Form No. J.(2)

Item No.14 Pallab/KS AR(Ct.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE HEARD ON: 09.07.2025 DELIVERED ON: 09.07.2025 CORAM:

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

M.A.T. 2290 of 2024 With I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2025 +

CAN 2 of 2025 Union of India & Ors.

Versus R. Kasivelu Appearance:-

Mr. Indrajeet Dasgupta Mr. Uttam Basak ……….For the Appellants/Union of India Mr. Kedareswar Chakraborty …..For the Respondent (Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.)

In Re. I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2025

1. This intra-Court appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 26th June, 2024 in W.P.A. 23983 of 2014. The said writ petition was filed by the respondent herein challenging the order of punishment imposed upon him i.e. removal from service as well as the order passed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority confirming such punishment. The appeal filed by the Union of India & Ors. is time-barred and there is a delay of 144 days in filing the appeal. The respondent/writ petitioner has filed his affidavit-in-opposition objecting to the prayer for condonation of delay.

2. We have considered the averments set out in the application and we find sufficient cause has been shown for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation and as also the delay is not inordinate, therefore, we exercise discretion and condone the delay in filing the appeal.

3. Accordingly, application being, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2025 stands allowed.

In Re.: M.A.T. 2290 of 2024

4. We have carefully perused the order passed by the learned Single Bench and also the annexures, which have been annexed to the stay petition by the appellants.

5. On going through the order impugned, we find up to paragraph 36 of the impugned order, all the findings rendered by the learned Writ Court are against the writ petitioner. In paragraph 37, the learned Writ Court notes the submission made by the learned advocate appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner that the disciplinary authority acted unreasonably as no action was taken against the other employee involved in the scuffle.

6. The next argument was that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate.

This argument was accepted by the learned Single Bench and it was held that only one employee has been punished i.e. the writ petitioner for an incident of scuffle while the other person involved in this scuffle was not held accountable. This finding rendered by the learned Single Bench is factually incorrect. This is evident from a bare perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority viz. Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force (C.I.S.F.) dated 31st May, 2004. In the said order, internal page 5, the following finding has been recorded by the appellate authority.

“However, PW-3 Constable Jaibir Singh was charged U/R-36 of CISF Rules, 2001 for his indiscipline act and involving himself in a scuffle with his senior i.e. the appellant and on being found guilty of the said departmental proceedings he has been awarded the penalty of ‘Removal from Service’ wef 08.1.2004 vide order No.V-

15014/ONGC(N)/Disc/Maj-18/2004-182 dated 08.1.2004”.

7. The above finding appears to have not been brought to the notice of the learned Single Bench. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Bench to hold that the writ petitioner alone has been victimized is incorrect. The other person involved in the scuffle viz. Constable Jaibir Singh was also charged under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001 for his indiscipline and involving himself in a scuffle with his senior, who is the respondent/writ petitioner and on being found guilty in the said departmental proceedings, he was awarded the penalty of removal from service with effect from 8th January, 2004 by order dated 8th January, 2004. If this is the position, then it goes without saying that both the employees i.e. the respondent/writ petitioner and