an appeal being APO 50 of 2024 which was also dismissed by a judgment dated 08.08.2024. Thereafter, the present appeal was preferred along with an application for condonation of delay and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 23.12.2024 condoned such delay.

3. Mr. Majumder, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the contents of the judgment impugned in the present appeal are self-contradictory. Upon arriving at a finding that the appellant was entitled to be considered for promotion in view of the observations made by the AA in the order dated 23.03.2015, relegated the issue of promotion for consideration to the competent authority, as prayed for in the appellant’s representation dated 05.01.2016, but surprisingly refused to interfere with the order of punishment of Censure.

4. He submits that the learned single Judge while relegating the issue of promotion for consideration to the competent authority categorically observed that the AA in its order had arrived at a finding that the delay in payment of gratuity to the ex-workman was not deliberate and that there was also no previous complaint against the appellant in his service record. It was further observed that the appellant ‘was in fact considered for promotion and was second sen